Mann's Word

Spiritual Failures

2012-02-02T13:59:00.000-05:00

Have you ever felt like a spiritual failure – a total ship-wreck? As hard as you’d try to please God, you saw that you just couldn’tlive up to His standards. Sometimes, we might even give up trying.

Well, take heart! You are in good company! Abraham, thefather of the faith, was a spiritual failure. Yes, he believed God and God hadcredited righteousness to him (Genesis 15:6). However, his faith seems to havebeen like the appearances of the pilated woodpecker – bright but fleeting.

After Abraham had been a struggling sojourner in a hostileand unpredictable land, God visited him and promised him that his hopes of achild by his aging wife Sarah would be realized in the following year.

However, several months after this glorious visitation (Gen.18-19), we find Abraham in the land of the Philistines, practicing hiswell-honed sins as if his God had entirely vanished. He lied that Sarah was nothis wife, fearing that the indigenous people might kill him for his beautifulwife.

Deceived into believing that Sarah was merely Abraham’ssister, the king took her as his wife. However, to prevent the king fromdefiling Sarah and also His promise to Abraham, it seems that the Lordafflicted the king and his country with a horrible disease. He then appeared tothe king in a dream and instructed him to return Sarah to her cowardly husband,lest He kill him. What is most strange about this account is how God refers toAbraham in His dream-conversation with the king:

· Now return the man's wife, for he is a PROPHET,and HE WILL PRAY for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, youmay be sure that you and all yours will die." (Genesis 20:7)

This is extraordinary. At this point, God should have washedHis hands of the unworthy Abraham. Not only had he been unfaithful to his wife,Abraham had also been unfaithful to His God. Nor was this a one-time lapse. Itseems that he had made a lifestyle out of cowardice, lying, and failing totrust in God. Abraham confessed this to the angry king:

· “And when God had me wander from my father'shousehold, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywherewe go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' " (Genesis 20:13)

Lying and relying on his own sinful ploys had become Abraham’slifestyle. Nevertheless, he remained God’s “prophet!” Even more surprising, Godrequired that the innocent king humble himself before the devious Abraham toreceive Abraham’s prayer of deliverance!

What a portrait of God’s love and forbearance for Hischildren, even when they don’t deserve the slightest consideration! Abraham wasnot only our father regarding the faith; he was also our exemplar as aspiritual failure.

We stand in a long and venerated line of spiritual failures.Peter denied his Lord three times, even though Jesus had warned that:

· "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I willalso acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me beforemen, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33)

However, Peter’s life testifies that “mercy triumphs overjudgment” (James 2:13). Paul had also been a dismal failure. He not onlyhardened his heart against God to kill Christians, he also caused some todisown their faith. What could be worse? Nevertheless, God’s mercy once againtriumphed:

· Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves fullacceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am theworst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst ofsinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example forthose who would believe on him and receive eternal life. (1 Tim. 1:15-16)

It is God’s glory to demonstrate His “unlimited patience” tothe utterly undeserving. It was also God’s moment of glory to die for all –even those who had put Him to death. What a display of sacrificial love! Paulexplains:

· But God demonstrates his own love for us inthis: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

However, it doesn’t stop here – it can’t if we are going tolive with Him everlastingly. Paul continues:

· Since we have now been justified by his blood,how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we werereconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having beenreconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Rom. 5:9-10)

Paul’s logic infallibly proceeds like this – If God loved usso much that He paid the ultimate price while we were His enemies, He willcertainly protect His investment, especially now that we have been convertedinto His friends. To not do this would be like buying a dilapidated house,investing all sorts of time and money into it, and then walking away from itwithout a dime to compensate.

Yes, we are spiritual failures, but we have a God whoseutter delight is to refurbish the broken and perverted until He finally bringsus home to be with Him (Phil. 1:6).

Do You Know what’s Good for You?

2012-02-02T11:35:00.002-05:00

I don’t. Yesterday, I was having a nightmarish time with myGoogle blog. I feel like it’s almost family – like my right arm. So when it’snot doing what I want it to do, I’m frustrated – even worse, I threw a bit of atantrum.

What else can you do when you feel so helpless? There was noone to turn to – to make things right. Every screen was corrupted, unusable,and an affront to all of my sacred intentions. I was certain that the situationrepresented no less than a significant setback to all of my hopes and dreams.

I should know better. After all, I’m a Bible teacher who,for years, has told everyone else how to live their lives.

Upon returning home, my wife found a broken specimen of myformer spiritual glory. Fortunately, Anita has more patience with the computer– even with my own program – than I have. So she started pushing a lot ofbuttons and found that Google’s screens had all changed because Google hadinstalled a major update.

After a couple of hours and a lot of button-pushing, I saw onceagain what a fool I had been. The program was actually improved!

We too are improved by the most unlikely circumstances –even the things that feel like curses. The Apostle Paul wrote a lot about thisapparent irony:

We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Romans 5:3-5)

The Bible prepares us for this uncomfortable reality in somany ways. The ultimate example of this was the suffering of Jesus. Isaiahtells us:

Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he [Jesus] will see his [spiritual] offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied. (Isaiah 53:10-11)

“Satisfied?” How can anyone be satisfied with suffering?It’s not the suffering that should satisfy us but instead what is accomplishedby the suffering. The verse continues:

By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

Jesus endured because He knew what His suffering wouldaccomplish, and this principle - looking to the ultimate goal of the suffering– also pertains to us:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

My Google-directed tantrum hardly qualifies as suffering.However, even in the midst of this minor frustration, the same principlepertains – setting our focus on the bigger picture of what God is accomplishing,even in our worse circumstances.

This requires a certain humility of thought – a recognitionthat we don’t always know what’s best for us, but He does. Nevertheless, we’reconvinced that if we hit the lotto - our material needs now satisfied – we’dthen be happy and better able to serve our Lord. I was therefore surprised toread that the lotto winners turned out to be loosers. It wrecked their lives.They thought that they knew what was best for them, but they didn’t. In fact,we don’t even know what to pray for:

The Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (Romans 8:26)

I’m still learning this lesson, however slowly, perhapsseveral tantrums away.

Permissiveness Hates Righteousness and God’s Law

2012-02-02T06:52:00.003-05:00

The God of the Bible is often disdained. Emergent Churchguru Brian McLaren terms Him a “dread cosmic dictator” and a “tribal and uglyGod” (A New Kind Of Christianity).

Meanwhile, the atheist Steven Pinker harangues:

[He] delights in genocide, rape, slavery, and the execution of nonconformists. (The Better Angels of our Nature, 676)

Those who attack the God of the Bible often point to theharshness of Mosaic laws. Atheist Sam Harris protests that God orders His peopleto,

Stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. (Letter to a Christian Nation)

Although Harris is correct that a number of crimes arepunishable by capital punishment, he purposely ignores the rationale – why aGod of love would order such harsh measures. For one thing, the justice systemhad to be protected by stiff penalties:

The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again. (Deut. 17:12-13)

Sometimes, instilling fear is actually the loving strategy. Theprice of rebellion against the existing order is high. It often costs thousandsof lives. The price of the lives of several “contemptuous” usurpers is littlecompared to the many innocent who might die if justice is disdained.

However, to acknowledge the weightiness of the atheists’claims, there are more controversial examples of the use of the death penalty.It was also used against rebellious sons:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. [20] They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21)

This was an option against an incorrigible son – one whocouldn’t be reigned in by any other means. Although this provision might seemoverly harsh, it provided a social context in which children had to respecttheir parents. The Mosaic system offered no encouragement to the son who madehis parents live in fear of him. Perhaps we would all be better off today if wehad a justice system which would stand behind beleaguered parents. Perhaps thefear of this punishment would be enough to foster respect, at leastsuperficially

We recently brought our lovely, well-behaved, andstrictly-raised grandchildren to visit my wife’s friend. She was so delightedby them that she couldn’t stop gushing in praise,

“I usually hate children, but these kids are so wonderful.” Incontrast, her own children are “out-of-control,” and she wants to abandon them.

I had done some substitute teaching. Sometimes, it was athreatening experience. One of the best schools in which to substitute wascomprised largely of students from Asia, or at least their parents had comefrom Asia. Instead of indulging the whims oftheir children, these parents disciplined their children to respect theirelders. This made substitute teaching almost a pleasure.

Is our God a “dread cosmic dictator” because He requireschildren to respect their parents, or is His “harshness” really an expressionof love and concern for His people? Perhaps instead, the atheists and the Emergent Church gurus are castigating the God ofthe Bible merely because He fails conform to their own permissive standards?

Interestingly, the more that our culture veers away fromBiblical standards, the easier we find it to criticize these standards.However, the critics need to ask themselves, “Do I have an objective and truestandard by which I can critique the ethics of the Bible, or am I merelyjudging according to what feels right for me? Am I just assuming that mycultural biases are a matter of truth?”

These laws may still sound unduly harsh. However, it’snecessary to recognize that mercy is also built into them:

If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. (Exodus 21:29-30)

The guilty party could redeem his life. It is thereforeargued that payment could be accepted in lieu of death for all crimes exceptpremeditated murder. Professor of Old Testament, Walter Kaiser, argues in favorof this position:

The key text in this discussion is Numbers 35:31: “Do not accept a ransom [or substitute] for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.”…Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a “ransom” or a “substitute.” This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases [of crimes that called for death] the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a “ransom” or a “substitute.”

Although the death penalty was often stipulated it wasn’talways required. This helps us to understand the righteous Joseph’s intentionof merely divorcing Mary, after it seemed as if she had committed adultery:

Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. (Matthew 1:19)

If the situation required it, the dire consequences of thelaw could be set aside. I think that many of the complaints against God’s lawcould be reasonably addressed if only we would carefully read the text.

Freedom of Speech Upheld

2012-02-01T22:00:00.000-05:00

Sometimes our courts stand firmly for our Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of speech:

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled Friday in favor of Julea Ward, an Eastern Michigan University [EMU] graduate student represented by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who was expelled from a counseling program for her beliefs...EMU initiated its disciplinary process against Ward shortly after she enrolled in a counseling practicum course in January 2009, when she was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a sexual relationship that was contrary to her religious convictions. Ward recognized the potential conscience issue with the client, and asked her supervisor how to handle the matter. Ward was advised to reassign the potential client to a different counselor. EMU then informed Ward that she could only stay in the counseling program if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program. Its purpose was to help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system” as it relates to counseling about homosexual relationships.

In its ruling in Ward's favor, the 6th Circuit wrote:

• “Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination...A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree…. Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer.”

In contrast to this decision, there have been many recent rulings against the freedom of speech and of religion and in favor of one dominant, monopolistic secular religion which seeks conformity in speech and even in thought. They have refused to allow the free expression of viewpoints, arguing that these expressions are offensive.However, just about everything is going to offend somebody. I am offended by much I see on TV. I am offended by the biases of the mainstream media. However, if offense becomes the test of what can be said, we will all be rendered mute.

When We Reject the God of Judgment, We Also Reject the God of Grace

2012-02-01T08:02:00.004-05:00

The idea of a God-of-judgment has slipped out of favor among the educated. The idea of eternal judgment is thought to be barbaric, and even the notion of an exclusive salvation through Christ alone is no longer acceptable. A friend asked me how he might present harsh-sounding Psalm 97:3 to his students in an inoffensive way:

• “Fire goes before Him and consumes His foes on every side.”

Indeed, such a verse is widely deemed offensive and inhumane. According to atheist Steven Pinker, the God of the Bible is a repugnant being...“Who delights in genocide, rape, slavery, and the execution of nonconformists” (THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, 676).

This has become a predictable charge against the faith of the Bible, so much so, that Christians have been hesitant - even ashamed - of their own Scriptures. How then can we defend the idea that God “consumes His foes on every side?”

For one thing, we should not back away from the vengeance-of-God. To do so would be to back away from the Bible, even the Gospel.

Instead, the message of salvation depends upon the understanding of what we have been saved from – God's utter wrath and His hatred of all sin. In truth, there is only one thing we deserve from Him – death and condemnation (Romans 6:23). We have all sinned grievously and have fallen far short of His righteous standards (Rom. 3:23), standards of which we are all aware (Rom. 1:18-32; 2:15).

Psalm 97:3 gives us a blessed reminder of what we truly deserve from an all-good and righteous God, a just God who demands the punishment of sin. It is this reminder that causes us to love Him and to esteem His grace by which we have passed from death into life. We are no longer objects of destruction and wrath, but instead objects of the most intense love and protection (Eph. 3:17-19). He therefore hovers over us, insuring that everything that happens is for our betterment (Rom. 8:28; Phil. 1:6).

We cannot receive and properly fathom grace without an understanding of the judgment we rightfully deserve. If you have any doubts about this, just look at the liberal mainline churches, which have embraced a god of “grace” without the God of judgment. They are confused. Faith is no longer real to them. They no longer know what to believe.

One Episcopal woman lamented to me that she is so confused that she no longer knew what is right or wrong. Consequently, she no longer knows what to say or how to answer or even to make the tiniest of decisions.

She had chosen, along with her church, a god of “grace” and had rejected the God of judgment. Consequently, nothing made any sense to her. She was trying to fly a plane with only one wing and was unable to get off the ground. It is therefore not accidental that these “gracious” churches continue to rupture members.

For grace to be real, so must judgment. We cannot believe only one set of messages from Scripture and reject the rest. This would be hypocritical. We know this deep within our being, and we silently rebel against our own hypocrisy and our contrived faith. After all, if we know that we've contrived it, picking-and-choosing among the verses, how then can we believe that it's the faith that God has given us? We can't!

Besides this, the Spirit refuses to validate any faith which we have commandeered for our own use and comfort. It’s a faith that’s ours, not His! Instead, Jesus requires that we come to Him as little children (Matthew 18:2-4), not insisting on our own preferences but seeking His!

My friend goes to a mainline Presbyterian church. He loves the Lord. However, the teaching and the preaching has become so insipid and monotoned, so disconnected from Scripture, that he responded that these words were a “breath of fresh air,” dissipating the confusion as sunlight evaporates the mist.

Let Us be Judged by God rather than Man

2012-01-27T22:18:00.004-05:00

When God is demoted, some other form of judgment must then assume the throne. When God's valuation of human life – the sanctity of life – is rejected, history finds that the State is more than ready to fill the vacuum with its own valuation of life. LifeSiteNews.com reports of one type of State valuation:

*Berlin’s “Topography of Terror,” museum, which features exhibits on the murderous crimes of German police forces during the Nazi era, has begun a temporary display on the thousands of children euthanized during the same period as “life unworthy of life”....“Through 1945, over 10,000 [children] fell victim to the various programs which were designed to exterminate ‘life unworthy of living,’” the museum states. “More than 5,000 children and teenagers were tortured and murdered in the Nazi ‘children’s departments’ alone, institutions which were specially created for the purpose of extermination.”

How does the modern State determine whose “life [is] unworthy of life” once it rejects the idea that all human life is holy? The State must evaluate our lives according to its own values. In Nazi Germany, the“life unworthy of life” was exterminated because it failed to conform to the Aryan ideal.

But at least, there was an ideal. Today, we are expendable simply because we fail to conform to prevailing lifestyles and opinions. One blogger thought that a certain psychologist should die because she didn't agree with his sexual politics.

However, more typical is the plight of the unborn who are routinely murdered because they fail to conform to the more lifestyle preferences of their mothers. While we ironically condemn the Nazi horrors, we now defend such would-be mothers from any sanction or even criticism. Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform and the Genocide Awareness Project poignantly captures this irony:

*“Isn’t it interesting that people will pay money to go to a museum to see disturbing images of the mistreatment of children, yet many criticize the display of abortion images. Perhaps it’s because it’s easier to face historic injustices which we didn’t commit; it’s much more difficult to face present-day injustices which we do permit.”

We are outraged by the Nazis but fail to see that we are doing the same types of things. This society will fittingly be condemned by the very standards that it uses in judging. Jesus warned about this very thing:

*“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2)

Nevertheless, with our God is abundant forgiveness for those who are willing to acknowledge their wrongdoing.

He Wants to Give us the World, but for now, the World is too Heavy for us!

2012-01-25T18:32:00.002-05:00

We have the Holy Spirit in our lives and the most incredible collection of glorious promises imaginable, and yet we don't sense the presence of our Lord in any significant way. Is there anything wrong with this picture? No!

Thirty five years ago I had had the most profound encounter with the Lord in the midst of a life-threatening chain-saw calamity. In the midst of pools of blood, I sensed that Lord's presence so intensely that I was filled with ecstasy, even though I didn't know Him at that point. The encounter was so powerful, that I no longer feared death. I knew that He was with me and that I was perfectly safe. I shed many tears of love, joy and gratitude.

However, I never again had an encounter like that, leaving me wondering whether I had taken a wrong turn somewhere. How was it that I often found myself dragging through my hum-drum life without any sense of His loving presence? However, I've subsequently learned that there is more growth realized in the trenches than on the tree tops.

While I was convolescing in the hospital, my surgeon warned me that I would have to exercise my hand or else my fingers might freeze-up on me. However, still savoring the intense joy of His presence and the knowledge that I was completely in His protective hands, I sloughed-off the surgeon's sage instructions. After all, if this God is so great that He could rescue me from the bloody encounter with my hungry chain-saw – and He is – then He can also heal my hand without any of my help.

Bad theology! Two of my fingers did freeze-up on me, and I was left wondering for the next ten years: “Had I trusted God too much? Is God not as great as I had perceived that He was?”

Although this question plagued me, I began to realize that, although our God wants to give us all things, it is we who are unable to handle them. I wasn't able to handle the loving, nurturing presence of God. I hadn't properly understood Him and this rendered me passive when I should have been active.

I had wrongly thought that trusting God required that I should be passive and just wait for Him to do something. However, trust is an active thing. If we trust our Savior, we will do what He tells us to do. He loves us too much to overwhelm us with such a joy that would leave us inactive This is something that would ultimately hurt us and our relationship with Him.

Our growth requires God to remain at a distance, at least in terms of the encounter that I had experienced. Instead, in the midst of my trials and struggles, I was “coerced” into reading Scripture and trusting Him, even when I didn't experience any evidence of His presence. I never would have undertaken the arduous work of reading and meditating upon Scripture unless I had to do this.

It is certainly more pleasurable to eat food than to talk about it. Likewise, we'd much more prefer to experience God's presence than to talk about Him, but perhaps we're not ready for this kind of encounter.

I know what you're thinking, “I think I can handle that kind of experience, even on a regular basis!” Could we? Many think that their lives would be “made” if they'd only hit the lottery. Well, there have been surveys of the winners. Interestingly, for the most part, their lives weren't made, but torn apart. They weren't able to handle the blessing of wealth.

Others are convinced that they could handle to “blessing” of success. However, success, when we are not ready for it, can lead to arrogance, alienation from friends and family, or extra-marital adventures.

For many years, I fretted that God hadn't opened for me opportunities to teach Scripture. However, I can now look back and perceive that I hadn't been ready. I would have been teaching destructive heresies had He opened that door prematurely.

In 1978, after graduating with a degree in social work, I became convinced that God had wanted me to open a Christian counseling service. Fortunately, I only had the opportunity to counsel one individual, but he lasted only halfway through the session, when he abruptly got up to inform me, “I can't deal with this anymore.” I wasn't ready to counsel, and that was the end of that counseling service.

It is not our Savior's will that we now experience Him in all His intensity. Instead, Scripture warns us:

...we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Romans 8:23-25)

Our lives here entail a good measure of “groaning.” This is because our ultimate Hope is not yet “seen” or experienced. Instead, hope suggests that we are looking at it from afar.

Likewise, this life isn't our final resting place. Longing for the next life, and not an experience that might make our lives here more comfortable, is the ideal. This is the way our Patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – lived:

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a [heavenly] country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. (Hebrews 11:13-16)

Our Lord Jesus wants us to patiently look towards Him and to not become too comfortable here:

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:12-13)

Among other things, suffering kindles within us a love for Christ and the eager expectation of His return. Besides, who would be “overjoyed when his glory is revealed,” if life was utterly delightful here? How tragic it would be if, upon His return, we asked Him to postpone until we could see the latest Star Wars movie and to take our Mediterranean cruise!

Because I couldn't theologically handle the presence of God, I didn't exercise my hand and can no longer make a fist, but perhaps this is for the best. This infirmity would render me almost helpless in a fight. I would now have to live by faith and not sight – trusting in Him and not in myself!

Mainstream Media's Bias and why it Matters

2012-01-25T11:13:00.005-05:00

What's the difference between a lie and biased, unbalanced reporting? Very little! They both can accomplish exactly the same ends. If you want to defame me, you can either lie about me or simply just expose the worst details from my life balance-sheet.

However, there is an important difference. If you lie, you can be exposed and shamed. However, if you merely publish my 10 worst deeds out of the millions that make up this life, without any reference to other salient facts, you can probably slide by.

It is important to ask whether our mainstream media is guilty of this slight of hand. LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) reports:

*In its photo montage of yesterday’s [pro-life] March for Life, the [Washington] Post focused primarily on a tiny cadre of pro-abortion counter protesters that gather every year on the steps of the Supreme Court (mostly, I am convinced, just so that the mainstream media has pro-abortion counter protesters to photograph): a group so small that, if you weren’t looking carefully, you would probably miss it. Those photos that aren’t of the counter protesters are mostly of older pro-lifers yelling at the pro-aborts, praying at the pro-aborts, or clutching rosary beads or pictures of Mary near the pro-aborts.The caption on one of the Post’s photo reads “Freezing rain Monday morning was said to have limited attendance for both groups.” In response to which Media Research Center writer Tim Graham quipped: “Yes, Post readers: the pro-lifers were limited to many thousands, and the abortion advocates were limited to about 11. The ratio could be a thousand to one, and the newspaper treats them like one versus one.”

That's quite a discrepancy, and these differing accounts leave us with an entirely different impressive of the social currents. LSN continues:

*The mainstream media bias surrounding the annual March for Life is so ubiquitous and so brazen that it has become shrug-worthy, and the butt of jokes. And rightly so: it is so pathetic that it actually is funny. Probably the most laughable example of this bias at work happened last year, when a CNN anchor actually wondered on air whether there were more pro-life or pro-abortion advocates at the March for Life - despite the fact that conservative estimates place several hundred thousand pro-life protesters in D.C. that day, compared to a few dozen, at most, pro-abortion counter-demonstrators. “Which side is represented the most Angie, do we know?” CNN anchor Bill Sanchez queried to his producer, as CNN’s camera focused stubbornly on those few dozen pro-abortion counter protesters. “Do we know?” When there was no response, Sanchez went on to promise that CNN would “keep an eye” on the situation and report on the matter “fairly and squarely.”’ Folks: that’s not media “bias.” That’s not a case of accidentally overstating the case, or misinterpreting the facts in favor of one side simply because you happen to be rooting for that side. That’s outright censorship, lying, and deception. No one accidentally mistakes a crowd of three hundred thousand for one of about thirty.

Well, why make a big deal about media biases? Everyone's got em, don't they? Perhaps, but the press has a high calling. While a lawyer can be biased in favor of her client, a judge cannot exercise this type of bias. She must be impartial. Her role requires this of her.

The media also has a high calling. It has been entrusted with the duty of calling government and its officials to account. The media is supposed to provide a counter-balance to governmental abuse, holding its officials up to public scrutiny. It's role has been deemed so critical to a democracy, that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America extends certain special immunities to the media.

However, the media is failing to live up to the trust invested in it. It's political and social biases have become more than evident. Although the media continues to extoll diversity as a high virtue, it has found little room for diversity of view-point in the midst of its own staff. Consequently, the public is catching on and fleeing the mainstream for a better light.

Dealing with Censorship Bullies

2012-01-24T20:18:00.003-05:00

After I advised Melvin, a Christian, that it is sometimes advisable to make use of the courts, he confidently responded, “I don't think that we should take others to court. Christ told us not to judge but to love by forgiving.”

Besides judging my point of view, his response is problematic in other ways. For one thing, Jesus never taught that we shouldn't judge others. Instead, He warned that we'd first have to correct our own blindness so that we'd then be able to see clearly enough to truly judge others (Matthew 7:1-5).

In addition to this, there are many times that we have to judge if we are going to be faithful to Scripture. I'm not just talking about verbally correcting others when they sin or even disciplining our own children. Sometimes we have to bring offending parties to court. It's a righteous thing to bring charges against a rapist or a burglar. If we fail to do this, the offender will remain free to strike again, and if our neighbors learn of this failure, they will heap contempt upon our faith if the offender strikes again. Let me assure you that this failure will not bring praise and honor to our Lord.

Many will retort, “Well, aren't we supposed to forgive?” Yes we are, but we are also supposed to avail ourselves of the criminal courts that our Lord “established” as “God's servant...to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1-4). Yes, pray for this wrongdoer, but also seek justice.

Sometimes, we have to go to court in order to live faithfully. Sometimes, we have to speak up to expose evil (Eph. 5:11) or to speak of the hope we have in Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). What should we do if a bully refuses to allow us to fulfill our obligations to our Savior? Here's a good example I read about today:

*In October 2010, campus security [at Chemeketa Community College] approached [student Caleb] Pearson while he was distributing pro-life fliers and displaying informative signs about abortion at an outdoor location on campus. Stopped from sharing his message and told to leave...He was also told by an officer that he was prohibited from wearing a pro-life T-shirt on campus that displayed a message similar to his signs. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5304?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

The Alliance Defense Fund intervened, and, as a result:

*The college’s Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy has been revised to eliminate its problematic speech code that prohibited “offensive” or “derogatory” speech. Such restrictions are often abused to suppress religious, pro-life, or other forms of speech that officials may consider to be “politically incorrect.”

Unjustly, it is often Christian speech that has been deemed “offensive or derogatory.” We have become a soft target for the bullies because many of us hold to Melvin's viewpoint that it's illegitimate to go to court to seek justice. However, as a result of this legal intervention, not only was Pearson's right to speak freely restored, but others would also now be able to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech in order to exalt Christ on this campus.

If we have a Scriptural mandate to speak about our faith and against injustice, then we also have a mandate to challenge the bullies who would prevent this, even if they are institutions. Yes, Christ did instruct us to love, as Melvin had asserted. However, we have to ask ourselves which is more loving – submission to the bully or requiring that the bully conform to the law by not depriving others of their rights?

Islam, Intimidation, and Might Makes Right

2012-01-17T14:53:00.002-05:00

Here is something both truly bizarre and yet increasingly commonplace in the West today. The following is an account from the British Humanist Society:

• A talk organised yesterday by the Queen Mary Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society on ‘Sharia Law and Human Rights’ had to be cancelled after threats of violence.

The President of the Society, describes what happened:

• ‘Five minutes before the talk was due to start a man burst into the room holding a camera phone and for some seconds stood filming the faces of all those in the room. He shouted ‘listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live’, at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone’s face and then said ‘and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Mohammed, I will hunt you down.’ He then left the room.

• ‘The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Mohammed, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him. We were told by security to stay in the Lecture Theatre for our own safety. On arriving back in the room I became aware that the doors that opened to the outside were still open and that people were still coming in. Several eye witnesses reported that when I was in the foyer a group of men came through the open doors, causing a disruption and making it clear that the room could not be secured. Unfortunately, the lack of security in the lecture theatre meant we and the audience had to leave and a Union representative informed the security that as students’ lives had been threatened there was no way that the talk could go ahead.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/966

This account is predictable. It is part of Islamic law that Islam cannot be criticized and therefore, Muslims will not tolerate any form of criticism of their religion. Here’s why -from the Koran:

• [Surah 33:57] Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them— 58 and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)

• [Surah 33:59-61] Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted God is most forgiving, most merciful. If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem)

However, what is more disturbing is the secular Western response to this intimidation. The talk was cancelled – the ultimate proof of success for this intimidation. Perhaps, even worse was the response of the secular humanists:

Jenny Bartle, president of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS), commented,

• ‘More and more atheist, humanist and secular student societies are forming on campuses across the UK and we deserve the same levels of respect as any other community. Our members have as much right as anyone else to participate in the free inquiry, discussion and debate which should exist in universities. The threats our members have received are both troubling and repugnant and we reject all attempts to counter debate with violence. At the same time, we welcome the support from across faiths that many of our societies experience on campus to help us secure the freedom to have our say, just as we support them in having the freedom to have theirs.’

Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA) gave support to the society:

• ‘The attempted intimidation that this society has experienced is shocking. Free expression, the free exchange of ideas and free debate are hallmarks of an open society; violence and the threat of violence should never be allowed to compromise that, especially in our universities. We will work to support our affiliate society at Queen Mary’s and look forward to a speedy police investigation and resolution of this case.’

What’s wrong with these statements? They both reflect a glaring failure to identify the problem – Islam. If you are being eaten alive by malaria-carrying mosquitoes, it does little good to identify the culprits as “insects.” They are mosquitoes! If we identify the problem as “insects,” we will wrongly go about killing all the insects, many of which are beneficial!

Our own nation is also falling prey to the fallacy of failing to identify Islam as the source of so much terror and intimidation. For instance in an essay entitled, “Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America,” Clare M. Lopez writes of US capitulation to the anti-free speech Islamic agenda:

• In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive. http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10991/pub_detail.asp

Meanwhile, Muslims have been taken captive by a religion that forbids any criticism. Consequently, they are trained to regard Islam as good in all respects and any criticism as worthy of death. This mindset is the last thing that we should enable. Whenever the West caves in to Islamic demands, we reinforce the idea that might-makes-right and embolden more intimidation.

However, the West has become a cowardly pushover. It lacks the courage, vision and principles to stand against intimidation, and Islam smells blood. We need to return to the principles that have made the West great – the Christian faith!

Significance, Self-Acceptance, and Utopianism

2012-01-17T13:10:00.004-05:00

We yearn for significance. I must confess that I find myself turning to my new emails in hope of receiving an invitation from a nationally prominent publication begging me to write for them. However, when I now perceive this craving, I can laugh at myself. This is only because my pursuit of significance has now been decisively satisfied by the God and Creator of all creation who has promised to never stop loving me and infusing me with His glory.

Okay, it would still be nice to get that email, but it’s something I no longer need. But how does someone who doesn’t have Christ deal with this craving? There are several options:

1. The pursuit of personal glory or accomplishment! However, there are countless testimonials of successful people who never are able to find a place of rest and self-acceptance. John D. Rockefeller was asked, “How much more money will you need in order to be happy?” He confessed, “Always a little more.”

2. Denial! (Nihilism) Life contains no glory, meaning, or purpose. You survive as pleasurably as you can, and then you die.

3. Identification with a utopian cause! This puts you in the vanguard along with the other elite, intelligent, caring and discerning people. Utopianism can take many forms. You can prove your significance by dying for what is regarded by your sub-culture/religion as a righteous cause.

I think that we fail to recognize how pervasive this last option has been. David Limbaugh writes of Mark Levin’s new book, Ameritopia:

• In "Liberty and Tyranny," Levin laid out the conservative vision and contrasted it with the liberal vision. But "Ameritopia" examines more deeply the historical and philosophical roots of the utopian ideal, for it is that ideal that has always animated the liberal worldview.

• Levin takes us through the seminal thoughts of some of the most noted political philosophers and writers who laid out the utopian vision — from Plato to Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx — and then unpacks the contrasting vision of John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu and others whose ideas greatly influenced America's founders.

• Liberal utopianism is a fantasy of arrogant philosophers and philosopher kings who believe their vision is superior to those of other lowly mortals. Levin calls them the "masterminds"…They believe they are proponents of enlightenment thinking and rationalism who could construct the ideal society if deniers and other obstructionists would just get out of their way. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2012/01/17/mark-levin-proves-leftism-predicated-utopianism-new-masterpiece-amer

According to the liberal, the “obstructionists” are the Christians. We’re the bad guys. We’re the ones who oppose enlightenment and advancement – the liberal utopian vision. Of course, the “vision” is so wonderful, paradisical and positively transformative, that it’s worth whatever the price-tag. Sadly, the price-tag often involves revolution and human lives. Consequently, the French revolution, the Spanish revolution, Nazism, and Communism all justified murdering priests and pastors (among other dissidents) to eliminate the vermin who had long impeded with their utopian vision. In their thinking, it was a small but necessary part of the price-tag.

Why has it been that these utopian failures have failed to sober-up their champions? For one thing, they all have failed to see the limits that human nature imposes upon our visions. I had lived in Israel from 1970-72 in a vain attempt to find the perfect community. I had tried out many Kibutzim from the most extreme socialistic camp – the Hashomer Hatziar. They had been so strict in their vision of utopian socialism, that they didn’t believe in any form of ownership. The children were not the possession of the parents but the community. Wives and husbands were non-existent, as this institution was also regarded as a form of ownership. Consequently, any long-standing sexual relationships were discouraged in favor of multiple sex-partners.

Nevertheless, human nature called an abrupt end to this experiment in every community. Men became husbands; women became wives, and children were all claimed by their biological parents.

Why then did the American revolution succeed? Limbaugh writes:

• Standing in stark contrast are America's constitutional framers, who rejected the folly that certain superior representatives of the species could change the entire species' intrinsic nature. They believed in man's natural rights and cherished the individual liberty flowing from those rights. As students of history, philosophy and human nature, they refused to follow the path of utopians who rejected the realities not only of human nature but also of the evidence of its outworkings in history, especially in man's endless experiments in statecraft. With wide-eyed recognition of human nature, they crafted the American Constitution to maximize individual liberties, despite the natural tendency of man toward absolutism.

Clearly, there is a place for idealism, but idealism must be guided by reality or it will breed destruction. Why then do the utopians fail to take note of reality-imposed limitations? I think that it gets back to our dogged and sometimes invisible lust for significance - to be part of an ennobling cause. When our vision of self depends upon this cause, we blind ourselves to everything that might contradict this vision.

As a social worker for many years, I’ve watched many idealistic social workers come and go. They entered with great ideals and visions of transforming their clientele. However, reality seldom matches our visions, at least not here in this life. Our clients seldom measure up to the vision that we have for them, depriving us of our hoped-for sense of significance. Secretly, we had hoped that we might become their savior. Consequently, many social workers join the ranks of burned-out saviors and end up by hating their clients.

When Christ comes into our lives, we begin to understand that we are beloved for who we are and not for what we do. We no longer have to prove ourselves! This has a liberating effect, as Jesus taught:

• "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

Christianity: The Religion of Truth

2012-01-16T12:50:00.006-05:00

Why has Christianity become sidelined? In his essay, “Why Christianity Lost America,” Vishal Mangalwadi asks:

• Why did Christianity lose the power that gave it influence over education and economy, government and law, press and entertainment? How can the Church recover the power to prevail over the forces of evil?

He explains that today’s Christianity is not the vibrant Christianity of the recent past. Today’s version has separated truth from faith, leaving Christianity unbalanced – a plane with one wing, trying to fly with only feelings, mystical experiences, and a private and personalized faith, separated from its provable truth-claims:

• Christianity lost America because 20th-century evangelicalism branded itself as the party of faith. By default Secularism (science, university, media) became the party of truth. This is one reason why 70% Christian youth give up meaningful involvement with the church when they grow up. http://www.revelationmovement.com/instructors/blog_post/38

He observes that many of today’s Christians believe in a Christianity that has little to do with truth and facts and everything to do with internal experience. This imbalance has proved disastrous for Christianity. Mangalwadi cites several examples:

• In November 2011, I met an American missionary who has served in Guatemala for 36 years. He described a recent (unpublished) doctoral study examining Protestantism in one part of Guatemala. The Hispanic scholar had hoped to substantiate Max Weber’s thesis on the connection between Protestantism and economic development. The data, however, drove him to conclude that the gospel taught by present-day American missions makes no perceptible difference to the economic life of the believing communities.

What a contrast with what Christianity had been historically. One example of the vibrancy of the Christian faith is found in its establishment of universities. Schmidt writes:

• Given the powerful influence that secularism now has on most Americans, they are probably not aware that “every collegiate institution founded in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War – except the University of Pennsylvania – was established by some branch of the Christian church.” Nor are most Americans aware that in 1932, when Donald Tewksbury published The Founding of American Colleges and Universities before the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities were founded by Christian denominations. (How Christianity Changed the World,190)

This should not surprise us. The Bible’s teachings unequivocally testify that the faith rests upon the verifiable truths of God – what He revealed and what He accomplished historically. God never asked Israel to just believe, but rather to believe by virtue of the evidences. For example, when Moses asked God for evidences that He could take to the Israelites to prove that God had appeared to him, God didn’t say, “Well, just tell those Israelites to believe!” Instead, He consistently provided the necessary proofs:

• Then Moses answered and said, "But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.' "So the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A rod." And He said, "Cast it on the ground." So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail" (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), "that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you." (Exodus 4:1-5)

Likewise, Jesus never instructed His followers to believe without reasons to believe. Instead, He provided evidences through his miracles and prophecies:

• He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

• "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. (John 14:28-29)

The Biblical faith embodies verifiable truths (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 1:1). Mangalwadi contrasts this with other religions:

• Hinduism, like Greco-Roman religions, is based (self-consciously) on myths.

• The Buddha rejected Hinduism’s mythical gods and goddesses in favor of mystical (non-rational) Silence.

• Islam has words that are believed to be true. These words were uttered in a state of non-rational trance, called “prophecy.” Islam, therefore, rests on private, non-verifiable communications of an individual. Sometimes Mohammed went into “prophetic” trance in public, but no one saw or heard angel Gabriel talking to him. The power of his utterances rested on the sword, not on evidence. When his words about the past (e.g., stories from Old and New Testament times) contradicted documented history, his followers had to assume that contradictions mean that texts have been corrupted. Non-verifiable trance communications overrode documented history.

Sadly, Christianity has been going the way of the other religions. In the face of secular attacks upon the truth-claims of Christianity, Christianity has retreated into a cocoon of private faith experiences, defensively responding, “Well, I just know what I’ve experienced, and no one can tell me any differently.”

This response hasn’t proved adequate. Against the weight of the claims of the modern university, Christianity has retreated and compromised. It has surrendered the life of the mind for the life of internal experiences. Mangalwadi explains:

• The church created the university to train godly leaders who will look at all of reality through the light of the Truth (revealed by God’s works and words). Fundamentalism insulated Bible Institutes from other departments to study the Bible alone. It gave up the mission to seek public truth in favor of cultivating private spiritual lives. Once the Bible was put into the silo of Bible Institutes, the Bible teachers were isolated from the public life of the mind. Preachers memorized the Bible but by and large they did not learn how to meditate upon God’s word in a way to shine its light on all of life.

We have compromised in many ways. We have put the claims of the Bible on the bench in favor of charismatic pastors who have promised experiences if we would only turn off our minds and our insistence to check everything out according to Scripture.

We have embraced a neo-orthodox “Christianity” that tried to salvage the Christian basics by insisting that the Bible really isn’t about what it clearly teaches. Instead, it is a tool to bring us magically into a saving relationship with Christ apart from its verifiable truth claims – claims that the university rejects.

We have embraced theistic evolution (TE) in a vain attempt to make friends with the university. This worldview attempts to make peace by claiming that the Bible isn’t about the physical world – science, history, geography – but about the spiritual. However, in making this compromise, TE has separated Christianity from all of its supporting evidences – evidences that cannot be found outside of this physical world. However, it’s the physical – miracles, fulfilled prophecy… - that supports the spiritual claims.

We have embraced “Christian” mysticism and Postmodern “Christianity.” These have, in various ways, demeaned doctrine and apologetics in favor of experience, dogmatically claiming that we can’t really know and that “doctrine divides,” and what really matters is a direct experience of God apart from what we Biblically understand about Him.

Consequently, “the church reads the Bible mainly for private edification. Corporately, the Kingdom of Christ has ceased being the city on a hill.” Indeed, we can’t be the light if we believe that biblical truth-claims aren’t verifiable.

In contrast to this, it had been the light of the Bible that had provided the impetus to shed its light upon creation and to master it. Sociologist Alvin Schmidt concludes:

• Modern science is an outgrowth of Christian theology of the Middle Ages. It proceeded to show that it was Christianity’s values that provided the necessary Weltanshauung (worldview) and motivation to encourage many of its educated adherents (now called scientists) to study the world of nature…The public are unaware that virtually all scientists from the Middle Ages to the mid-eighteenth century – many of which were seminal thinkers – not only were sincere Christians but were often inspired by biblical postulates and premises in their theories… [they] knew and believed the words of the biblical writer: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). (How Christianity Changed the World, 243-44).

What then is the answer for us today? To return with courage to the basics! Jesus instructed us to:

• " Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

When we leave out truth and the “mind,” we fail to live faithfully to the teachings of Scripture.

Pedophilia

2012-01-15T11:43:00.004-05:00

The issue isn’t gay marriage (SSM), nor has it ever been. There is nothing to prevent two same-sex people from finding their own pastor to marry them. Instead, the goals are much greater – the complete sexualization of society, where there will no longer remain any stigmatization or even criticism for any form of consensual sexual behavior.

According to the sexualists, this goal must also be accomplished among the most impressionable – the toddlers. Here’s one tactic:

• Kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland have a new set of toys to play with this year: a “sex box” full of fabric models of human genitalia. The idea is for teachers to use the kit during sex-education classes which are intended to encourage children “to develop and experience their sexuality in a pleasurable way…children message each other or rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music.” (Salvo, Winter 2011, 31)

This sexual agenda has become so militant that “requests by parents to exempt their children have been denied.”

The sexualists have no limits. Considerations of decency play no role. Judith Resiman of Liberty University reported on a conference, “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM,” trying to normalize and de-criminalize pedophilia:

• Kinsey [their patron saint] also said that children are sexual from birth and so deserve to have sex – with adults or youth. The APA’s [American Psychological Association. This is the group that has set the standard for what is normal and what is pathological.] path to normalizing pedophilia [now called “minor-attraction”] follows the trajectory of the earlier campaign to normalize homosexuality. If it is normal for very young children to have sex, then the only question that remains is with whom. And if there are people who want to have sex with children for whom having sex is “normal,” then isn’t that natural? (Salvo, 41)

If pedophilia is natural and desirable, who can argue against it, apart from the “puritanical?” Resiman summarizes the stance of the conference:

• Americans’ fear for child safety is due to a puritanical “sex panic.”

According to the sexualists, no form of sexuality is off-limits; none exceeds moral bounds. Guilt should not be attached to any consensual intercourse. Why such an extreme position? To address extreme feelings of guilt and shame! Whenever I would do something about which I’d feel shame, I’d also feel intensified shame around others. It felt as if they were condemning me. I therefore resented them and felt that it was their narrow opinions that were condemning me. If I could silence them, then I could silence the shame that I was experiencing. Therefore, my problem wasn’t my sinful behavior; it was society’s censure.

This is denial and self-deception – something we don’t want to face. It is far easier to blame someone else for our sense of guilt and shame. However, this doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be done about the sexualization of our schools:

• A New Jersey school district included on its required summer reading list two books that contain graphic descriptions of gay sex. Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines describes a homosexual orgy, and Norwegian Wood contains a story of lesbian sex between a 13-year-old girl and a 31-year-old woman. (Salvo, 31)

However, the parents complained, and the books were removed. We must not forget our responsibility to be the light and to expose evil:

• Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephes. 5:11)

If anything falls into the category of “the fruitless deeds of darkness,” it is the militant sexualization of our children – not only our own but of all children!

Cheating

2012-01-14T18:04:00.003-05:00

It’s become epidemic. Herb London of the Hudson Institute writes,

• The Atlantic school system was recently indicted for changing student grades in an effort to improve its schools’ performance profile.

• There has been a breakdown in academia’s standards of conduct. In fact, cheating is so ubiquitous on campus that professors often accept it or avert their gaze.

• In a 2002 survey conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, 74 percent of students admitted to cheating on an exam. (Salvo, Issue 19. 64)

One long-standing middle-school teacher informed me that cheating has become so acceptable, that students gleefully admit to it. Unsurprisingly, we find that academic cheating is also broadly paralleled by political, economic and sexual cheating. Cheating has become more than the norm. It has become the prevailing fashion.

What is happening to our society? I think that many things contribute to this epidemic of immediate self-gratification. For one thing, the necessity of self-fulfillment has become has become so deeply entrenched in our thinking, it is now unquestioned. Consequently, society thinks that if your life isn’t fulfilling, then there has to be something the matter with you.

Consistent with this thinking, living according to certain higher principles is now regarded as rigid, limiting, and even judgmental. If you want to be part of the group, you cheat; you don’t moralize. Cheating loves company!

Materialism fits admirably into this “me-first” perspective. According to the materialist, everything is material and energy. Consequently, the materialist not only rejects moral absolutes but insists that they don’t exist. Values are reduced to nothing more than electro-chemical reactions. Therefore, no one is guilty. As a result materialistic neuro-scientists reduce evil to a glitch in our brain wiring. According to Salvo,

• Neuroscientist, David Eagleman of Baylor’s College of Medicine, writes…about using MRI scans to…preemptively identify those who have the potential to commit acts formerly known as evil. (45)

Evil then becomes associated with certain physical or racial types – those who have faulty wiring – rather than freewill moral choices. Therefore, there is now no guilt. Shame is a dirty word.

These changes in our thinking are significant. If prescription follows from diagnosis – and the diagnosis is a matter of faulty neurons – then the prescription cannot be a moral-spiritual one. Instead, it has to be a medical one. However, there is no drug or surgical procedure that produces virtue.

What then do we do about cheating? We can’t lobotomize our students nor can we drug them into moral submission. We are left with one option – moralize them. However, moral instruction must look very strange, even hypocritical, coming from a materialist or a moral relativist – one who doesn’t believe in moral absolutes. After all, moral truth transcends a materialistic understanding of reality.

However, the moral relativist is not discouraged. He’ll teach morality from a pragmatic, self-serving point of view. It might take this form:

• If you cheat, you just hurt yourself. When you take the short-cut, you fail to learn the subject matter.

However, this too should sound strange coming from a materialist who believes that life is no more than a temporary body. From the materialistic perspective, life is short and finding and taking short-cuts seems quite appropriate.

In addition to this problem, preaching virtue based on self-interest is ultimately self-defeating. Self-interest (pragmatism) might at times embrace “virtue” to accomplish its goals, but this inevitably proves to be a very unstable relationship. In this case, there is no truth to virtue; it is merely a tool to accomplish ones goals. But what happens when the cheater perceives that “virtue” will not bring him any closer to his goals? Eventually, self-interest will choose to go its own way. Cheating will eventually dispense with virtue, especially if one is a moral relativist.

From a Christian point of view, there is indeed a glorious correspondence between self-interest and virtue. To a certain extent, we do benefit by acting virtuously. However, this is a holy correspondence, one designed by a God who loves us and wants to bribe us into virtue with a carrot, not just a club, even if it means making use of our pursuit of self-interest.

Bill Maher offers a popular variation – the we-can’t-know variation:

• “I don’t know what happens when you die, and I don’t care.” (Salvo, 63)

This philosophy will also condone or allow cheating. If we can’t know about eternal truths and eternal judgment, we need to focus on what we do know – our immediate needs and how to fulfill them!

In his mockumentary, Religulous, Maher concludes:

• Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do…Anyone who tells you they know – they just know – what happens when you die, I promise you that you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.”

Maher makes it clear that everyone has a religion and that everyone is “sure” about something, even Maher. He is “sure” that we can’t have such answers, and he therefore mocks, with all his certainty, those who claim to have the answers that he lacks.

Islam, the Islamic State, and Persecution of the “Infidel”

2011-12-23T15:08:00.002-05:00

Why is the USA straining to encourage the “Arab Spring,” when by all indications it is actually a “Winter” – the emergence of highly oppressive Islamic states? According to CNSNews.com:

• Despite long-term U.S. military occupations aimed at establishing representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, Christianity now faces the real threat of eradication in those countries because of severe and persistent persecution of Christians there, according to the chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

• Similarly, despite the “Arab Spring” rebellion in Egypt earlier this year, the survival of Christianity is also threatened in that country because of the escalating persecution of Christians.

• USCIRF Chairman Leonard Leo [stated] in a video interview, “Unfortunately, that is sort of the pattern throughout the Middle Eastern region. The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year. It’s a very, very alarming situation.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/christianity-may-be-eradicated-iraq-and-afghanistan-says-chair-us-religious-freedom

Meanwhile, failing to understand the nature of Islamic law, this nation continues to compromise its own legal principles in a vain attempt to appease Muslims. Janet Levy writes:

• In June 2009, a divorced Muslim woman (unnamed by the court), who was raped and assaulted by her husband, requested a restraining order from a New Jersey family court. The presiding judge denied the woman's request and stated that "the court believes that the husband was operating under his belief (Islamic sharia) that his demand to have sex whenever he so desired was not prohibited." Remarkably, the husband's imam testified at the trial to affirm that under the sharia, a wife is required to comply with her husband's sexual demands.

• However, according to New Jersey law, coerced sex between married persons is considered rape regardless of whatever imams, rabbis, and priests declare it religiously sanctioned. Thirteen months later, the decision was overturned. But in the interim, the woman endured the stress of living without protection from a violent man whose right to rape, sanctioned by sharia, had been supported by the American judicial system.

• These cases, which received limited media coverage, illustrate failure by the courts to maintain the integrity of state and federal laws. FamilySecurityMatters.org

The West blindly continues to try to appease this “religion of peace,” thinking that by doing so, Islam will then appreciate the West and want to assimilate. However, the West fails to realize that such an expectation is at odds with Islamic law. Levy continues:

• Sharia is Allah's law, and it stands above all man-made laws. This immutable Islamic legal doctrine derives from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, interpretations, and rulings. It mandates gender apartheid, religious discrimination, Muslim supremacy, cruel punishments, and the denial of free speech and religion, among other things. Requirements are detailed for every aspect of life, from the correct use of the toilet to the treatment of non-Muslims to proper wife-beating techniques.

• Islamic doctrine recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration and thus promotes the unequal treatment of women. Under sharia, the list of inequalities include: a woman's testimony is valued at half that of a man's, she may be convicted of sexual misconduct if she is raped unless she produces four male witnesses, she receives half the inheritance of male offspring, her husband may freely divorce her without providing for her welfare, she may be raped with impunity, and she may be beaten as her husband sees fit. All these abuses, which violate U.S. laws for equal treatment of the sexes, are perfectly acceptable under sharia law.

To be friends with Islam is to be at enmity with the very principles that have elevated the West. It is also to close our eyes to the persecutions and murders of the “infidels” throughout the Islamic world.

Is Scripture Totally Trustworthy?

2011-12-22T19:04:00.003-05:00

Today, we ask the question, “Is Scripture inerrant” – without errors in its original writing. And it’s an essential question! Theologian R.C. Sproul writes that although believing in “inerrancy” might not be necessary for salvation,

• It is a very important part of the growth process of the Christian to rest his confidence in the truthful revelation of the Word of God and thereby be moved inwardly to conform to the image of Christ. A strong doctrine of the authority of Scripture [which you can’t have if you believe that Scripture pock-marked with errors], when properly implemented, should bead a person to a greater degree of conformity to that Word he espouses as true. (Can I Trust the Bible? 64)

In opposition to this understanding, the late theologian and professing “evangelical,” Clark Pinnock, wrote,

• God uses fallible spokesmen all the time to deliver His Word, and it does not follow that the Bible must be otherwise.

However, when confronted with a difficult command, like “forgive those who have hurt you,” it will be difficult to apply if we’re not sure that the teaching is free from error. It’s just too easy to convince ourselves that our enemy has just gone too far.

Just last night, I was at a discussion group at the Ethical Culture Society. One Episcopalian woman lamented that everything is now up in the air, and she no longer knows what to believe. Her state of confusion was palpable and fully understandable. Her church no longer preached the Bible as God’s inerrant Word. How then could she discern truth amidst the many competing voices circling her head like flies?

However, this is precisely the perplexity resulting from Pinnock’s position:

• It is important to insist that the Bible is a merely human text – written, copied, translated, and interpreted by fallible people. It contains all manner of internal contradictions, moral blemishes, legend and saga, inaccuracies, and the like. It is a collection of intensely human documents and is not an authority beyond criticism or correction. To regard it as God’s written Word is an idolatrous perversion of belief which must be dethroned.

Why is this belief “idolatrous” when it is exactly the teaching of the Bible! Jesus taught that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). If Scripture is man’s word, then there is every reason in the world that it should be broken or set aside. Instead, Jesus taught that our lives depended upon embracing every word of Scripture as God’s Word:

• Jesus answered [the devil], "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

Jesus always quoted Scripture as absolutely authoritative, never giving any indication whatsoever that any of it was in error! If taking Scripture as the Word of God is idolatrous, then following Jesus is also idolatrous, since this is what He taught! What then wouldn’t be idolatrous in Pinnock’s mind? According to Jesus, even the smallest letter had its divine purpose:

• "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

Consistent with this assertion, He taught that everything in Scripture had to be fulfilled:

• He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24:44)

He left no verse out of this equation. Even the most personal of the writings – the Psalms – had to be completely fulfilled.

Jesus’ teaching was also the teaching of all of His Apostles. Peter claimed that the teachings of the Apostles weren’t their own private teaching but the teaching of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:2; 1 Peter 1:10-11). John even wrote that the words of his own book were as inviolable as those of the Torah (Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:2; 12:42). Meanwhile, Paul claimed that all Scripture was breathed forth by God Himself:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Has there been errors in Scripture, then Paul would have been wrong in writing that the “man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Errors would mislead and not reliably equip!

The Old Testament was equally insistent that Scripture is God’s very Words. Israel had to obey everything that had been written, not just those sections that could be reliably established as inspired. There could be no picking-and-choosing!

In contrast to this teaching, Pinnock maintained that inerrancy was not relevant to Scripture:

• Instead of placing emphasis upon the saving truth of the Bible to bear witness to Christ, attention is focused on the precise accuracy of minor details. This unfortunate development does not do justice to the kind of book the Bible is. Minute inerrancy might be the central issue of the telephone book, but not for…

However, the teachings of Jesus depended upon “minute inerrancy.” His teaching that the Patriarchs still lived was based upon a tiny detail. Jesus proved His point by quoting from Exodus 3:

• “But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)

The details make all the difference. God had not replied, “I had been their God,” but “I am…” Paul asserted:

• For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

None of the teachings of the Bible suggest that we have the liberty to disregard details by virtue of “higher criticism” or any other consideration. Pinnock and many others also claim that the doctrine of inerrancy is a recent invention, unknown to the fathers of the Church. However, no church father could possibly be ignorant of this teaching if he had any knowledge of Scripture. Besides, Sproul argues that they indeed had been in agreement with this vital doctrine:

• Luther argued that the Scriptures never “err.” To say that the Scriptures never err is to say nothing more or less than that the Bible is inerrant. So though the word “inerrancy” is of relatively modern invention, the concept is rooted not only in the biblical witness of Scripture itself but also in its acceptance by the vast majority of God’s people throughout the history of the Christian church. We find the doctrine taught, embraced and espoused by men such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Jonathan Edward, and other Christian scholars and teachers throughout church history. (58-59)

Inevitably, when we dump this doctrine, we then make ourselves the ultimate authority. We decide what portions of Scripture are truly inspired and which aren’t. Instead of Scripture judging us, we have positioned ourselves to judge Scripture – which parts are truly inspired and which aren’t.

Ironically, it isn’t even us who are the judges but our culture. Thomas Jefferson had re-written the Bible, leaving out the miracles. Why? Because in his Deistic culture, miracles were an offense to the modern mind! Today we are more apt to reject the teachings about divine judgment. They have become the offense to our permissive culture.

But do we then stuff the problem verses – those that seem to contradict? Are we putting our heads in the sand as some allege? Sproul, while admitting that “there are some as-yet-unresolved apparent contradictions,” claims that progress is being made:

• A great many alleged contradictions have been resolved…The trend has been in the direction of fewer problems rather than more of them. (49)

More importantly, an apparent contradiction doesn’t prove an actual contradiction. Sproul argues:

• The number of seriously difficult passages compared with the total quantity of material found there is small indeed. It would be injudicious and even foolhardy for us to ignore the truth claims of the Bible simply because of the so-far-unresolved difficulties. We have a parallel here with the presence of anomalies in the scientific world. (50-51)

If we don’t throw away science because of the anomalies – apparent contradictions to prior scientific findings – should we do so when confronted by the anomalies of Scripture? Of course not! Besides, the Creator is further beyond our understanding than is His creation. Therefore, we should be less insistent to throw away the doctrine of inerrancy simply because Scripture doesn’t seem to fit together coherently.

If we throw away this doctrine, we throw away any possible vitality that the church might enjoy. Sproul affirms this concern:

• We believe that history has demonstrated again and again that all too often there is a close relationship between rejection of inerrancy and subsequent defections from the matters of the Christian faith that are essential to salvation. When the church loses its confidence in the authority of sacred Scripture, it inevitably looks to human opinion as its guiding light. When that happens, the purity of the church is direly threatened.

“Threatened?” The church soon becomes ready for hospice care!

The Fine-Tuned Gift of Speech

2011-12-21T15:45:00.002-05:00

The gift of speech has been given to us with its hundreds or perhaps thousands of fine-tuned necessary features. Bruce Malone details some of these special components:

1. A deep throat as compared to an ape’s shallow throat. A deep throat allows a great variety [50] of sound to be produced.

2. Fine muscle control of the vocal tract. Humans have over 100 muscles to control the vocal chords and tract while apes have far fewer muscles.

3. Uniquely agile tongue and lips. Humans can shape many sounds because of their agile tongues and lips. Apes do not have fine control of their lips and tongue, thereby limiting their range of sounds.

4. Language center in the brain. Humans have areas in their brains dedicated to processing language; apes do not. (Inspired Evidence)

Without the mental components, the morphological equipment would prove useless. Everything has to be completely synchronized for speech to be functional and adaptive.

Speech has also given us a great survival advantage over the other primates. This seems to suggest that if speech had evolved slowly, we should be able to find various primates which had also evolved a far more advanced form of speech – missing links between humans and apes. These “missing links” would surely have been able to out-compete our present crop of apes. This is what evolution would have predicted.

Instead, we find a humanity separated from the family of apes in many significant ways, thereby suggesting design, rather than lineal descent.

How Do We Love God? By Shutting Down Our Minds?

2011-12-21T14:21:00.002-05:00

If you happen to be looking for a teacher/leader/guru who will con, dupe, and manipulate you, just look for one who will tell you to turn off your mind, your critical faculty. The Hindu guru Baghwan Shree Rajneesh had stated that the,

• Goal is to create a new man, one who is happily mindless.

And this is what he did! He had his followers dance, gyrate, jerk themselves about, and to engage in orgies – whatever was required to turn off their minds and to make them subservient to his program. However, God lovingly gave us a mind for our protection and His glory:

• Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'” (Matthew 22:37)

Using our mind with its power for discernment is not optional. It is required!

Eckhart Tolle, Oprah Winfrey’s New Age guru, attacks rationality and discernment in a different way:

• If you go deep enough in your religion, then you all get to the same place. It’s a question of going deeper, so there’s no conflict here. The important thing is that religion doesn’t become an ideology…the moment you say 'only my belief' or 'our belief' is true, and you deny other people’s beliefs, then you’ve adopted an ideology [theology]. And then religion becomes a closed door.

Thinking and ideology are evils, while experience apart from mental discernment (unless it’s Tolle’s) is the good. He is not alone in teaching that the mind is a great obstacle to transformational experience and enlightenment. Another guru, the Emergent Church’s Tony Jones – and he labels himself “Christian” – informs us that we can’t know divine truth:

• There’ll be no cutting corners, no easy answers, no magic bullets. (The New Christians, 111)

• To assume that our convictions about God are somehow timeless is the deepest arrogance, and it establishes an imperialistic attitude that has a chilling effect on the honest conversation that’s needed for theology to progress. (114)

Not only can’t we know God’s truth, but when we think that we do, we’re just being “arrogant.” Why then bother to study Scripture and to exercise discernment! However, this is far from the Biblical message. The entire Bible is a revelation of God. Rather than this revelation making us arrogant, we are told that the knowledge of God is the one thing that we can boast about:

• "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Throughout the Bible, we are instructed that this knowledge is of critical importance. In contrast, Jones assures us of his surpassing knowledge:

• The Kingdom of God is expansive, explosive, and un-pin-downable (to coin a phrase). Consequently, our characterizations of God and God’s Kingdom are necessarily fleeting? (114)

If God can’t be pinned-down, then God can’t be understood. Nevertheless, Jones seems to understand a lot about our inability to understand.

Dismissing knowledge creates a vacuum. The Emergent Church is quick to fill it with experience. Consequently, Richard Foster (Celebration of Discipline) and the contemplative spirituality movement have become popular when Scripture is disparaged. Foster argues that we miss out on the blessings of God without using his techniques – silence, visualizations, imaginations:

• Imagine the light of Christ flowing through your hands and healing every emotional trauma and hurt feeling your child experienced that day. Fill him or her with the peace and joy of the Lord. In sleep the child is very receptive to prayer since the conscious mind, which tends to erect barriers to God’s gentle influence, is relaxed. (39)

Scripture never teaches that our “conscious mind” is a barrier against His influence. Instead, He is omnipotent! His grace cannot be impeded by our weaknesses!

Furthermore, we are not in need of Foster’s unscriptural techniques. Instead we have EVERYTHING we need in Christ:

• For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. (Col. 2:9-10)

If we refuse to believe in this “fullness,” we become vulnerable to every false promise to fill some area in our lives where we feel empty. Not only are we complete in Christ, Scripture gives us sufficient guidance for every spiritual matter:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

We commonly hear claims that we fail to receive the good things from the Holy Spirit, because we block Him by thinking too much. Pastor John Arnott of the Vineyard Toronto Airport Church (“Toronto Blessing”) argued that the “greatest deception” was a matter of missing out on the blessings of the Spirit because of a concern about being deceived:

• If you’re going to be concerned about deception, then please be concerned about the greatest deception that there is, and the greatest deception of all, in my opinion, is not to fall for teachings of a false prophet or fall for some, you know, wild goose chase of a rabbit trail out there or whatever and wake up in tens years [sic] that you’ve been deceived. In my opinion the greatest deception of all is to have a move of God come through and you not recognize it. (Quoted by Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, 231)

However, this does not line up with Jesus’ opinion. He was very concerned that His sheep might stray into false teaching:

• "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast [or “teachings”] of the Pharisees and that of Herod." (Mark 8:15)

• "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

Paul also warned about the dangers of false teaching:

• See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (Col. 2:8)

According to both Paul and Jesus, missing out on divine blessings wasn’t a matter of exercising too much mental discernment or mental activity. Instead, it was a matter of listening to false teaching. Paul tearfully warned the Ephesian elders about this threat:

• I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard…(Acts 20:29-31)

The flock wouldn’t suffer because they failed to be open to new experiences but distorted teachings. Paul therefore argued that an Elder,

• Must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it…They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach... (Titus 1:9-11)

When we turn off our critical faculties in order to experience something new and exciting, we shouldn’t expect the Spirit to bless us. Why should He, when we are walking contrary to His Word. He warned us that

• And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

We therefore mustn’t listen to those who are teaching contrary to the Word, even if they are performing miracles:

• If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 13:1-3)

When we put other things above Scripture – experience, miracles, social concerns…whatever – we prove that we don’t love the Lord with all of our “heart and…soul.” Loving God is a matter of keeping His Word (John 14:21-24; 15:6-10). This is how He wants to be loved.

"Merry Christmas" - Verbotten!

2011-12-21T06:31:00.002-05:00

My Dear Wormbottom,

I know that you will be delighted to hear of our latest victory:

• Members of the House of Representatives have been banned from using the phrase “Merry Christmas” in any “franked,” or taxpayer-funded, correspondence to their constituents, but have been told that “Happy Holidays” is permissible. A December 12 memo from the Franking Commission Staff reported by the Washington Examiner noted that the “Franking Manual” already bans using taxpayer-funded postage for correspondence whose sole purpose is to mark special occasions such as birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, births, retirements, or holidays. This year, however, members are being told that even in correspondence sent for otherwise legitimate purposes, the phrase “Merry Christmas” cannot be used. The ban extends to any e-mail, website, or social media posting that uses “official resources,” according to the memo. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-house-reps-banned-from-wishing-constituents-merry-christmas?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0b78b005a5-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_20_2011&utm_medium=email

I have to congratulate you on your brilliant strategy of separating our beloved secularism from the other banal religions. It’s really worked! No one now thinks of our beliefs of materialism, multi-culturalism, religious pluralism, moral-relativism, and naturalism as a “religion.” This glorious strategy has enabled us to demote and marginalize all of the other religions while ours successfully operates under the radar.

I am certainly not complimenting you too highly when I say that it had been your brilliance that has engineered and guided this strategy. Who else had foreseen that the First Amendment, forbidding the establishment of one national religion, could have been distorted in such a way as to keep all the other religions out of public sight, while ours reigns unquestioned!

And you were right – nobody even pays attention to the second phrase of the First Amendment:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…

And this is exactly what your strategy has enabled us to do – to prohibit “the free exercise thereof,” by prohibiting those hypocritical congressmen from sending out their manipulative little Christmas greetings. They care no more about Christmas than we do.

Who would have thought, just several decades ago, that your strategy would have produced such delectable fruits! I can now walk comfortably down the street without concern that anyone will wish me a “Merry Christmas.” In fact, we have pulled the strings so effectively that even Christians now feel twinges of guilt when they even try to articulate those two hated words.

However, this is just symptomatic of our greater victory. It has now become illegitimate, even in their own minds, to drag any vestige of their faith into the public domain. While we can push evolution in every nature presentation, we can yell “foul” whenever they try to bring out any evidence against this idiotic dogma. It has been because of your strategy that we have been so successful in silencing any opposition by invoking “separation between church and state.”

Yes, I am aware that you don’t like us to refer to evolution as “idiotic,” but it is. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it’s the best God-substitute on the market. I can’t even imagine a better one. With this clever alternative to God, we have been able to jam moral-relativism down the throats of every school child.

We started by using “values clarification” exercises. These were able to subtly teach the children that there are no right answers – that morality was just a matter of clarifying and understanding their own subjective feelings and choices.

Once again, our successes all come back to your initial strategy. We were able to convince the ignorant public that we weren’t teaching another religion, one in direct opposition to their own, but were merely helping their little darlings to better make moral choices.

Of course, we also sold this program by claiming that it would teach tolerance for other points of view. Brilliant, eh? They failed to see that, in the process, we were actually teaching intolerance for their system of absolute moral law.

Well, these ignorant fools deserve just what they are getting. Perhaps someday, they will look back and thank us for liberating them from their superstitions. In fact, I’ve already heard many glowing testimonials!

Our Secular Institutions Lead the Charge against Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights

2011-12-20T10:12:00.001-05:00

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the institutions that should be most concerned about defending our freedom of speech are flagrantly violating this right when that speech goes against their own religious dogmas:

• Jennifer Keeton was enrolled in the Counselor Education Program at Augusta State University (ASU), a Georgia state school, seeking to obtain her master’s degree in school counseling. After Keeton completed her first year in the program, ASU’s officials asked her to participate in a remediation plan addressing what the faculty perceived as deficiencies in her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” ASU’s officials required Keeton’s consent to the remediation plan before Keeton could participate in the program’s clinical practicum, in which she would have to counsel students one-on-one. Rather than completing the remediation plan, Keeton filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that requiring her to complete the remediation plan violated her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights. Along with her verified complaint, Keeton also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent ASU’s officials from dismissing her from the program if she did not complete the remediation plan.

• After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied her motion for a preliminary injunction, and it is from this order that Keeton now appeals.

• Keeton claims that ASU’s officials violated her First Amendment free speech rights in three ways: by discriminating against her viewpoint; by retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment rights; and finally by compelling her to express beliefs with which she disagrees. We address each specific claim in turn. http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/12/19/11th-circuit-issues-ruling-in-keeton-v-anderson-wiley-litigation/

Although our right to express our opinions, however unpopular they might be, is being threatened, in many circumstances, it prevails:

• An Alliance Defense Fund lawsuit has led to official recognition for a student-led Christian club at the Hicksville Union Free School District, which originally refused to recognize the club. In light of the district’s decision to change course and grant the club equal access to the rights, benefits, and privileges extended to all other non-curriculum student clubs, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the club’s federal lawsuit against the district Friday.

• In addition to granting recognition and equal access to the club, the district also adopted a resolution affirming its “continuing policy to comply with the Equal Access Act,” a federal law that prohibits government schools from discriminating against religious student clubs that wish to meet on campus during non-instructional time. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/5247?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

The struggle to maintain our right to freely express our cherished faith can be very discouraging. However, we have heavenly resources:

• Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. (Psalm 37:3-6)

Perhaps the Church isn’t so Bad After All

2011-12-20T09:06:00.002-05:00

Our youth are abandoning the church in torrents. The secularists argue that our Gospel is hate speech. Hillary Clinton was recently emboldened enough to assert that our religious arguments against LGBT issues are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.” http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/12/hillarys-hate-speech.html.

We are routinely called “sexist,” “racist” and “homophobic.” The church now seems to be held in such contempt, that its enemies now feel confident enough to challenge its tax-exempt status and to impose secular standards upon worship and speech and even to discriminate against churches by preventing them from renting space in public schools.

In contrast to these dismal assessments, a recent Barna.org study found that:

• Three-quarters of Americans believe that churches are a positive factor in their communities. Just 1 out of 20 adults believe that the influence of churches is negative. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/549-barna-reveals-top-trends-for-2011

It seems evident that the churches are doing more good than the media and the schools are ready to admit. Besides, the church’s light isn’t shining brighter because it is found in the midst of a dark society. Another recently published study found that,

• The United States now ranks the highest in terms of charity in a massive global survey that put the nation in fifth place in 2010, according to CAFAmerica [CAFAmerica.org]…According to those surveyed, two out of three Americans said they donated money to charity (65 percent), more than two out of five volunteered their time (43 percent) and roughly three out of four helped a stranger (73 percent).

Perhaps the church and its influence might even take some credit there?

The Fruit of the Secular State

2011-12-19T23:50:00.002-05:00

Atheists monotonously charge that the church does everything wrong and Christians are evil. There are several ways to respond:

1. “Yes, we are evil and do bad things, and that’s why we all need the Savior.”
2. “You have no basis to talk about ‘evil’ or ‘bad,’ since you, as moral relativists, don’t believe in an objective ‘good and bad.’”
3. “Okay, let’s compare the evil of the church to the evil of atheists!”

Regarding the last response, I’ll invoke the militant communist/atheist experiments under Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and remind them of 100 million that these idealistic atheists had exterminated.

Of course, they’ll protest that these evils were not the result of atheism but communism, and that if we really want to see the fruits of atheism, we should look to secular (atheistic) nations of western and northern Europe.

Although these countries are going in an atheistic direction, they are not militantly trying to stamp out their Christian roots as some of the communist nations had done. Instead, their secularization is slow and far less proactive. Consequently, these nations still retain strong vestiges of their Biblical roots. Therefore, it’s harder to gauge the impact of atheism, and this requires more time.

However, this task might be easier than I had at first thought. It seems that as secularism has taken hold, so too has crime:

• The 9,350,000 inhabitants of Sweden reported 1,410,000[1] offences to the authorities in 2009 (approximately 151 offences/1000 inhabitants). The number of reported crimes have increased radically since a national statistics began in 1950. A lot of this is attributed to a higher degree of reports, but the largest factor is the factual increase of crimes. Increase in the rate of reports of violent crime in Sweden from 1976 to 2006. In three decades, reported violent crime have increased by about 200 %. (Wikipedia)

• If we next look at the crime level, the Danish Statistical Yearbook 2002 shows reported crimes from 1935 to 1960 to be stable: about 100,000 crimes per year. But from 1960 until today, the number of crime reports has increased by 500 percent, to more than 500,000 per year. And if we look at violent crime, the picture is even grimmer. The number of violent crimes in 1960 was approximately 2,000; it is approximately 15,000 today. This is an increase of more than 700 percent, and it is still rising steeply. This is a very surprising development. Welfare state advocates often say that crime is caused by poverty. Well, Denmark has become about twice as rich per citizen during this period of rising crime. Another argument is that poverty is caused by economic inequality. Well, Denmark has engaged in the most comprehensive income redistribution program of any nation. Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world today. http://mises.org/daily/1274

This identical crime explosion is found throughout the Western world:

• With the end of World War II and the economic recovery in Europe in the 1950s, crime rates and particularly rates of violent crime began to climb once again throughout the West. In England and Wales, murder and assault cases increased from 13 per 100,000 in 1950 to 144.3 per 100,000 in 1975, for an eleven-fold increase (Gurr, p. 363). During the same period the rate of larceny-theft rose from 847 per 100,000 to 3,659 per 100,000 for a more than four-fold increase, and by 1997 this figure came to 4,083 per 100,000. In Scandinavia much the same pattern unfolded. Between 1960 and 1974–1975, assaults and murders in Finland more than doubled from 127.9 to 282.0 per 100,000, and thefts more than tripled from 886 to 2,850 per 100,000. And in Stockholm between 1950 and 1971 the rates of thefts, assaults, and murders more than quadrupled (Gurr, p. 364). These increases in Europe were recorded mainly in the cities, and a similar pattern prevailed in the United States. Between 1960 and 1997 violent crimes known to the police in the United States shot up from 160.9 to 610.8 per 100,000, and property complaints rose from 1,726.3 to 4,311.9 per 100,000 (see F.B.I., 1961–1997).
http://law.jrank.org/pages/2159/Statistics-Historical-Trends-in-Western-Society-post-World-War-II-crime-wave.html

How do we explain this explosion? It can’t be attributed to poverty, because the Western world had become wealthier during this period. In the sixties, the USA experienced a secularization outburst. Prayers were eliminated from the school systems as “unconstitutional” in 1962. Wayne Grudem argues that this one change had made an enormous impact:

• In the book [“America: To Pray or not to Pray”] Barton documents the dramatic rise in teen pregnancy rates, teen suicides, and drug abuse since pray was removed from public schools. (Politics according to the Bible, 506)

This change was accompanied in the West also by the teaching of moral relativism through “values clarification” exercises. These communicated to the students that there are no correct moral answers. However, without correct moral answers, there is no longer a higher rationale for acting one way or another. Morality is reduced to what you feel and whether or not it will work for you. Consequently, if we are no longer governed by moral absolutes, the strongest impediment against peer influence is removed.

Yes, parental influence is remains foremost, but this influence has also been undermined by secular thinking. Without absolute moral principles, emotional fulfillment becomes paramount. Instead of parents training their children in accordance with what they had always believed to be true, they now want to be liked. They therefore overly indulge their children: “I just want my Johnny to be happy and fulfilled.” And Johnny not only agrees, but he has very definite ideas about securing his happiness.

The Attraction of a Non-Judgmental, Universalistic God

2011-12-19T08:45:00.002-05:00

Americans are opting for an egalitarian, non-judgmental God. According to Barna.org:

• Half of Americans (50%) believe that all people are eventually saved or accepted by God no matter what they do, while 40% disagreed. http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/543-top-trends-of-2011-changing-role-of-christianity

What can account for this strong universalistic trend? I think that there are several factors involved:

DETERMINISM: Many no longer believe that we have some degree of freewill and are therefore morally responsible. Instead, we are entirely products of powerful deterministic forces – “nature and nurture,” genetics and social influences. We act and think the way we do because we are programmed to do so. If this is the case, then we’re no longer guilty of our sins, and a reasonable God should no longer hold us culpable.

For many, this is an attractive idea. One atheist friend confided that he likes the idea that we lack freewill – we’re just a collection of electro-chemical reactions. As he systematically practiced reminding himself of this lack freewill and culpability, he would reduce his sense of guilt. However, to be consistent, he would also have to acknowledge that the murderer of his family is likewise not guilty of any wrongdoing.

JUDGMENTALNESS: In the West, it has become a virtue to be non-judgmental of others. After all, everyone is trying their best. Everyone has a good heart. Seen through this lens, God also sees our good heart and wouldn’t judge us for things that are outside of our control.

LOVE: No one seems to argue against the virtuousness of love, and the vast majority of people understand God as love. However, “love” has now taken on a different connotation. According to the updated understanding, love cannot include any offensive message. Love must always be affirming. The understanding that love also entails truth, disagreement and even punishment has been lost from Western culture.

Consequently, a loving God can’t be a punitive God, and the idea that there are eternal consequences for our sins has now become unacceptable, even in the case where the individual might choose eternal separation from God over eternal intimacy with God.

EQUALITY: Radical equality has become the ultimate virtue. It is no longer enough that we are all created in the image of God and are therefore all beloved by their Creator. There must also be equality of outcome. We all must share the same nirvana, universal consciousness or heaven. Reality and humanity are one, and any distinctions are an affront to this supposed oneness.

A God who discriminates is no longer a God worthy of worship, even if He discriminates according to principals of justice and fairness.

However, our beliefs are largely influenced by our situations. If and when a genocidal leader comes to power, we will, of course, be crying out for justice – both human and Divine. And we should. Our God requires it:

• When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:15-17)

It is out of love for humanity that God requires justice! It is easy for Western society to entertain dysfunctional ideas as long as their lives are still being protected by a justice system based upon Biblical values. However, once this justice system and the necessary discrimination that it entails are completely undermined, we will return to the rule of darkness.

We fail to see the very obvious historical fruits of “oneness” theology, a theology that is unwilling to make necessary judgments based on our behaviors. The Hindu Vaishnavite, Prabhupada, in his “The King of Knowledge” gives us a flavor of what oneness theology looks like:

• The hospital making business is being conducted by the government; it is the duty of a [Hindu] disciple to make hospitals whereby people can actually get rid of their material bodies, not patch them up. But for want of knowing what real spiritual activity is, we take up material activities.

However, real love and real justice should not only pertain to our extra-material existence. They should also pertain to our material existence. Eastern thinking tends to be life-denying. Swami Yogananda was founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship, which denies reality:

• Then this cosmic movie, with its horrors of disease and poverty and atomic bombs will appear to us only as real as the anomalies we experience at a movie house. When we have finished seeing the motion picture, we will know that nobody was killed; nobody was suffering.

If “nobody was suffering,” there is no reason to be concerned about suffering! This philosophy inevitably leads to injustice because it refuses to see injustice. If everything is no more real than a “motion picture,” then there can be no concern about love and justice. If we are to preserve justice, we need to believe in a God who is concerned about justice.

We also fail to see the inherent contradictions that non-justice and non-judgmentalness bring into our lives. It not only means that the courts cannot judge the criminals. It also means that parents can’t judge their children, or teachers their students, or supervisors their subordinates. We must judge and so must God!

Bullying, Intimidation, and Hypocrisy

2011-12-18T06:43:00.002-05:00

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the anti-bullying campaign resulted in more bullying:

• A Catholic student in Michigan is suing a teacher who reportedly punished him for stating his religious belief against the gay lifestyle when that teacher asked him his opinion on the issue. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) announced in a press release Thursday that they had filed a lawsuit on behalf of Daniel Glowacki, a junior at Howell High School at the time of the incident, against the school and his economics teacher Johnson McDowell.

• According to TMLC, which is representing the student in court, Glowacki was specifically asked by McDowell about his feelings on homosexuals; he responded that as a Catholic he was offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Because of his answer, Daniel was ordered to leave the classroom under threat of suspension.

• “This case points out the outrageous way in which homosexual activists have turned our public schools into indoctrination centers, and are seeking to eradicate all religious and moral opposition to their agenda,” said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, in the release.

• “It defies common sense for schools to ban all sorts of unhealthy foods while at the same time promoting the homosexual lifestyle, which hard statistics show increases drug abuse, suicides and reduces the life expectancies by several years. Schools that promote such lifestyles are engaging in a form of child abuse.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/student-sues-school-over-punishment-for-stating-religious-objection-to-gay?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=846a5c5cb7-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_14_2011&utm_medium=email

While it is praiseworthy that schools should not tolerate any bullying, it seems that many have simply used this campaign to purposely bully a different group of students. It would be another matter entirely if Catholic or Christian teaching advocated bullying. However, we find the exact opposite in the Bible – “Love your enemies!” It would also be another matter if it had been found that devout Catholics and Christians disproportionately bully gays, but this also hasn’t been found.

Meanwhile, we consistently find that today’s secular religion discriminates against other religions, even to the point of prejudicially characterizing them. Just recently, Hillary Clinton compared those (Christians) who raise religious objections to SSM to those who try to justify honor killings. http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/12/hillarys-hate-speech.html.

This is not to say that religions shouldn’t be above criticism. There are times that religions should be held to account, but we all have our religious/philosophical worldviews. (No one should be exempt from scrutiny merely because their belief system doesn’t fall under the category of “traditional religion.”) For example, it is hypocritical for schools to cite Christians as “bullies,” when the real bullies fall under the radar and are given a free pass. It’s not fair to allow gay advocates to bully Christians and then to penalize the Christians with charges of “hate speech” and “bullying” when they attempt to express their views.

Meanwhile, if the schools and our secular authorities are really interested in curbing bullying and hate speech, they might look at the Koran which reads:

• [Surah 2:65, 5:60, 7:166] “Jews are those who were cursed and transformed into apes and swine…”

• [Surah 8:55-56; 98:6] “Jews are the worst of Allah’s creation…” or

• Muhammad said that “the hour will not come until Muslims fight and kill the Jews and the Jews will hide behind trees and rocks, and these trees and rocks will cry out saying, ‘O Muslim, slave of Allah, this Jew is hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (Hadith no 5203; Reported by Muslim)

Because of these negative characterizations, Jews have fled Muslim countries en masse and are now suffering from escalating Islamic persecution as Muslim populations grow in Western nations. However, our secular authorities seem to be unconcerned about this as they – lacking any higher, objective moral principles and governed only by pragmatic concerns – are being pushed by circumstances or the loudest and pushiest interest group.

Meanwhile, according to the Voice of the Martyrs, 160,000 Christians are being exterminated a year, mostly in Islamic countries, but no Western nations are protesting in any meaningful way.

Christopher Hitchens: Deceased at 62

2011-12-16T09:40:00.002-05:00

Hitchens died of pneumonia, a complication of cancer of the esophagus, Vanity Fair magazine said.

• “Christopher Hitchens – the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant – died today at the age of 62,” Vanity Fair said.

• Hitchens was not one to mince words. In his book on Bill Clinton “No one left to lie to”, he called the former U.S. president a “rapist” and a “con man.” He once referred to Mother Teresa of Calcutta as a “fanatical Albanian dwarf.”

• The 2001 attacks on the United States by Islamic fundamentalists in hijacked passenger planes made Hitchens ever more critical of the role of religion in the world, and led him to appreciate the merits of American democracy.

• “I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion, and organized religion,” he wrote.

Hitchens was right – “the main source of hatred in the world is religion.” However, I think that he defined “religion” a little too narrowly, leaving out Communism, Atheism, Secular Humanism, Nazism and a variety of other “isms.”

Why should we regard these as “religions?” Well, for one thing, they always had been regarded as such. Here are some affirmations of this fact:

• BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The greatest danger in our day comes from new religions, communism and Nazism. To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions…”

• THE FIRST HUMANIST MANIFESTO (Paul Kurtz, 1933): “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

• JOHN DEWEY, WHO SIGNED THE MANIFESTO: “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race…It remains to make it explicit and militant.”

• THE US SUPREME COURT (Torasco v. Watkins – 1961): “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Why does secularism and atheism now disown the idea that they are religions? If they were regarded as religions, they would then be subject to the legal rulings that discriminate against religions and their promotion, and this is something that they find unacceptable. David Noebel observed that,

• Kurtz understands this, admitting that if Secular Humanism is a religion, "then we would be faced with a violation of the First Amendment…” (All the above quoted from, Understanding the Times, 16-18)

If you doubt how tenaciously the Atheist denies that Atheism is a religion, just call Atheism a religion, and you’ll receive an angry denunciation.

What is Our Humanity and Why this Question Matters

2011-12-16T07:18:00.003-05:00

Historian, Richard Weikart, claims that when we fail to understand humankind correctly, we will fail to treat humankind correctly. He cites the late psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl:

• When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
http://www.discovery.org/a/6301

Frankl and Weikart couldn’t be more right. As surely as the sun shepherds its rays as it traverses our sky, so too do ideas govern our thinking and subsequently our behavior. If we regard humanity as a product – merely a result – of deterministic forces, then we’ll treat humanity as a result and think nothing of manipulating them into whatever suits us.

It matters little whether the deterministic forces are of “nature or nurture” – genetics or social conditioning or a combination of the two – we are still no more than an accident of mindless uncaring forces. Think of a baby, long-awaited and beloved by her parents. Now think of a baby hatched in a laboratory, the result of an experiment or perhaps one of millions concocted by an economic enterprise to raise an army of workers. Which will we respect and value more? Our ideas matter!

The degradation of humanity was hastened by materialism of the 19th century. Humanity was relegated to the status an evolutionary accident, even to the extent of denying our freewill. After all, according the materialistic orthodoxy, we are merely a sack of chemicals producing electro-chemical reactions. Also, we are animals without any qualitative difference from fleas and mosquitoes. If they can be swatted into oblivion, so too can we! Weikart writes:

• One of the most prominent popularizers of Darwinism in Germany, the famous materialist Ludwig Büchner, published The Power of Heredity and Its Influence on the Moral and Mental Progress of Humanity in 1882. In the midst of his extended argument for biological determinism of mental and moral traits, Büchner showed where his vision of humanity led. He stated, "In the flow [of time] the individual is nothing, the species is everything; and history, just as nature, marks each of its steps forward, even the smallest, with innumerable piles of corpses."

Consequently, the idea of producing a master species became acceptable, a fact evidently not lost on Adolph Hitler. The eugenics movement was a logical corollary to this philosophical shift:

• By the 1890s and especially in the early twentieth century, the eugenics movement gained popularity, especially in medical circles, in Europe and the United States. Eugenics was driven in part by fears that modern institutions had set aside the beneficial aspects of natural selection. Eugenicists continually played on the specter of weak and sickly humans beings preserved through modern medicine, hygiene, and charitable institutions, while the more intelligent and supposedly better human beings were beginning to voluntarily restrict their reproduction. This was producing biological degeneration, according to many eugenicists. Their solution? Introduce artificial selection by restricting the reproduction of the so-called "inferior" and encouraging the "superior" to procreate. Biological determinism permeated the eugenics movement, which pressed for marriage restrictions, compulsory sterilization, and sometimes even involuntary euthanasia for the disabled, because they were deemed biologically inferior.

It is inevitable that, as we think, so too will we act. If our view of the human race is mechanistic, our treatment of humanity will be mechanistic and manipulative. A variation of this materialistic and deterministic understanding – Marxism – also arose in the 19th century. Humanity was no more than the product of the economic system. (Well, who made the economic system?) Change the system and you change humanity. Therefore, humans were once again merely objects for manipulation and even extermination – whatever it took to build the Marxist paradise. We, mere products of chance and accident, were expendable.

We need an accurate understanding of humanity, one that recognizes our glorious origin and Divine purpose, an understanding that confers honor upon us and not dishonor (No wonder there is such a pre-occupation about building self-esteem now that society has destroyed it!). This understanding is found in the first chapter of Genesis:

• Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

Whenever this vital understanding is lost, so too is our humanity.

Sex Reassignment Therapy: The Downside

2011-12-15T12:12:00.002-05:00

Although I know that some will regard this as “hate speech” and a lack of compassion for those who are clearly suffering, I think that it’s important to get out the other side of the story. The dangers of sex reassignment therapy have to receive some attention, especially since the mainline media refuses to do so:

• Sex reassignment therapy remains a highly controversial practice among the psychiatric community. Paul McHugh, the chairman of the Johns Hopkins psychiatric department at Johns Hopkins University, concluded that to perform such changes on a gender-confused individual was to “cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it.” Johns Hopkins closed its gender clinic after McHugh found in follow-up evaluations that most transgender patients’ psychological functioning had not improved.

• Walt Heyer, a former transsexual who embraced his male identity after years of attempting to live as a woman, said the attempts to change Wyatt’s body was only a temporary fix that didn’t have the child’s best interests in mind. [Heyer stated] “They are only looking at the short term ‘solution.’ But in ten, fifteen, twenty years out there is tremendous regret, invariably accompanied by alcoholism, drug addiction, and even suicide attempts,”

• Sarah Allis Yang of Los Angeles, another former transsexual, testified to the Massachusetts Legislature earlier this year with Mass Resistance that she learned to embrace her femininity after 19 years feeling like a man - even though she says her first words as a child were, “I’m a boy.” “If anyone could claim that they were ‘born this way,’ it was me,” said Yang, who now says she is happily married to a man. “I thought I had no choice but to either get surgery or continue dating women as a man trapped in a girl’s body. I became suicidal not because of societal pressures or lack of understanding or acceptance from others, but because I personally didn’t want to live this way, because it was a detrimental and painful lifestyle and no one offered me any other choice or option but to be this way.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-can-do-wonders-if-we-get-them-early-young-twin-boy-undergoes-sex-change?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f8f8e8373b-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_14_2011&utm_medium=email

If reporting on these dangers represents “hate speech” to some, to others who have been warned through this type of reporting, it might subsequently represent responsible and caring speech.

Deception: Counterfeit Signs and Wonders

2011-12-15T06:42:00.002-05:00

Jesus prophesied that, in the last days, demonic miraculous deceptions would proliferate:

• “At that time [of Tribulation] if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.” (Matthew 24:23-24)

Although those who are truly His will continue in the faith, I don’t think that we are at all prepared for how powerful these deceptions will be and how many will leave our ranks – perhaps only temporarily – because of them. Recent counterfeit wonders and the resulting apostasy give us a small taste of what is to come. It is therefore profitable to acquaint ourselves with them.

In 1990 Rodney Howard-Browne was invited to preach at Benny Hinn’s church. Hank Hanegraaff writes that “pastors and parishioners began to fall, laugh, and get drunk in the Spirit.” Consequently, Hinn declared that “This is the Holy Ghost, people, I’m telling you. Lift your hands and thank Him for this. This is the Holy Ghost here!” And this was only the beginning. In Pastor Karl Strader’s church:

• Some even went “dumb in the Spirit.” Most notably among them was Pastor Strader, who struggled pathetically to speak but could only emit unintelligible grunts. Eventually, when he came to himself, Strader declared this extravaganza to be “the greatest move of God I’ve ever seen. It was like something in the history books. (Counterfeit Revival, 29)

Howard-Browne was then invited to speak at Oral Roberts University, where Roberts claimed that he,

• “Touched the life of our student body, including our athletes. Nobody has ever touched our athletes…All of them got the Holy Laughter…thousands of ‘em, and when he came by and said ‘Fill!,’ they fell in the Spirit on the grounds.” The response, in fact, was so overwhelming that classes had to be cancelled as students fell to the floor and laughed…There’s no question about it, he changed my life and my son’s life.” (32)

Although there is no Biblical assurance that these are genuine manifestations of the Spirit, a couple of revivalists were so impressed that they concluded,

• The Spirit of God is moving in breathtaking and sometimes startling new ways, and people of every tongue and every nation are…falling in love with Jesus in a brand new way! (33)

Hanegraaff relates so many accounts where people were absolutely overwhelmed by the supernatural, sometimes against their most strenuous efforts:

• “Suddenly she tried to get up and got as far as a crawl position on her hands and knees, and then she froze right on the spot, completely unable to move…She remained in exactly the same position for at least forty-five minutes.” (35)

Others have similar accounts:

• When standing to be recognized in the church gathering, many mothers “fell and remained on the floor for about 20 minutes, laughing.” At a previous January service, the “participants were swept up in a fervor of what they said was the power of the Holy Spirit. They laughed or shook uncontrollably and fell to the floor.”

• About what happened at one Vineyard gathering, a pastor reported of a fellow who, “described [his] . . . experience as equivalent to six months of therapy.”[3]

• “What am I to believe about these manifestations? Do they come from the Holy Spirit? Or, in failing to appreciate and apply the ‘Toronto Blessing,’ am I missing something that could bless my personal Christian walk and the congregation I pastor?” http://guardinghisflock.com/2010/11/01/rotten-grapes/

The revival was then imported by Toronto Airport Vineyard Pastor John Arnott, where it became known as the “Toronto Blessing.” The experience radically transformed Arnott’s ministry. He had to “relearn” a lot:

• “We used to think when people shook, shouted, flopped, rolled, etc., that it was a demonic thing manifesting and we needed to take them out of the room.” (52)

How did Arnott overcome his former reservations? He decided to turn off his critical faculties and trust in this new work of the Spirit:

• “If you play it safe with this thing, the Holy Spirit, you know what? You’re never going to get anywhere.” (52)

This became the operating practice for the Vineyard churches – leap first and ask questions later, if at all. In 1995, Phil Johnson visited the Anaheim Vineyard and was shocked to hear from the pulpit:

• “And above all, don't try to rationally evaluate the things you will see. God isn't trying to reach your mind; He wants to reach your heart. Analyzing spiritual phenomena through the grid of human logic or religious presuppositions is the quickest way to quench what the Spirit is doing. Subjecting the revival to doctrinal tests is the surest way to put out the fire. Don't try to find reasonable explanations for what is happening; just turn your heart loose and let the Spirit flow through your emotions. Only then can the Spirit have His way in your life.” http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//articles/laugh.htm

However, leaping first meant that Scripture had to be put aside. Scripture didn’t give any sanction to disorder – leaping, barking, laughing, and twitching all over:

• But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. (1 Cor. 14:40)

• The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. (1 Cor. 14:32-33)

In contrast to the “Toronto Blessing” chaos, Paul argued that disorder would turn people away from the truth:

• So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? (1 Cor. 14:23)

No “Blessing” can be complete without prophets to encourage and interpret it, and the Vineyard became a magnet for them. However, they lowered the bar. Vineyard prophet David Ravenhill (and the others) changed the Rule-Book:

• “I believe the test of a prophet is not whether his word comes to pass…it’s the nature of that person’s life.” (75)

The fruits of their lives would only become apparent much later. Removing the prophecy test opened the door to many “prophets.” However, removing this test is a violation of Scripture:

• You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

The Word of God required stringent protective tests. This test would insure the purity of the Word of God. The false prophets would be infallibly ruled out, otherwise Scripture, the basis of all life and worship, would suffer contamination. Consequently without this most stringent test, the Vineyard had a surplus of prophets, and they consolidated their position through intimidation. One, Rick Joyner, warned:

• “Some who are presently in leadership that resist this move will become so hardened they will become opposers and persecutors of the church. Others will be changed and repent of their hardness of heart, even though, in some cases, their resistance to the Holy Spirit will have disqualified them from leadership. This growing tide of unity in the church will reveal the true nature of those in leadership.” (96)

As a result, the Vineyard prophets could not be tested, lest the doubters become charged with resisting the Holy Spirit. However, testing the prophets or spirits is something that we are commanded to do (1 Thess. 5:19:21; 1 John 4:1-3). If we fail to do this, we are derelict in our duty:

• If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Faithfulness to God’s Word had to take precedence even over miraculous wonders. However, the Vineyard prophets protected their exalted position by eliminating the Biblical safeguards. This opened the door to a lot of bad theology. Even John Wimber, the leader of the Vineyard churches, warned that,

• “Evangelicals all over the country are worshiping the book. They have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Book.” (109)

Wimber had come out of the Calvary Chapel movement but turned against them:

• “Calvaryites are sometimes a little too heavily oriented to the written Word. I know that sounds a little dangerous, but frankly they’re very pharisaical in their allegiance to the Bible. They have little life and growth and spontaneity in their innards. Sometimes they’re very rigid and can’t receive much of the things of the Lord.” (109)

However, without the Word, we have no defense against Satan who “transforms himself into an angel of light” (1 Cor. 11:14). Peter instructs us to “be vigilant” against the devil (1 Peter 5:8), but we cannot fulfill this without the guidelines of the Word.

Paul warned the Ephesian church that,

• Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:30-32)

According to Paul, it is the “word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” It is also the word that will alert them against those who would “distort the truth in order to draw away disciples.”

Another Vineyard prophet, Jack Deere, also warned against exercising any discernment:

• “God is in the process of offending our minds in order to reveal our hearts.” (76)

According to Deere, our thinking just gets in the way. Therefore, the Spirit has to take it out of the way so that we can receive. Wimber also had warned that this rigidity of mind would prevent us from “receiv[ing] much of the things of the Lord.”

However, nowhere is Scripture do we read that too much thinking on Scripture impedes the work of the Spirit. Instead, the Berean church had been commended because they didn’t receive Paul’s teachings immediately but “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17 :11).

Similarly, Jesus instructed His followers to not believe Him without corroborating evidences. However, because there were such supporting evidences, they were to believe (John 5:31-38). This is only reasonable. In the Bible, everything had to find support from at least two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). The Bible wasn’t about blind faith but a reasoned faith.

Although the Vineyard had many prophets, they also had one premier prophet, Paul Cain. How did he become prophet #1? Orrel Steinkamp writes:

• Cain was given a special place of recognition because of his nearly always-accurate clairvoyant ability to see things that no one else could. In a sense, he was like the second coming of Branham. All the other prophetic wannabes aspired to become like Cain and were always having to justify the fact that their prophecies never really ever attained anything near to Cain's apparent accuracy. To be sure, Cain has had an occasional slip. He once prophesied that Bill Clinton would lead America in a worldwide revival. http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/orrel19.html

Wimber declared that the prophetic power resident in Cain is so awesome that:

• “He’s interacting in two dimensions continually. He’s not only seeing you and talking to you, but he’s hearing from God constantly.” (145)

Despite his powers, Cain erroneously prophesied that,

• “God is now raising up a Christian army to take over the socio-political systems of the day…Not even Elijah or Peter or Paul or anyone else enjoyed the power that is going to rest upon this great army.” (106)

In addition to a number of erroneous prophecies, Cain had other problems. One of the Vineyard prophets, Rick Joyner, who also had had his own sexual flings, wrote on his website:

• "In February 2004, we were made aware that Paul had become an alcoholic. In April 2004, we confronted Paul with evidence that he had recently been involved in homosexual activity. Paul admitted to these sinful practices and was placed under discipline, agreeing to a process of restoration, which the three of us would oversee. However, Paul has resisted this process and has continued in his sin... With our deepest regrets and sincerity, Rick Joyner, Jack Deere, Mike Bickle." http://www.morrnnsstrarministries.ore/oages/ special~bulleu.ns/0ct_19.html

A prophet of God can be no less a man-of-God than elders. The Apostle Paul stipulated the requirements for eldership:

• Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:7-9)

David Pyches, who has authored a book extolling the Kansas City prophets [forerunners of the Vineyard], explains the clairvoyant talent of Paul Cain:

• "Paul's mother, grandmother, and great grandmother had all been born with the gift of seeing. His great-grandmother would sometimes see things in broad daylight and ask her friend or family if they could see them too. If they said they could not, she would occasionally wave her hand upon them and they would immediately see the identical vision... Paul now found he was "seeing" also and would know things that were going to happen to classmates at school or were happening to absent friends. (Pyches, pgs. 24,26.) http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/orrel19.html

We shouldn’t be overly skeptical at the mention of clairvoyance. The Bible refers to many false prophets. And there’s no reason to dismiss the idea that they might have had a supernatural demonic connection. Paul had even cast the demon out of one woman who had been so successful that she was able to make her master money with her “gift.” However, without the demon, she became worthless to her master.
So many had been hurt by the “Toronto Blessing!” Many of the disappointed had wandered away from the church after the inconsistencies had become apparent! This could have been avoided had people been willing to put Scripture before experience. Sadly, we are too ready to put miracles above the warnings of the Bible, the quick-fix above God’s truth.

Paul’s final words to the Ephesians included these:

• Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

We are too ready to think that we are missing out on some spiritual blessing. However, we are instructed that we have everything that we need in Christ (Col. 2:9-10) and in His Word:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

If we truly know that we are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.,” perhaps we might be able to resist the next prophet or the next set of miraculous signs!

Investigating the Fruit of the Politician

2011-12-14T09:35:00.002-05:00

Politicians are rightly known for their love of power and influence and what they will do in order to obtain and maintain that power. Hitler might be an extreme example, but he was also a very typical politician in his use of deception and manipulation to achieve his goals. In his public persona, he charmed his people, demonstrating that he was truly one of them:

• In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in an Aryan Christ. Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

• In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

• Historian Joachim Fest wrote, "Hitler knew, through the constant invocation of the God the Lord (German: Herrgott) or of providence (German: Vorsehung), to make the impression of a godly way of thought." He used his "ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity," according to biographer Ian Kershaw. Kershaw adds that Hitler's ability also succeeded in appeasing possible Church resistance to anti-Christian Nazi Party radicals. For example, on March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions [i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism] as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."

• According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members, however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."

• "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

• Elsewhere in Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the "creator of the universe" and "eternal Providence." He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing:

• "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

However, as is often the case with the most successful and skillful politicians, their private beliefs pronouncements, which drive their policies, may not at all match their public proclamations. His closest associates, “Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Martin Bormann suggest that Hitler generally had negative opinions of Christianity.”

• It was Goebbels opinion that Hitler was "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian." In his diary Goebbels reported that Hitler believed Jesus "also wanted to act against the Jewish world domination. Jewry had him crucified. But Paul falsified his doctrine and undermined ancient Rome. "Albert Speer quotes Hitler stating, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

• Author Konrad Heiden has quoted Hitler as stating, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." According to historian Laurence Rees, "Hitler did not believe in the afterlife, but he did believe he would have a life after death because of what he had achieved." Historian Richard Overy maintains that Hitler was not a "practising Christian," nor was he a "thorough atheist." (All the above quotes are taken from Wikipedia.)

Here are some quotations from Hitler’s own mouth:

• Night of 11th-12th July, 1941: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

• 10th October, 1941, midday: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

• 14th October, 1941, midday: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

• 19th October, 1941, night: “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

• 21st October, 1941, midday: "Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

• 13th December, 1941, midnight: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

• 14th December, 1941, midday: "Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120) http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

• 27th February, 1942, midday: "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie…Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

He might not have been a “thorough atheist,” but his promotion of himself and his race reflect a humanist rather than a theist perspective:

• The claim to be the representatives of a new paganism was not just a personal idiosyncrasy of a few minor figures in the Nazi regime. The conviction of being in the vanguard of a new ideological force in European culture was an integral part of Nazi thinking. Among the most prominent features of this new paganism can be discerned in the exaltation of the personality of Adolph Hitler, the propagation of the ‘religion of blood’ and the attempts to provide pagan equivalents for outdated Christian ceremonies.” (J.S. Conway, “The Nazi Persecution of the Churches”)

His policies also reflected his negative assessment of the Christian faith:

• By 1939, only 2% of the university student body was enrolled in theological students as compared to 6% in 1933. (Conway)

• In West Prussia, out of 690 parish priests, at least 2/3 were arrested and the remainder escaped…No less than 214 were executed…By 1940 only 20 priests were left in their parishes. (Conway)

• Christian schools disappeared altogether by 1940. ‘The Catholic German Center Party’ was extinguished; Christian trade unions were undermined; religious youth groups were bullied and vilified, and their sporting events, camps, parades, and uniforms banned. Monks and nuns by the hundreds were brought up on bogus charges of currency violations and sexual perversions. Carols and nativity plays were barred from classrooms; crosses gradually stripped from hospitals and schools; the religious press censored and circumscribed…and theological faculties at universities starved of replacements. (Carroll and Shifflet, Christianity on Trial)

All of this means that we must be discerning. It is not enough to simply listen to what someone says. Instead, we have to also look at what they do (and what they have done.):

• Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Hate Speech, Bigotry and the Bible

2011-12-12T11:21:00.002-05:00

The Bible pours forth “hate speech.” Peter and the Apostles had just been arrested for the third time for preaching the Gospel. The ruling religious council, the Sanhedrin, reminded them:

• We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name…Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood. (Acts 5:28)

The Apostles had been deemed guilty of uttering “hate speech,” making the authorities “guilty of this man’s blood.” However, Peter, filled with the Spirit, did nothing to retract the damning indictment:

• We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him. (Acts 5:29-32)

In fact, Peter intensified the charge stating “you had killed [Jesus] by hanging him on a tree.” That’s calling your judge a murderer! It might be true, but the truth is seldom well-received:

• When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. (Acts 5:33)

Hate speech is one thing but hate speech which indicts the ruling body represents a quantum leap. Couldn’t Peter have expressed himself in a less offensive way? Wasn’t he foolish to not anticipate the response, which should have been entirely predictable? But perhaps offensive speech, if it poignantly reveals the cancer of sin, should not be regarded as “hate speech,” but as “love speech!”

The Gospel proclaims many things that are highly offensive. It tells us all that we are sinners who deserve nothing less than judgment and death. It gives us the one solution to our problems – the death of the God-man Jesus, who we all put to death by our sins – and warns us that He is the ONLY way. This, of course, is entirely offensive to those who believe in and rely upon other ways. It is so offensive, that many now regard the Gospel as “hate speech.”

Indeed, the Gospel knows nothing about political correctness, multi-culturalism, religious-pluralism, and honoring the spiritual solutions of other religions. Jesus even informed the doctors of the Law - those under the Mosaic Covenant:

• You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins. (John 8:23-24)

No sensitivity at all! The Rabbis had to believe in Jesus! No wonder they put Him to death! The Jewish leadership had their own God-given covenant. How could Jesus have suggested that their way wasn’t good enough? What hubris! What hate speech!

However, this was healing speech. If the Rabbis had alienated themselves from God through their sins, the first step was to correctly diagnose the problem. The second step was to apply the solution – Jesus the Messiah!

Peter had learned well from his Master. He revealed to the Sanhedrin the problem – their sin. Then he offered the “offensive” solution: “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.”

Yes, the answer is highly offensive. It informed these educated and esteemed Rabbis that they are sinners – murderers – and they had to seek forgiveness from the One they both hated and murdered.

Was this “hate speech?” No! It offered them the only hope for the worst of fates – eternal separation from God! Did they regard this as “hate speech?” Yes, and they beat the Apostles.

Today, many in the church maintain a highly errant belief: “We aren’t supposed to confront others about their sins. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit!” Well, even if it is the work of the Spirit, everything else is the work of the Spirit. Even the hairs on our head are numbered by the Spirit (Matthew 10:30).

However, simply because everything is the work of the Spirit, it doesn’t mean that some things aren’t also our work. (We theologians call this “synergism.”) Even though we are His workmanship (Eph. 2:10), we also bear the consequences of our unfaithfulness and disobedience. Likewise, we have a responsibility to be His representatives, sometimes even to convict others of their sins. This is what the Prophets of Israel had been called to.

Is it therefore “hateful” or “bigoted” to confront others about their sins or is it loving. It might be convenient to not say anything, but does it demonstrate loving concern for their ultimate welfare? We have a duty to uncover sin:

• Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them…But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. (Ephes. 5:11-13)

We are to be the light! Of course, this isn’t easy, and it isn’t even advisable if we are guilty of similar sins of which we haven’t repented. However, silence is taken as acceptance. If through silence we fail to expose sin, we are saying, in effect, “You are fine just the way you are.” We thereby become partakers, and their blood is then upon us (Ezekiel 33:7-9).

It is therefore loving to confront others about their sins, whether financial, sexual, or even sins of the mind or mouth. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise!

Hillary’s Hate Speech

2011-12-11T09:01:00.003-05:00

I’m tired of this subject. I have already written extensively on the subject on human rights and same-sex marriage (SSM). It’s become so contentious that I have become the object of the worst forms of name calling and derision, which have often progressed into personal threats and intimidation. Just yesterday, one blog-world atheist found out where I teach – the telephone and fax number – and tried to encourage his fellow-atheists jam up their lines, simply because they disagreed with my stance on human rights, expressed in a prior essay. Sometimes, there are even intimations of violence.

Even though it’s becoming obvious to many that our social climate is beginning to boil over, this hasn’t stopped our power structures – the media, the university and government – from using the most inflammatory language to describe those who oppose SSM. We are routinely termed “bigots,” “hate-mongers,” “homophobes,” and just plain “idiots.” However, our Secretary of State has just upped the stakes by comparing us to murderers:

• In a speech [December 8, 2011]designed to convince the world that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said religious objections to homosexuality should not stand in the way of vigorous United Nations action to promote the homosexual rights agenda. On Tuesday, Clinton said promoting the global acceptance of “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people” is “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time,” likening the effort to ending racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. She noted that perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hillary-clinton-religious-objections-to-homosexuality-like-supporting-honor?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4aa198a190-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_09_2011&utm_medium=email

Comparing us to murderers will just further inflame the viciousness, especially when coming from the government of the USA. If we are murderers, then it becomes justified to treat us as murderers. At first, we had been compared to Nazis and the KKK by the luminaries of our society. When this comparison stuck, then it became easy to make the argument, “If we deny the voice of the Nazi and the Klansman, we should also deny the voice of the anti-SSM bigot.”

This perverted reasoning has banished our voice from the mainstream media, the schools and the university, replacing it with scorn which has understandably flowered into contempt and discrimination. Christians and Christian groups have now been barred from the universities for expressing opinions that have now been deemed “bigoted.”

The hypocrisy has reached levels that would have been thought unbelievable just a few decades earlier. We are charged with “discrimination” by those who discriminate against us. We are charged with “hate speech” by those who show no reservations about using hate speech against us. We are charged with “bullying” by the bullies who routinely silence us. We are charged with denying the human rights to others by those who deny us the human rights of freedom of speech and religion upon which this great nation had been founded. We are systematically vilified for merely expressing our opinions – opinions that had traditionally constituted the fabric of all the nations of the West.

We have been called “unjust” by those who would deny us justice. And now we are likened to murderers. If we have become so contemptible, it is unsurprising that we are treated with contempt. Evidently Clinton doesn’t believe that the levels of scorn directed toward the church are yet great enough, and so now we have become like murderers.

We still have laws against pedophilia and incest. Should this nation be regarded as a nation of “murderers” because we still affirm these “discriminatory” laws, thereby denying human rights on the basis of our traditional values? Isn’t our justification for maintaining such “antiquated” laws like “the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation,” according to Clinton?

Presently, pedophiles, now termed “minor-attracted people,” are making their bid to find sanction under “human rights.” World magazine writes:

• Homosexuality shook off its status as a mental illness in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association removed its entry from the DSM. Societal acceptance wasn’t far behind. Now activists are casting pedophilia as just another sexual orientation.” (December 17, 2011, 68)

And why not! If SSM is a human right, why shouldn’t pedophilia be one also? However, I don’t think that Clinton would regard those who would maintain statutes against pedophilia as comparable to murderers. But why not? Even to raise this issue is now regarded as “homophobic?” But are we murderers because we would vote against the right to have multiple wives or husbands? Are we murderers because we insist on maintaining the right to teach our children chastity until marriage? Aren’t we denying the human rights of minors? Should we be treated with contempt because of this?

Clinton would deprive us of our human rights and our vote, claiming that the human rights of SSM should trump everything else:

• The secretary of state added that nations must pass LGBT civil rights laws, even when they offend the majority of a nation’s citizens. “Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for,” Clinton said. “[W]e are each free to believe whatever we choose…But progress comes from changes in laws.”

In her estimation, the majority vote no longer counts. She is not alone in this opinion. A single judge was able to overturn California’s vote in favor of Proposition 8, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, simply because he deemed it “unconstitutional,” even though there is nothing in the Constitution protecting SSM or anything like it. In other words, “My prejudice reigns uber alles!” Clinton tries to build her case on “evolving” values.

• She stated worldwide “opinions are still evolving” on homosexuality as they did with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights…In each of these cases, we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us,” she said.

Why should we regard the latest values as the best? Why the presumption that we are evolving into something better? Is this notion anything other than the tyranny of modernity – the newest is best?

Besides, where then do human rights come from if not from religion? If its origin is no higher than the nation itself, then Clinton has no right to say that her own Western values (religion) are any more valid than those of nations that reject SSA. By leaving God and His transcendent truth out of the equation, Clinton is engaging in nothing more than cultural imperialism, saying, in effect that, “Our Western values are more valid than yours!”

Clinton is also denying her own nation’s religious basis for human rights. Our Declaration of Independence powerfully affirms:

• When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration wisely appeals to a source higher than the laws of England – to “the laws of nature and of nature's God [which] entitle them.” Without God, there exists no authority upon which the new Federation could find rationale for their decision to break from England and from its existing laws:

• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A right can only be “unalienable” if it cannot be trumped by “evolving” ethical standards. Recognizing that our rights find their origin in religion – in God Himself – secures their immutability.

Clinton has nothing upon which to base her assertion that SSM represents a human right. Why should her assertion carry more weight than the assertions of other nations? Without this higher moral authority, her stance is no more than cultural imperialism. This is also something that will play well in Muslim nations, which want to make the case that the West is imperialistic and decadent. Clinton’s “evolving” standards have not only polarized this country, but they also serve to polarize internationally.

Even worse, without the sanction of God, we cannot escape the mire of moral relativism – morality is no more than our sentiments and social conventions! If this is the case, we have no rational basis upon which to make a moral claim. If we try to do this, we can say no more than, “Well, this is our social convention, and I feel it should be yours also!”

Meanwhile, the words of the Bible are reiterated once again:

• Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." (Romans 8:35-36; Psalm 44)

Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul assures us in the next verse, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.”

Abortion, Mental Health, and Human Nature

2011-12-09T07:59:00.001-05:00

We are wired with moral sensitivities – rights and wrongs. Therefore, when we do what we believe is right, we feel right. When we act in opposition to our wiring, we suffer certain consequences. Perhaps this hard-wiring is able to explain recent findings of a strong correlation between having an abortion and mental health problems:

• The prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) recently published “Abortion and Mental Health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published 1995-2009.” The paper, a culmination of Dr. Priscilla Coleman’s extensive experience in the field of abortion and mental health, finds that women who have undergone abortion have an 81% increase in the risk of mental health problems, and an even greater risk for substance misuse and suicidal behaviour (230% and 155% respectively). Nearly 10% of the incidence of all mental health problems was shown to be directly attributable to abortion… The sample encompasses 22 studies, 36 measurements of mental health effects and 877,181 participants of whom 163,831 had experienced an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-study-on-abortion-mental-health-risk-under-attack-but-criticisms-base?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=92bc3740d4-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_07_2011&utm_medium=email

Because this is a highly charged topic, the responses have been heated:

• Within the academic community, ad hominem attacks questioned Dr. Coleman’s scholarly objectivity, calling her an “anti-abortion campaigner” with an “agenda-driven bias” and “obvious conflict of interest” undermining her ability to critically review the primary studies. The journal allegedly failed to detect “egregious scientific errors” and left the readers to “sort through the serious flaws” themselves. Several critics called on BJP to retract the article.

Unless Coleman’s findings based upon these 22 studies can be conclusively overturned – and generally, ad hominem attacks reflect the fact that even the attackers know that their case is weak – women considering abortions need to be advised of these risks.

Furthermore, these findings should promote questions about human flourishing. “Can a potential mother flourish psychologically after terminating the new life within her womb?” Many women have reported that they have suffered for years after submitting to this ill-advised action. For some, tormenting regrets remain.

This also begs the question, “In what other ways are we hard-wired? And in what circumstances do we violate this hard-wiring to our own detriment?”

Sadly, the study and practice of clinical psychology have largely bypassed this essential question about our human nature in favor of an emphasis on choice and immediate gratification. Questions of individual psychopathology have trumped those about who we are and what we need. Consequently, we know more about human differences than we do about our many human similarities.

In contrast, the Bible is written from the perspective that we are all related by a common origin and nature. Therefore, there are many commonalities – certain things bring benefit to humanity and certain things harm.

Clinical Psychology provides little instruction in morality. Since when have you ever heard a psychologist say that “righteousness exalts a nation” (Proverbs 14:34) or “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52) or “he who sows wickedness will reap trouble” (Proverbs 22:8)? Since when has modern psychology preached that you have a responsibility to care for your parents or the new life in your womb? Instead, it’s a matter of what feels right for you!

However, what might feel right, in the short run, becomes poison down the road. Steroids might take the 100-yard-dash, but might fail to take you across the final finish-line. The affair might fill you with excitement but leave you with years of regret. We need a moral roadmap, one that will enable us to avoid the dead-ends.

Western Missions, Western Guilt

2011-12-08T11:12:00.001-05:00

Hwa Yung, the bishop of the Methodist Church of Malaysia, is concerned about the waning of Western missions. He cites Western guilt and charges of “imperialism” as major culprits, and he wants to counteract these.

For one thing, intellectuals from the newly established countries,

• Long for their countries to become modern democracies with advanced economies. They do not buy into the secularization theory that suggests that the unique, finely balanced combination of democracy, political stability with checks and balances in government, civil society, human rights undergirded by a strong a just legal system, and an advanced economy with minimal corruption will emerge willy-nilly with modernization. They have looked at the 20th-century experiment called Marxism, perhaps the most secular of ideologies, and have found it utterly wanting for either the prosperity or the freedoms they seek. (Christianity Today, Nov. 2011, 44)

This conclusion should be a matter of common-sense, but it certainly isn’t common. Oddly, the secularists of the Western university credit secularism with Western successes. Meanwhile, they have substituted moral relativism for a commitment to moral absolutes and marvel speechlessly before the various moral-economic-social-political woes that are now afflicting the West. This is because they are unwilling to give credit where credit is due:

• These intellectuals have reached the same conclusions as those of the late American legal scholar Harold Berman and the sociologist Rodney Stark: The moral values, legal principles, and psychological basis of the best modern Western civilizations came from their Christian history. Thus, many, like Chinese cultural Christians, see the gospel alone as able to provide adequate moral foundations for rejuvenating their nations.

Oddly, we in the West have lost vision of this fact. In fact, it has even become politically incorrect to make such observations, which can imperil one’s livelihood.

Yung cites a 2008 article in The Times (UK) by Matthew Parris, a journalist and former British MP, reflecting on his visit to Malawi:

• Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOS, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good…Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone, and the machete.

Well, haven’t Christian missions undermined indigenous culture? Isn’t there a basis for Western guilt? Yung cites Yale professor Lamin Sanneh claims that “Christian missions actually helped to preserve cultures and languages” through the translation of the Bible into “vernacular languages”:

• As he put it, “Christian missions are better seen as a translation movement, with consequences for vernacular revitalization, religion change and social transformation, than as a vehicle for Western cultural domination.” I don’t know of any serious scholar refuting Sanneh’s thesis.

If we are concerned about the advancement of the Third World, then missions should be encouraged. In her discussion of the missionaries to Africa, historian Ruth Tucker acknowledges that, while there were missionaries who also understood their role as one of westernizing the natives,

• They, more than any other outside influence, fought against the evils colonialism and imperialism brought. They waged long and bitter battles…the heinous traffic in human cargo. And after the demise of the slave trade they raised their voice against other crimes, including the bloody tactics King Leopold used to extract rubber from the Congo. The vast majority of missionaries were pro-African, and their stand for racial justice often made them despised by their European brothers. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that without the conscience of Christian missions, many of the crimes of colonialism would have gone entirely unchecked. (“From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya,” 140).

All of this should give renewed emphasis to Jesus’ words:

• Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

The Bible, Jack Rogers, and Gay Rights

2011-12-07T13:50:00.004-05:00

Here is my letter to a very special gay friend:

Thanks so much for Jack Rogers’ book (Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality). I read it with much interest, trying to understand how an Evangelical would come to the conclusion that the Bible doesn’t forbid homosexuality, at least for today. Although I’m still confused about this, Rogers did provoke me enough to write a short rebuttal:

Central to Rogers’ position are the methods by which we interpret the Bible:

• I saw a clear picture of a shift from a literalistic method of biblical interpretation to one that looks at Scripture through the lens of the redeeming life and ministry of Jesus Christ. (16)

This statement is very confusing to an educated Evangelical. This is because we also try to understand the Bible contextually. This means that it’s important to take into account the type of literature we are trying to interpret. Some are highly literal and some figurative, like the sayings of Jesus.

We also are quick to make use of the “lens of the redeeming life and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We too want our interpretation to conform to the reality of His work and teachings. The Apostles certainly did! Whatever distinction Rogers was trying to make, one thing was clear – he didn’t approve of the way that Evangelicals had been interpreting Scripture.

Rogers then began to cite various instances where Evangelicals had historically been dead wrong in their interpretations – the use of tobacco disqualifying ordination, the justification of slavery, and the role of women. He then asks the rhetorical question,

• How could certain theologians and pastors be so confident that they understood the Scriptures, when we now believe that they were so wrong? What were the primary philosophical and theological resources of early America that directed people to think in ways that we now can hardly comprehend? (29)

Indeed, seeing our past mistakes – both personal and church-wide – should make us more self-examining. However, Rogers intends this lesson to be broader in scope:

• What is instructive about these examples is that a similar pattern is emerging today regarding people who are homosexual. Those who oppose homosexuality claim that (1) the Bible records God’s judgment against the sin of homosexuality from its first mention in Scripture; (2) people who are homosexual are somehow inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full heterosexual “Christian civilization”: and (3) people who are homosexual are willfully sinful, often sexually promiscuous and threatening, and deserve punishment for their own acts. The church is once again repeating the mistakes of the past. (34)

Rogers is not fair in his assessment. Those of us who regard homosexual practice as sin do not regard homosexuals as “inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full heterosexual…” This statement is blatantly mistaken. Although there might be extremists who think this way, this is not a position that can be honestly extracted from the Bible. Instead we believe that we are all sinners who are desperately in need the Savior.

Although it is true that some sins are more destructive than others (1 Cor. 6:18-19), it is also true that any sin can damn us. Consequently, we do not have the right to regard any as “inferior.” On the contrary, we are reminded that God chose this worlds rejects and low-life for salvation (1 Cor. 1:26-29), among whom I gladly number myself.

Roger’s characterization of us is lamentable, especially since it is found among so many championing gay rights. It is also hypocritical. While they show such exquisite sensitivity towards gays, they find nothing inconsistent about heaping unfair abuse upon those who don’t agree with them.

Roger’s position is also logically problematic. He argues that since Evangelicals have been wrong in the past, they are now wrong about homosexuality. To apply this logic further, it means that we can’t be right about anything – not Jesus, not the Cross, nor anything. However, I’m sure that Rogers has also been wrong about many of his past beliefs. According to his logic, wouldn’t it them mean that he is also wrong about homosexuality? Of course not! However, it’s important to recognize that his logic rules equally against him!

Rogers then inveighs against “rational analysis” in favor of “personal encounter,” suggesting that the former is rigid and dangerous:

• Fascism in Europe demonstrated the danger of a rigid worldview that did not allow for diversity of opinions. (38)

While it is true that a “rigid worldview” can be dangerous, it depends upon what one is rigid about. Rogers is rigid about gay rights, and most gay advocates have little use for the “diversity of opinions.” Instead, he credits the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner with substituting the rigidity of “rational analysis” with a more humanizing perspective:

• They did not view the Bible as a collection of inerrant facts, but as a very human document that reliably recorded a very real encounter of real people with a real God…The influence of neo-orthodoxy and the biblical theology movement enabled the church to take a fresh look at oppressive social institutions. (39)

Of course, if the Bible isn’t a “collection of inerrant facts,” then it has errors, and it’s up to us to recognize which parts are inspired and which aren’t. This means that we (and consequently our cultural conditioning) become the final arbiter of truth. It is no longer then a matter of Scripture judging us, but instead of we sitting in judgment over Scripture. If we really have that level of insight, then Scripture becomes irrelevant. If we have the capacity to judge Scripture, then we also have the capacity to produce the equivalent of Scripture.

According to neo-orthodoxy, Scripture then is merely “a very human document that reliably recorded a very real encounter.” If this is all that Scripture is, then why should the “encounters” of middle-eastern folk two thousand years ago be any more revealing and authoritative than my own encounters? If it’s just a “very human document,” then it shouldn’t be so! Only if it’s entirely God-breathed and thus inerrant is it worthy to govern my life.

Rogers slips between one point of view and another. Sometimes, it’s the fallible Bible that is at fault for our “oppressive social institutions,” and sometimes it’s the fault of the interpretation of the hated Evangelicals. However, most of the time, Rogers wants us to understand that our principles of interpretation are at fault. Consequently, he endorses the principle of love in contrast to a strict adherence to Scripture. Rogers inappropriately cites:

• He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:6)

Rogers wrongly concludes that the killing “letter” of the law pertains to Scripture. Therefore, if Scripture kills, we have to be very tentative about it. However, read contextually, the “letter” pertains to the Covenant of Moses, not to Scripture:

• Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was (2 Cor. 3:7)

Rogers sets forth “seven guidelines for interpretation.” (54) On the surface, they seem to be sound, but the devil is in the details. Number five reads:

• “Let all interpretations be in accord with the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor.” (62)

This is a sound and central Scriptural principle. However, Rogers explains:

• When we interpret Scripture in a way that is hurtful to people, we can be sure that we are not glorifying God. (62)

What does Rogers mean by “hurtful?” To explain, he cites his denominational report of 1983:

• “No interpretation of Scripture is correct that leads to or supports contempt for any individual or group of persons either within or outside the church…Any interpretation of Scripture is wrong that separates or sets in opposition love for God and love for fellow human being.” (62)

What does “contempt for any individual or group” entail? Any refusal to accept homosexuality as Biblically acceptable represents “contempt.” Well then, can we ever interpret Scripture as condemning any sin? Must we then not censure those who steal and lie because this would represent “contempt?” Should we also be accepting of adultery, pre-marital sex, polygamy, pedophilia, and prostitution? And isn’t Rogers demonstrating “contempt” for those who disagree with him and the historical interpretations of the church?

Does the prohibition against showing “contempt” for certain behaviors also rule out Jesus’ teaching in support of church discipline? He instructed the church to avoid those who refuse to repent:

• If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)

Wouldn’t the exercise of church discipline violate Jesus’ teaching? Wouldn’t this embody “contempt?” Rogers reinterprets “love” in terms of indulgence of various sexual lifestyles. He cites New Testament professor, Walter Wink, approvingly:

• “Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country…” (63)

It seems that Rogers and Wink are very ready to invoke the “love principle” of the Bible, in a way that supports their politics. However, once the Bible disagrees with the prevailing practices, then “Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow.” Very convenient! Why then even cite the Bible, if the true authorities are ultimately Rogers and Wink, drawing from the Bible what they find agreeable and discarding the rest?

Rogers is able to use his “love principle” to justify any form of self-indulgence. He applies this principle to the question of divorce and remarriage. In support, he cites his denominational statements:

• “Whenever free Protestant churches are studying this problem today in the light of Jesus’ total teachings on human relations, the trend is unmistakably away from a strictly legalistic approach to one more finely and fundamentally spiritual.” (43)

Sadly, this “fundamentally spiritual” approach can be used to justify just about any divorce:

• “Infidelity can be spiritual as well as physical and it manifests itself in many forms. It is therefore unrealistic to hold that divorce is permissible only when marriage has been broken by one or two forms of infidelity, both of which are physical acts.” (43)

Well, of what do “spiritual” grounds for divorce consist? Just about anything! If you don’t find your marriage romantic or spiritual enough, this newly discovered spiritual principle of “love” is enough to set you free from spouse and children or any commitment. Hence, the virtue of commitment is made to bow before personal fulfillment, now construed as a “spiritual” right.

It is pointless to examine how Rogers interprets the various texts that prohibit homosexuality. Clearly, he doesn’t regard these texts as authoritative. For him, what is authoritative is his contemporary understanding of “love.” Instead of trying to contextually understand a passage, he has already committed himself to imposing his doctrine of “love” upon it. However, I proceeded out of curiosity to see how he would explain them away.

Rogers firstly deals with the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19; also Judges 19:1-30):

• The central idea in these passages is the sacred obligation of hospitality for travelers. (70)…The sin of Sodom is mentioned several times elsewhere in the Bible, but never in connection with homosexual acts. (71)

It is most-likely true that Sodom had committed the sin of inhospitality. However, Rogers is mistaken that the Bible never mentions Sodom’s sin “in connection with homosexual acts.” The prophet Ezekiel cites numerous sins:

• Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

It wasn’t just that Sodom had been “arrogant…not help[ing] the poor and needy…haughty,” it also did “detestable” things – the very word (toebah) used to describe homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. However, the Letter of Jude is more specific:

• And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7)

Rogers’ other attempts to explain away the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality are equally unconvincing. Sadly, Christians have often proved themselves hasty to justify contemporary fads and to subtly introduce them into the church. Let us therefore pray that we might remain faithful to our Lord through His Word, a Word that is able to

• Build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

Secularism and the Death of “Equal Access”

2011-12-06T12:03:00.002-05:00

The First Amendment reads:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

When government rules that religious groups can no longer rent space at public schools, while allowing other community groups to do so, it violates the constitution: “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof…” It is also discriminatory and denies the principle of “equal access”:

• The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to review a more-than-16-year legal battle over a New York City “unequal access” policy. The policy discriminates against churches and other religious groups that desire to meet on weekends at public school facilities on the same terms as other groups. The high court’s decision not to weigh in on the Alliance Defense Fund case means that the policy can stand and that the New York City Department of Education can keep religious services out of public school buildings on weekends even though numerous other community groups use school space for their meetings. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-ignores-discrimination-against-religious-groups-in-public-sch?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b00971ab78-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_05_2011&utm_medium=email

Why this blatant hostility towards religious groups? It fits into the new and monopolistic stealth religion of secularism and religious pluralism. Here are some of its unwritten tenants:

1. All religions are the same and should be treated as such!
2. Secularism (materialism, atheism, naturalism) is not a religion.
3. Secularism is about facts, proofs, and evidences. Religion is about faith. Therefore, secularism should govern public discourse and decision-making. Religion should be kept private and confined to churches, mosques and synagogues.
4. Secularism is neutral and moderate. Religion is biased and extreme and therefore must be overseen by secularism.

These, of course, are the modern dogmas vigorously promoted by the media, schools, and government. However, they are all biased and reflect the secular version of religion. Instead:

1. Religions are very different.
2. Secularism is just as much a religion as the others, although it doesn’t entail any idea of a Supreme Being. Instead, the human being is supreme, at least some of them.
3. Secularism is just as much committed to their unprovable religious beliefs as are those groups they deem “religions.” For one thing, secularism believes and promotes “Naturalism.” However, this belief – everything happens and originates naturally – lacks the slightest scientific support. Secularism also unjustifiably dismisses the idea that other religions could have evidential support.
4. Secularism is anything but neutral. It’s all about its own self-promotion. Instead of allowing “equal access” to the public schools, secularism is actively and monopolistically promoting its own values.

Yes, we are diverse and must forge some way by which we can all live together under the umbrella of the USA. However, this cannot happen as long as secularism refuses to be transparent about its faith, goals, and policies. Without transparency, we can’t ever hope to have any meaningful conversation and compromise.

Corporate Repentance

2011-12-06T07:47:00.001-05:00

Below is an excerpt of a letter that one Christian wrote to the Occupy Movement and then my response to it:

• The value of your movement is in spontaneity, diversity, and flexibility. Do not let extreme ideologies hijack your movement. Do not let the media define who you are. Avoid every temptation to name a spokesperson or a leader, no matter how charismatic that person is. Keep pressing into raising questions more than giving answers. Be generous, mysterious, and enigmatic. A movement is organic and generative, and your passion must be carried into the conversation for the next generation, from Wall Street to dining room table discussions. Above all, do all things out of love.

I’m sure that the Christian means well by this advice, but is he really giving them a basis for hope? Although there might be some virtue in “spontaneity, diversity, and flexibility,” it only finds its value in leading to truth. In themselves, these qualities can just as easily lead to violence and revolution.

And why shouldn’t “media define who you are?” Why shouldn’t they stand for something of worth? What is the virtue of remaining undefined? I seems that such advice merely feeds into Occupy prejudices – big is bad; small is good; order is evil, while disorganization is “organic and generative.”

This seems to remove our attention from where it needs to be: The evil is inside each one of us. We all have a tremendous capacity to corrupt and hurt. There aren’t the good guys and the bad guys. There isn’t the good 99% and the evil 1% upon which we can vent and rail. Although this 1% might have a greater capacity to negatively impact many, so do movements, whether defined or undefined.

This letter advises, “Keep pressing into raising questions more than giving answers.” Questions are only valuable as a possible vehicle to bring us to valuable answers. Why do research if it fails to shed light on a particular question? If Occupy wants to be heard, they need something to say. If they can’t come up with any answers, how can they expect anyone to meaningfully address the problems – and there are many.

Maybe it might sound clichéd, but maybe the answer might be corporate repentance, seeing that we have the same root of greed within ourselves? Maybe the many problems that confront us require a particular spiritual solution and not an undefined movement? Maybe it might involve the recognition that we are sinners who need the Savior? Maybe it requires the acknowledgement that the more we have moved away from the Savior, the more our problems have multiplied?

The Constitutional Convention had been meeting for five weeks, and had hit a perilous deadlock. The large states were insisting that congressional representation be based on population; the smaller states wanted a one-state-one-vote rule. According to James Madison, the Deist, Ben Franklin, broke the impasse:

• Mr. President…In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

• I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

• To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

• I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-

Hence, the impasse was broken! Perhaps we too as a nation need to revisit these wise words!

De-Christianizing the Military

2011-12-05T14:02:00.003-05:00

It was by George Washington’s insistence that his troops would have chaplains. He and others recognized that their war was a moral one, and victory required that the highest moral standards had to be maintained. On July 9th, l776, he wrote to the Continental Congress:

• The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives - To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.

Much has changed. The de-Christianizing of America has become more than a matter of removing crèche scenes and crosses. On Dec. 2, 2011, the Family Research Council (FRC) revealed:

• The soldiers who wake up in Walter Reed Medical Center are in Maryland--not communist China. But under the Navy's new rules, they may not know the difference…And this time, it has a high-value target: the Bible. In a memo obtained by FRC, Navy officials have announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit." The new orders are buried in a four-page document about patient care, which an Army officer forwarded to us in disbelief. Effective immediately, families, friends, and even pastors will have to check their beliefs at the door to visit one of the largest military hospitals in the United States .

• Last night, after we circulated the memo to leaders on the Hill, an outraged Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took to the House floor and blasted the policy. "Mr. Speaker, these military men and women who are recovering at Walter Reed and Bethesda have given their all for America ... They've defended and taken an oath to the Constitution, and here they are. The people that come to visit them can't bring a religious artifact? They can't bring a Bible? ...A priest can't walk in with the Eucharist and offer communion to a patient who might be on their deathbed because it's prohibited in this memo from the Department of the Navy?"

Washington and the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by these developments. While we are no longer allowed to give away a Bible in certain circumstance, other religions are being promoted in the military. The LA Times reported on Nov. 26, 2011 that,

• The [US Air Force] academy this year dedicated an $80,000 outdoor worship center — a small Stonehenge-like circle of boulders with propane fire pit — high on a hill for the handful of current or future cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of "Earth-based." Those include pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths.

All forms of sexual contact are also becoming protected behaviors – unlike the giving away of a Bible – within the US military

• On Nov. 15 [2011], the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military

These developments, along with many other similar ones, are truly troubling, at least for me. How do I cope? We justifiably realize our insignificance when pitted against these powerful and destructive societal shifts. However, such threats are nothing new to the people of God. David confidently proclaimed: “When I am afraid, I will trust in you. (Psalm 56:3).

Trust is central, when faithfulness to the Gospel can result in jail. This is the very situation that confronted Peter and the others, when they were brought before the threatening Court. However, they did not buckle but proclaimed, "We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). God help us!

How Much Evidence Does It Take To Convert An Atheist?

2011-12-02T14:22:00.001-05:00

How much evidence does it take to convert an atheist? The evidence is already out there, available to all, but by itself, it won’t convert a single person.

In our DNA in just one cell, we have over three billion bits of information, and there’s no natural explanation for even a single bit. In fact, DNA can’t even be produced in a laboratory “by mixing of the four chemical components from which DNA is constructed. According to Bruce Malone,

• All attempts to do so have been as fruitless as trying to develop any of the 22 million books in the Library of Congress by having a monkey randomly doodle symbols on a piece of paper. (Inspired Evidence)

DNA is a wonder. Even the lowly protein defies any natural explanation. It is only produced in a living cell. Astoundingly, proteins are required to produce proteins. This begs the question, “Where did the original proteins come from?”

The atheist is forced to hypothesize that they somehow naturalistically self-assemble. However, this hypothesis contradicts the very nature of proteins (and DNA). If natural forces assembled proteins through the natural attraction of their parts – the amino acids – we should expect to find only a very limited number of proteins, predictably structured in repeated patterns according to forces that always operate formulaically. (Besides, there is no evidence that they do this.) Frozen water always produces ice. However, proteins take many forms and perform many different and specialized operations.

However, when we consider DNA, we take a design and complexity quantum leap. Malone writes,

• One gram of DNA can hold as much information as one trillion CDs. Stated another way, this information storage system is so efficient that a microscope spec smaller than a dust particle could hold a copy of every high resolution movie ever produced – with room to spare for every movie made for the next hundred years.

How many such wonders does it take to change a heart? What if we were to see someone rise from the dead? The conversion of the caterpillar into the butterfly is a virtual resurrection from the dead. The caterpillar actually dies and comes to life as a beauty butterfly. Our hearts should exult!

Buying Sex

2011-12-02T11:36:00.003-05:00

The African nation of Nigeria refused to be bought:

• Nigeria’s Senate passed a ban on same-sex “marriage” Tuesday in the face of threats by UK Prime Minister David Cameron of aid cuts to African countries that fail to uphold special rights for homosexuals. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nigerias-senate-passes-same-sex-marriage-ban-defying-uk-aid-threats?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7bebc88ad8-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_01_2011&utm_medium=email

Senator David Mark, president of Nigeria’s upper house, commented:

• If there is any country that wants to stop giving aid because we won’t pass the bill on same sex marriage, that country can go ahead…We are a sovereign nation and we have the right to decide for ourselves because no country can interfere in the way we run our country. Same sex marriage [SSM] is against our own culture and tradition and against our beliefs.

PM Cameron responded that British aid:

• should have more strings attached…We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights, and that includes how people treat gay and lesbian people.

Certainly, donor nations have a responsibility to oversee their grants. If these grants are used to support oppression, then the donor is somehow implicated. This raises the question of whether SSM is a “proper human right?” It also must answer secularism’s biggest problem: “Where do rights come from, and what are the implications if rights are something that humans grant to themselves?”

If Cameron tries to make his appeal for the right of SSM on absolute moral law, he has a major problem. As presumptive spokesmen for absolute moral law, all the major religions give no sanction to SSM. If instead he attempts to base his appeal on pragmatic considerations, he is confronted with a barrage of statistics revealing massive costs of the gay lifestyle – greatly diminished life-spans and higher levels of disease, depression, suicide and substance abuse.

I don’t even think that Cameron could base his appeal for the “human right” of SSM on a possible international consensus – even including the “bought” nations. Even if he could do this, the question then arises: “Isn’t this little more than the tyranny of the majority? Numbers make rights? And why should majority opinion be adequate to establish a human right?” Does majority opinion establish physical laws? No! Why then should it establish moral laws or rights?

I don’t even think that Cameron would agree that a “human right” is no longer a human right once the majority rules against it. Genocide isn’t a crime against humanity only when a majority of nations agree that it is. That would make the judgment against genocide completely arbitrary and mutable – far from the status of a human right.

Besides, if nations are the ones who grant human rights, then nations can also abrogate them. However, the weight of “human rights” arguments must rest on more than changing fads. It must rest on laws that transcend the changing fads, and these laws can only find their support in a Transcendent unchanging truth, and the Transcendent moral truth can only exist if there is a Transcendent moral truth Giver. However, this is ground upon which no true secularist wants to tread.

In this regard, I like what secular humanist Max Hocutt wrote:

• To me [the non-existence of God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed. (Understanding the Times)

Indeed, without God, human rights are no more than social conventions. What then can Cameron say when Nigeria retorts,

• “What makes your values or rights any more moral or biding than ours? Isn’t this just another example of your arrogant cultural imperialism!”

I do hope that Nigeria will press this issue!

Separation Church and State: What does it Mean?

2011-12-01T12:13:00.004-05:00

Can the USA promote religion according to the constitution? This is a heated subject, which continues to arise. For instance,

• A three-judge panel of the court has upheld the Elmbrook School District's argument that holding graduation ceremonies at a church because of space and comfort for those attending did not promote religion. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1486184

Although I agree with the decision, I don’t with the rationale. For one thing, wherever Elmwood might have decided to hold its graduation, a philosophy or religion would have been present, even among those groups that reject the label of “religion.” If the graduation was held at the Secular Humanist Society, it could equally be argued that Elmwood was promoting the religion of Secular Humanism. After all, this belief system has its own values based upon the belief that humanity has the final say.

Even if Elmwood had merely rented a commercial hall, it could still be argued that this business is promoting the capitalistic ideal, which it is, at least indirectly!

Every decision and law implies morality and value judgments, unless decisions are merely about reacting animalisticly and mindlessly. Is it possible then for the State to not promote religion? Definitely not! Every law must be justified religiously/morally. It has to serve the moral ideal of the State, even if it’s just in terms of “the welfare of the people.”

However, we have different beliefs about the “welfare of the people.” Whose view is right? Secularists believe that there should be almost total freedom in the area of sexual expression and family. Christians believe that certain forms of sexuality will ultimately destroy the State and family. Secularists favor State control of education, while Christians would have the locality and family have greater input into the process.

Too often however, the Secularists define “religion” in a biased way in order to eliminate certain groups from the conversational table. They define Muslims, Hindus and Christians as “religions,” while they conveniently dissociate themselves from this label. This allows them to maintain their influence within the public forum while eliminating the competition.

These issues have become increasingly contentious as the budget and domain of State control has increased. Relations between church and State seem to be in the center of the conflict. Conflict has centered upon the question of the church’s role beyond its own pews.

Originally, this relationship had been defined by the First Amendment:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

What does it mean that Congress should not pass a law establishing a religion? For almost two hundred years, it meant just that – not passing a law making one denomination the State religion – and the vast majority was very happy with this separation.

Clearly, it was never understood that the Separation Clause would prevent the Federal Government from endorsing religious principles. For example, George Washington’s “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation” (1789) read:

• It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness…

In fact, the Founding Fathers – a number of whom weren’t even Christians – all seemingly believed that the Biblical faith was essential to the well-being of their nation. However, things have changed. In the US Supreme Court 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, the majority ruled:

• The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means a t least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. (Quoted from Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, 34)

While the “establishment clause” forbade setting up a state religion, there was never any mention of the government not “aid[ing]” religion. Such an understanding would and does constitute unjust state favoritism of groups not formally considered religions. For instance, in NYC, a bill has been pushed to prevent churches from renting space at public schools. Meanwhile, this bill would not prohibit atheist or AA groups from renting space. This amounts to a violation of the principle of “equal access.”

Similarly, the US Supreme Court decision of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) ruled that government actions,

• Must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. (34)

Sadly, these faulty interpretations have been used hypocritically to silence the Christian voice in favor of a militaristic, totalitarian secular voice, which has promoted “values clarification,” religious pluralism, moral relativity, sexual freedom, and the diminishing of family influence. Even home-schooling and whatever is deemed politically incorrect have come under attack. It is ironic that the very “separation clause” that had guaranteed that the State would make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, would now be used to restrict parental rights to raise their children according to their faith.

Does the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Open the Door to Other Things?

2011-11-30T16:27:00.001-05:00

Does the legalization of same-sex marriage provide the slippery-slope for the legalization of other forms of marriage like polygamy? Many would claim that it does! However, those who are instrumental in legalizing same-sex marriage deny the slippery-slope:

• Chief Justice Robert Bauman criticized this view for “miss[ing] the whole point.” “Committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage,” he said, adding that the “doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/polygamy-ruling-revisited-judge-takes-swipe-at-alarmist-views-of-gay-marria?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d096ce6082-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_29_2011&utm_medium=email

However, there are good reasons to expect that opening this door will undermine the institution of marriage. For one thing, gays are known to be notoriously promiscuous. Psychiatrist and Yale and Harvard lecturer, Jeffrey Satinover writes that while sexual faithfulness is relatively high among married heterosexuals – “90 percent of women and more than 75 percent of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex” – the picture among gay men is very different:

• A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous – generally defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners…A 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners…Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were total strangers. (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 55)

Perhaps more important is Judge Bauman’s faulty reasoning. He claims that the “doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage.” On the basis of what? Certainly, his contention isn’t based upon what is physically natural, or what bears children, or the teachings of any of the major world religions. It’s based on one thing only – the right to choose!

Therefore, if marriage is based upon the right to choose, then there is no longer any rationale to deny the right to choose to the polygamist or the pedophile. (After all, why should the right to choose be denied to the adolescent? Already, they can choose to engage in sex or to have an abortion!)

Society has opened a wide door. Soon, we will find that we can no longer shut it. Besides, there will be few left who even want to shut it.

“Hate Speech” Regulations vs. Free Speech

2011-11-30T12:16:00.002-05:00

Before, restrictions on free speech involved only speech that would put others in direct harm – libel or speech inciting violence. Such speech could meaningfully be called “hate speech.” Now many universities – 97% of them – have adopted policies that define “hate speech” as speech that might possibly offend others relative to race, gender, religion, disability, national origin or “sexual orientation.”

However, it’s not merely “offensive” speech about “orientation” that has become punishable but also speech that questions the morality of certain sexual behavior. Specifically, questioning the virtue of homosexual behavior has been proscribed. Ironically, the university is supposed to be about responsible inquiry! However, questioning the correctness of homosexuality has become off-limits! Students can still discuss the morality and viability of polygamy, rape, bestiality, pedophilia, open marriages, and even masturbation without risking censure.

Censuring responsible inquiry and speech undermines the very credibility and rationale of the university. Can we take seriously then any studies that come out of the university on the subject of homosexuality? Why should we if any experiment or findings that might reflect negatively on this lifestyle will be prejudicially attacked or suppressed, while the positive “findings” will be trumpeted in support of university policy. Lies have become unnecessary when one is free to report in an unbalanced manner!

Fortunately, for the most part, the courts have ruled against this restriction on free speech. Wayne Grudem cites several instances of universities that have been ruled against in this regard:

• Georgia Tech University…engaged in viewpoint discrimination by defunding religious student groups, and fostered a state-approved religious view of homosexual behavior by informing students to shun religious groups that do not affirm homosexual behavior. (Politics According to the Bible, 492)

Oddly, Georgia Tech didn’t see their own speech to be in violation of their own regulations against religious discrimination. Grudem cites several other examples:

• Savannah State University in Georgia quickly settled with a student group that had been dismissed from campus for engaging in “harassment,” because they shared their faith with other students. (493)

• SFCC [Spokane Falls Community College] officials threatened Beth Sheeran and members of a Christian student group with disciplinary measures, including expulsion, if they chose to hold a pro-life event on campus to share information with other students, because the message was “discriminatory” and did not include a pro-abortion viewpoint. The school eventually settled. (493)

Ironically, university non-discrimination policies are often used to discriminate:

• Rutgers University used a “nondiscrimination” statement to require an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship to accept leaders who reject the Group’s Christian beliefs.

How hypocritical. Would this university have required a Breast-Cancer-Survival group to accept males as leaders? RU isn’t alone in this hypocrisy. Arizona State and the University of North Carolina have brought similar charges.

Most famously, the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco required their student Christian Legal Society (CLS) to open up membership and leadership to non-Christians. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court ruled against the CLS student group by a 5-4 decision. Many similar cases are still pending.

Charges of “hate speech” have silenced many Christians. Gruden explains:

• Almost uniformly, such “hate speech” codes constitute wrongful restriction of freedom of speech. For the twenty years or so that such speech codes were allowed to operate freely on American campuses, they no doubt contributed to a remarkable muzzling of conservative moral and religious ideas (and probably conservative political ideas as well). Therefore, they effectively indoctrinated students in more liberal moral, political, and religious values. (495)

It is so ironic that what is now considered “hate speech” had once been considered essential speech by the Founding Fathers of this nation, many of whom weren’t Christians. Nevertheless, they all believed that the Christian faith and Biblical teaching were essential to the flowering of their new nation. In his 1796 Farewell Address, the beloved George Washington reiterated these broadly accepted sentiments:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The very thing that Washington had called “indispensable,” is now called “hate speech.” John Adams, who became a Unitarian, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to his cousin Samuel:

• , founded in the supposition or expectation of extraordinary degrees of virtue [apart from Christianity], are evidently chimerical.

According to the Fathers, whether Christian or not, the Christian foundation of this nation was a necessity to “All projects of government.” The Frenchman, deist and lapsed Catholic, Alexis de Tocqueville, extensively traveled the States, starting in 1831, endeavoring to investigate the stability and monumental success of this new republic. In Democracy in America, he wrote,

• The religious atmosphere was the first thing that struck me on arrival in the United States.

Historian Thomas Kidd writes further about Tocqueville’s observations:

• The partnership of religion and liberty lay at the heart of America’s political success. To Tocqueville, the American’s Christian ethos kept democracy’s worst features in check…Freedom by itself would inexorably degenerate into rabid selfishness, but religion nurtured the purposefulness of freedom. In the American model, according to Tocqueville, ‘freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights.’” (God of Liberty, 245)

• Tocqueville manifested a view of religion not unlike that of several prominent founding fathers, including Jefferson…maintaining that it was essential for the masses to keep believing in Christianity—or at least in good and evil—and in the eternal rewards in the afterlife.

Sadly, we have become so entrenched in our cultural biases that we are unable to see that what we call “hate speech” is actually “essential” speech.

In 1863 the US Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln – and Lincoln gladly acquiesced -- to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer” (Grudem 500):

• [S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offenses which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States…to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America)

If only we would have the understanding and character to ask if we have committed “offenses which have provoked His righteous judgment!”

Traditional Marriage

2011-11-30T06:52:00.003-05:00

When nations safeguard the institution of marriage, they safeguard themselves. Consequently, theologian Wayne Grudem writes,

• The history of marriage laws in the United States shows that society has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging marriage between one man and one woman because of the great benefits that this institution gives to society in multiple ways, benefits that no other relationship or institution can give. (Politics According to the Bible)

Many court decisions have reflected this fact. For instance, the Indiana Court of Appeals stated this in 2005:

• The State of Indiana has a legitimate interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to enter and remain in, as far as possible, the relatively stable institution of marriage for the sake of children who are frequently the natural result of sexual relations between and man and a woman. One commentator put it succinctly as follows: “The public legal union of a man and a woman is designed…to protect the children that their sexual union regularly promotes.” (Morrison vs. Sadler)

It’s not only the USA that has come to his insight. It has been the consensus throughout history. Aristotle wrote,

• Since the legislator should begin by considering how the frames of the children whom he is rearing may be as good as possible, his first care will be about marriage – at what age should his citizens marry, and who is fit to marry. (Politica)

But is traditional marriage really essential to the welfare of the children? In The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher write:

• A preschooler living with one biological parent and one step-parent was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two natural parents. (159).

Another study similarly concluded:

• Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture. (www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0907-schneider)

We are led to believe that cohabitation provides a greater measure of protection for the spouse and for abused children. It is argued that the mother could more easily remove herself from an abusive situation if there isn’t a legally binding marriage. However, the statistics demonstrate the very opposite thing:

• Spanish statistics, which have been highlighted in recent years by Europe’s Family Policy Institute (FPI), and recently reported by the Spanish Newspaper ABC, indicate that while only 11% of Spanish couples cohabit without marriage, such unions account for 58% of the most violent crimes between couples. For every one protection order issued for a married couple, ten are issued for cohabiting couples. (LifeSiteNews.com)

• Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful…Depression is three times more likely…The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five-fold greater…and 90% more likely to have a low GPA…Abuse of children is 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend. (Gallagher)

• A large body of research shows that marriage is much less dangerous for women than cohabitors…1987-88 National Survey of Families and Households: married people are much less likely than cohabiting couples to say that arguments between them and their partners had become physical in the past year (4% of married people compared to 13% of the cohabiting).” (155)

Psychiatrist and Yale and Harvard lecturer, Jeffrey Satinover, raises concerns about alternative marriages, claiming that male homosexual practice removes 25-30 years in life expectancy:

• We are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between he bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of he bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier …whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom. As a result, homosexual men ae disproportionately vulnerable to a host of serious and sometimes fatal infections caused by the entry of feces into the bloodstream. These include hepatitus B and the cluster of otherwise rare conditions…known as the “Gay Bowel Syndrome.” (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 51)

There are many elements of the homosexual lifestyle that can adversely impact children. Health and diminished lifespan are only two of them. Satinover writes that while sexual faithfulness is relatively high among married heterosexuals – “90 percent of women and more than 75 percent of heterosexual men have never engaged in extramarital sex” – the picture among gay men is very different:

• A 1981 study revealed that only 2 percent of homosexuals were monogamous or sem-monogamous – generally defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners…A 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners…Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were total strangers. (55)

Why aren’t these concerns ever raised in the media, an institution supposedly committed to balanced reporting and to making our leaders accountable? Meanwhile, cohabitation has almost become the norm and same-sex marriage has been legalized in a handful of states, always in opposition to the popular vote and without a word of protest from the mainstream media. Nor is our National Institute of Health sounding an alarm.

Consensus Science and Why We should be Suspicious

2011-11-29T10:20:00.004-05:00

I was having a very pleasant conversation with a woman about faith. She then maneuvered the conversation to the question of evolution. It felt like a trap, but I allowed myself to be stood up at the firing line. “Do you believe in evolution,” she asked. If I said that I did, I would pass the test. If I said that I didn’t, the firing squad would be ordered to shoot.

“I think that there are many problems with macro-evolution,” I cautiously responded.

“Well, you just lost me. If you want to be ignorant and oppose science, that’s your business.” She then abruptly hastened away, confident that she had delivered the decisive knock-out blow. However, she wasn’t even a scientist. As far as I could tell she hadn’t even read extensively on the subject. Whhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifere then did her very obvious confidence come from? She had put her faith in our prevailing and ubiquitous cultural biases.

We are too ready to adopt the present consensus of the scientific community as truth. However, there are many good reasons for caution. :

• This is a word redolent of the state of contemporary science. It is a political word, not a scientific one. Most of the great innovations in science have been by individuals, or very small groups, striking out from the prevailing opinion to establish new frontiers. As Einstein is reputed to have remarked, when the Nazis published a book in which one hundred German scientists pronounced him wrong, “It only needed one of them to be right.” There was indeed a “consensus” in physics at the start of the twentieth century that “the science is settled”, but that was blown apart by Einstein and his contemporaries. Most of the great breakthroughs in science are made by those who are in a minority of one. The moral pressure to join the consensus and support the establishment view is substantial, even carrying the threat of dismissal. Such things have no place in a free society. This is not persuasion, it is enforcement. Research funding is exclusively given to proponents of establishment theories and denied to opponents. It is a remarkable tribute to the human spirit that so many dare stand up to the bullies and accept the contemptuous label of “denialist” (not that the general public ever get to hear of them). Others, who have family responsibilities, have to preserve their reservations for private conversation.
Meanwhile, the contemporary consensus club gets all the grants and university positions. If you are not part of this club, you get nothing apart from ridicule and ostracism. The club also has the power to publish whatever studies promote the consensus and suppress whatever findings fail to promote it. The media then falls behind the club’s credentials and reports only its trusted conclusions. Those who oppose the club are marginalized and dismissed as cranks. For instance, the scientists at the Discovery Institute are maligned as religious fanatics who know nothing about science.

It is therefore difficult to see through the club’s assertions that their position is fact. It is also difficult to not adopt the condescending attitudes that cling to these assertions, like mold to rotten food.

Truth has Died and Politics Reigns as King

2011-11-26T17:20:00.002-05:00

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared the death of God, and when God died, so also did truth. At least, it seems that way. Truth has now become merely what you feel or prefer. It’s your political preferences, your likes and dislikes.

This becomes tragic when brought into government – a body that depends on its legitimacy in the eyes of the governed. Judges must judge according to unchanging principles of truth and justice. Politicians must conduct themselves according to moral principles broadly regarded as truth. They must not steal and sell their favors. They must not use their power for obtain sexual favors. When they fail to conduct themselves according to truth, cynicism and general deterioration occur. When they fail to represent the people but instead the narrow interests of their own political party, the nation suffers. Proverbs remind us that,

• Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Roe v. Wade) overturned the laws of all 50 fifty states which either prohibited or restricted abortion, thereby allowing women to abort until the point of “viability.”

How did the Court justify taking such a radical move? The Court claimed that abortion violated the Fourteenth Amendment:

• Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Court claimed that this Amendment safeguarded a woman’s “right to privacy.” However, the Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to privacy. Nor was there any legal precedent to regard abortion as a matter of privacy. Besides, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, 36 States and territories had laws against abortion. The Amendment didn’t do anything to undermine these laws, nor was it ever intended to do so. Instead, its purpose was to guarantee that the newly released slaves wouldn’t be deprived of their liberties. However, it’s always possible to find something in the Constitution to support one’s sentiments!

Today, politics trumps everything else – truth, fairness, the will of the majority and even the Constitution. In 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court. According to Wayne Grudem, “he had been called the most able constitutional scholar in the United States,” but his nomination was opposed because,

• They [those Senators in favor of abortion on demand] realized that if Bork’s nomination were confirmed, a majority on the Supreme Court would oppose and probably overturn the Roe v. Wade decision regarding abortion. (Politics According to the Bible, 146)

Three years after his failed nomination, Bork wrote,

• In the past few decades American institutions have struggled with the temptations of politics. Professions and academic disciplines that once possessed a life of their own have steadily succumbed, in some cases almost entirely, to the belief that nothing matters beyond politically desirable results, however achieved. In this quest, politics invariably tried to dominate another discipline, to capture and use it for politics’ own purposes…It is coming to be denied that anything counts, not logic, not objectivity, not even intellectual honesty, that stands in the way of the “correct” political outcome.

Politics and its short-sighted gains trump everything else. Bork continues:

• In law, the moment of temptation is the moment of choice, when a judge realizes that in the case before him his strongly held view of justice, his political and moral imperative, is not embodied in a statute or in any provision of the Constitution. He must then choose between his version of justice and abiding by the American form of government…To give in to temptation, this one time, solves an urgent human problem, and a faint crack appears in the American foundation. A judge [who is supposed to interpret the law, not legislate it] has begun to rule where a legislator should. (The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law)

This may not seem like a big deal, but it is monumental. By using elastic principles of interpretation of the law, it is possible for judges to find just about any justification to suit their own tastes. These “interpretations” then become law. Actually, they are little different from new legislation and not strict legal interpretations, and these have the power to invalidate the popular vote as “unconstitutional.”

A good example of this is Proposition 8, limiting marriage to one male and one female. Twice, it was passed by popular vote, and twice it was declared “unconstitutional. The lawyer who challenged Prop 8 erroneously argued that “the Establishment Clause [that a State religion mustn’t be established]…says that a majority is not entitled to impose its religious beliefs on a minority.”

However, the Constitution and every state constitution say nothing about the right of same-sex marriage. It’s merely an invention! Yet, the courts have declared this prohibition “unconstitutional,” even against public opinion. Where then do they derive the justification for their actions? Again, politics triumphs over truth.

Judge Richard Posner of the US Court of Appeals sums up the injustice of one judge deciding for everyone else this way:

• Nothing in the Constitution or its history suggests a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. If there is such a right, it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth. The exercise of so freewheeling a judicial discretion in the face of adamantly opposed public opinion would be seriously undemocratic. It would be a matter of us judges, us enlightened ones, forcing our sophisticated views on a deeply unwilling population. (Quoted from Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, 229)

Why isn’t the media screaming out against such violations? Grudem argues that,

• There is a strong media bias in favor of more liberal policies and in favor of Democratic policies and candidates…This means that the “watchdog” function that should be played by a free press is largely missing from the national media. (586)

Truth and integrity fall before politics and self-interest.

Winding Down: The Reality of Deterioration

2011-11-26T10:47:00.002-05:00

My computer had flat-lined. The tech-people explained that they gradually accumulate corrupted information. They don’t correct themselves. A dedicated software expert has to go in to correct them, and this does require a lot of intelligent dedication.

It’s like the mutations and corruptions that gradually accumulate in our own human genome and are passed along from generation to generation. I began to wonder why the information decay within my computer program wouldn’t produce at least one beneficial change. My computer never gets faster, smarter, or acquires more memory on its own. I’ve never heard of a computer that began performing a new and improved operation, and why should it?

Everything falls apart. Our tech-person told me that I might want to consider purchasing a new computer in a year or two. I didn’t think of asking him about the possibility that my computer might just improve with age. However, this is the very thing that macro-evolution asserts – development in time.

However, this is not what we are finding. Instead, our genome continues to suffer deterioration, just like my computer programs. Bruce Malone writes,

• This [collection of defects] is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.

The commitments and presuppositions of evolution can blind us to the weight of these findings, according to John C. Stanford:

• Modern science has difficulty explaining why cells stop making perfect copies. This is because modern science assumes evolution to be a fact which requires a belief that we are increasing in complexity – evolving upwards. Therefore, cell reproduction should be getting better with time, not worse. Furthermore, if humans have been around for 1 million years (or more), then there have been over 20,000 generations of humans in existence. It is documented that every generation has between 100 and 1000 mistakes added to the DNA code. (Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Third Ed. 2008, 45-88)

If this is the case, we should expect to find de-evolution and not evolution, and this is exactly what we find in many respects. Richard Kleiss observes that

• One-third of all known species [of birds] on the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period…This evidence implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could possibly evolve into new types. (A Closer Look at the Evidence)

Tangentially, Kleiss also observes,

• If humans have evolved from less intelligent creatures, one would expect the earliest written languages to be the least complex. The opposite is true. The oldest languages are the most complex.

Our garbage dumps are a profound testimony that our computer do not last for long. Likewise, we have already lost 98% of our known species. Where are the replacement species, which evolution would expect to see? Instead, we seem to be winding down. Anyone see any new human species appearing or at least in progress?

Worry

2011-11-25T22:12:00.003-05:00

C.S. Lewis famously declared something like this:

• I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the sun. It’s not simply because I see it, but also by its light I can see everything else.

Christianity enables us to make sense of the entirety of our lives. It’s a roadmap that details the major roads and shows their relationships, thereby allowing us to successfully navigate the byways of life. In order to illustrate this claim, let’s look at Jesus’ teaching on “worry.”

In the Sermon on the Mount, He begins by warning that we can’t serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). We can’t serve both worry and God. They will necessarily be in competition for our allegiance. I can’t be responsive to God’s agenda and the needs of others if I’m worried about getting a promotion or making an appointment. I’d probably just pass by the motorist in need!

Jesus then launches into the problem of worry:

• "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?” (Matthew 6:25)

If life is merely a matter of food and body – the things of this material world – worry is inevitable. Each grey hair and pulled tooth becomes an assault on our personhood and identity. Life is a train on an inevitable crash-course with the grave. However, according to Jesus, “life” is far more than these passing things.

The Book of Hebrews informs us about how Jesus was able to endure the Cross. He endured by fixing His attention on “the joy set before him” (Hebrews 12:2-3). This means that if we lack the joyful expectation of being with our Lover for all eternity, we will have no other place to anchor our worried thoughts but on our deteriorating circumstances.

In contrast, the secular approach is unable to lift us out of the rut of our moribund physical existence. Edward Hallowell, instructor at the Harvard Medical School, and director of the Hallowell Center for Cognitive and Emotional Health, advises:

• Get the facts. Base worry on reality, rather than on a terrifying fantasy your imagination has concocted…The problems that reality provides are serious enough without adding to them in your imagination. (Worry, 296).

This is certainly sound advice. But what do we do when “reality” threatens our very faculties, friends, family, finances, and even our own existence? Hallowell advises exercise, reading, crying and having “a network of people on whom you can depend to give you reassurance” (296).

Indeed, this can be comforting, but the threatening problems still remain. Jesus understood that we need reassurances not only about the next life, but for this one also:

• Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. (Matthew 6:26-29)

Although the reassurances of our friends can be comforting, friends often lack the power – and sometimes even the willingness – to do anything about our situation. However, God is both willing and able. We can see this in how He provides for His creation. We observe its incredible beauty, artistry, functionality and sustainability.

Many will protest that this world instead is filled with pain and death. Although this is true, these observations need to be put into context. For the most part, our Creator does provide incredibly for His creation. They thirst for water, and He provides it. They hunger for food, and He supplies the appropriate nourishment. They need rest, and He provides sleep. They need companionship, and He provides family. I think that we have a tendency to focus on the unmet needs rather than the divine provisions.

Jesus also would have us question the utility of worry. What does it give us? As Jesus points out, worry can’t add “a single hour” to our lives. Others will protest that worry is important. It keeps us focused on a problem that requires a solution. Hallowell therefore writes:

• Separate out toxic worry from good worry. Remember that good worry amounts to planning. You need to plan…Toxic worry is unnecessary, repetitive, unproductive, paralyzing, frightening, and in general life-defeating. (295-96)

Hallowell seems to assume that anxious worry is unavoidable if our problems are to be addressed. If I’m hungry, I take a trip to the supermarket and get the job done. There’s no worry involved. This is because I’m confident that I can make the purchase. Worry comes when we lack confidence. However, life throws many things at us for which we shouldn’t rationally have any confidence, like being terminally ill.

However, this isn’t the end of the world. Jesus taught that we can do nothing without Him (John 15:4-5). Rather than a put-down, this was an invitation to draw closer to Him, casting all of our cares and worries upon Him.

Even if Hallowell is right that we can parcel out good from bad worry, exercising this form of mind-control is impossible for those of us who suffer from chronic worry. I chronically worried about my jalopy until I found a mechanic whom I could trust. Of course, I had to pay him his fee.

However, there are many problems that my mechanic couldn’t possibly address – not even my doctor. I need help from above, and I need to know that God really wants to help me even though I am unable to pay Him any wage. However, in so many ways, Jesus assured His followers that God is more than willing:

• “If that is how God [gloriously] clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” (Matthew 6:30-32)

Even if we are “of little faith,” Jesus assures us that this will not impede the Father’s cares for us. Jesus encourages us that we are His crowning achievement. Therefore, if He takes care of the animal and plant kingdoms, He will certainly care of us!

This is a view that is increasingly attacked in today’s universities, where it is common to hear, “Man created god in his own image. Therefore, man projects his own belief upon god that we are his crowning achievement. Instead, one life-form is no more valuable than the next.”

In contrast to this, Scripture uniformly informs us that we are special – the objects of God’s greatest concern. Besides, if these materialists tried to bring law into conformity with their philosophy, we would be foolishly brought up on murder charges for swatting a mosquito!

There is no greater protection against worry than the assurance of God’s love and protection. Clearly, Hallowell recognizes that we require a confidence beyond ourselves. He therefore advises,

• Make friends with angels. Even if you do not believe in angels, make up fictional angels in your imagination and allow yourself to become friends with them. This is not psychotic; it is helpful management of worry. (304)

Our ability to cope with worry and life’s problems is severely limited. Hence angels! Although Hallowell assures us that “this is not psychotic,” such a “friendship” will not bear fruit unless the worrier actually believes in it. However, in embracing this fantasy we sacrifice reality – the very thing that Hallowell had been preaching. However, he also advises,

• Have faith. In what, of course is up to you…Let go of your impossible need for control. (305)

Indeed, worry is concerned with maintaining control. We have to relinquish our demand for control in order to mitigate worry. But to whom? For Hallowell, imagination and fantasy trumps truth. While faith in a loving deity is powerful stuff, if the faith isn’t based upon truth, it will eventually fail us. Our faith needs to be nurtured by tangible evidences that He truly cares for us. This faith also has to be able to accurately explain our lives – our feelings, observations and experiences. It has to serve as an accurate roadmap or GPS.

Elsewhere, Jesus states,

• Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. (Matthew 10:29-30)

He loves the sparrows, but He loves us far more. Because of this love, He also has a yoke for us:

• But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

Our welfare is best served by serving God. If we put Him first, He’ll put us first. If we honor Him, He’ll honor us. However, this yoke of service is relatively light (Matthew 11:28-30). In fact, it’s a joy, providing our lives with wonder and meaning. Most of us would cherish the opportunity to polish the shoes of George Washington. How much more of my Savior Jesus!

Once again, His provisions are the very provisions we need to climb out from beneath the weight of our worries. I still fall prey to my worries. I come from a long line of worriers, and I have remained faithful to this family tradition. However, I have learned at whose feet to unload my baggage.

The Monopolistic Stealth Religion

2011-11-25T07:22:00.003-05:00

The West is so interconnected, not only by communication, politics and economics, but also by ideas – so much so that the innovations instituted in Europe and then in Canada soon come knocking at our door.

• Nearly a year after the Quebec government banned religion from the province’s subsidized daycares, they have signaled that they will extend the directive into daycares run in private homes…stipulating that government-funded daycares must not offer any activity that aims to teach a belief, dogma, or practice of a particular religion. The directive, which took effect June 1st, banned religious prayers, crafts, and songs – including many Christmas carols. Religious symbols, such as Christmas trees, crucifixes, and menorahs were allowed as cultural expressions, but staff cannot explain their religious significance.

Although this ruling doesn’t affect unsubsidized daycares, it would effectively drive them out of business. This is because they would be entirely unable to compete with the subsidized daycares:

• Unsubsidized daycares are unaffected by the directives, but they must compete with the $7-a-day program offered through government subsidies (which amount to around $40 a day per child).
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quebec-to-ban-prayer-in-home-based-daycares?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=69ac8bf9bf-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_24_2011&utm_medium=email

This ruling, as are many similar ones popping up in the West like ragweed from infertile soil, is nothing short of hypocrisy. Whenever a law is passed, a judgment is made, or even when a textbook is chosen, values must be invoked, one’s religious stance must be consulted, explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, when the Quebec government ruled against religion, it was stealthfully promoting its own relativistic religion. This was illuminated by another revelation made on Thanksgiving Day:

• The Canadian Press revealed today [11/24/11] that through an access to information request it has obtained a talking points brief by Conservative Government bureaucrats to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, advising the minister about how to approach the issue of religious freedom in a meeting with a Vatican official…The memo warned Baird to avoid the topic of a controversial and mandatory Quebec school course forcing children to be taught relativistic religion from which parents are unable to exempt their children. The course mandates that all religions be taught to children as if they were of equal value without preference to any specific religion. The course is mandated to be taught not only in public schools but also in private religious schools as well.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/revealed-conservative-govt-memo-to-minister-on-meeting-with-vatican?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=69ac8bf9bf-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_24_2011&utm_medium=email

Hypocritically, all of these instances of the imposition of secular moral-relativism are justified by an appeal to neutrality – that their program will be acceptable to people of all faiths. Clearly it won’t and can’t be.

For one thing, the West is promoting a new religion based on misinformation. All religions aren’t of “equal value” and they aren’t the same. Any religious practitioner will tell of great differences among them, and they yield entirely different fruit. The Heaven’s Gate suicide cult bore different fruit from the Shakers and the Animists. In fact, the very reason that the secularistic West has imposed its own ideas of moral-relativism and religious-pluralism reflects that fact that the secularists value their own religion more than they do the others.

But is a religion that teaches certain ethics – do not cheat, do not bully – apart from the belief in a supreme and loving deity superior? No! Instead, it is logically incoherent, self-refuting, and hypocritical.

From a moral-relativistic stance, it isn’t logical to impose any “should” or “ought” or any law for that matter. If morality is merely a matter of what the lone individual might be feeling or deciding at the moment, it shouldn’t become a “should” for anyone. Such a “morality” just doesn’t carry even an ounce of moral weight or judgment.

Once morality is cut off from a Supreme Being, there are no higher standards to which to aspire. We are left in the confusion of always introspecting our own feelings and decisions, where everyone’s whims carry the same moral “authority,” and where there is no definitive standard to decide among them. It’s nothing short of chaos!

Consequently, there is no way to demonstrate that bullying or cheating is wrong. They merely violate the arbitrary rulings that are presently in force.

If the new secularism is indeed superior, let the secularists demonstrate this fact openly and honestly instead of hiding behind the false claim of neutrality.

Salvation: What’s Required?

2011-11-24T07:59:00.002-05:00

Confidence in God is confidence about His gift of salvation. Knowing that salvation is a gift from start to finish enables us to take our attention away from ourselves, and whatever contribution we need to make, and place it gratefully and joyously upon our Savior. However, if we are not confident of this knowledge, our attention will recoil back upon ourselves. We will obsess about whether our performance is adequate enough or our good deeds plentiful enough to merit God’s grace.

Such an obsession will either produce arrogance, if we are blind to ourselves, or depression, if we can see our inadequacies clearly enough. Our only remedy is the certainty that God’s grace is sufficient and that our salvation is a settled matter. Consequently, we are liberated to praise and adore Him.

However, there are several factors that can deprive us of this confidence. Our failure to understand Scripture properly can undermine this confidence. For example, many verses indicate that our righteousness has to exceed that of the religious leaders if we are going to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20). Others seem to equate salvation with achieving a certain level of holiness:

• Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)

Meanwhile, Jesus also seems to equate salvation with attaining a certain level of goodness:

• Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. (John 5:28-30)

I had been tormented by these verses and others like them. I didn’t know if I was good enough to make the grade and my hope that I’d be able to attain to these heights was quickly vanishing. The harder I’d struggle to make the cut-off point, the more I saw my depressing adequacies and sins.

Fortunately for me, the torment turned me back to Scripture. For instance, the writer of Hebrews demonstrates what he means by “holiness” through the example of Esau who cared so little about his standing before God that he sold his birth right for a bowl of cereal. Although he later regretted it, he never repented of his sin (Heb. 12:16-17).

This understanding was liberating. I now understood that “holiness” wasn’t a state of purity that I could never attain, but a gift granted to the penitent. Verses began to come together for me. I recalled that by confessing my sins, my God would forgive and cleanse me of all their filth (1 John 1:9). Instead of producing waves of anxiety, even the word “salvation” slowly became a refuge for me.

I think that Job had learned a similar lesson. During his trials, he had issued many imprudent accusations that God wasn’t treating him justly. However, after a humbling encounter with God, Job wisely confessed: “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6).

God now addressed Job’s friends:

• "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. (Job 42:7)

This is astounding. Job had said many wrong things about God. However, once Job confessed his sins, everything changed! In God’s mind, he was righteous. He had now spoken “what is right” about God! Everything was radically different. He had been restored to such a state of purity that all his deeds were now pure in God’s sight. Job’s confession – not his purity – opened the door.

But what about the many verses that claim that we must be righteous or “good?” If anyone had failed the “goodness test,” it was King David. He was given everything, but evidently was dissatisfied with what the Lord had given him. He committed adultery with a married woman and then killed her husband when his cover-up failed to work. Nevertheless, in one of David’s memorable penitential Psalms, he declared the blessedness of the righteous:

• Many are the woes of the wicked, but the LORD'S unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him. Rejoice in the LORD and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart! (Psalm 32:10-11)

Evidently, David, with what seemed to be a great display of presumption, considered himself among the “righteous” and the “upright!” How could he have numbered himself among the righteous after the horrible sins he had committed? What hubris! Or was it? David didn’t deny his sins:

• Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit. When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer. Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"-- and you forgave the guilt of my sin. (Psalm 32:3-8 )

David had learned a painful lesson. He now saw that blessedness was not the result of his own goodness, but of God’s gift of forgiveness that came through David’s confession of sin. In light of this forgiveness, he embraced the fact that he was now “righteous” and “upright” in God’s sight. His status had been miraculously transformed in an instance. He now regarded himself among the holy and the righteous because his God regarded him in this manner. In verse six, he reaffirms this fact: “Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you while you may be found.” Despite his grievous sins, David realized that he could still be counted among the “godly!” What a blessing that we can confess our sins before God!

Who then are the “good” who attain to the resurrection of the righteous (John 5:28-29)? Clearly, no one has ever been good enough to deserve this resurrection. None of us will ever be able to acquire enough merits to inform God, “Look at this list of my good deeds. Now, as You can see, I deserve salvation!” Instead, here is our real status before our God:

• As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12)

Who then are the righteous or the “good?” Certainly not those who have attained goodness! They simply didn’t exist:

• Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

According to Paul, righteousness was something that a mere human has never achieved. Although the law seemed to provide a means to attain righteousness, it instead convicted us of our utter lack of righteousness and then pointed us to our only hope (Gal. 3:22-24).

If true righteousness is an impossibility for us, then who are the “righteous” to whom David refers? There is only one possible answer. These are believers whose sins have been forgiven and cleansed – the very people who mourn over their sins and hunger and thirst after a righteousness that can only come from God. We along with David now stand cleansed before our incredible Savior.

However, there are verses that seem to identify our works as the determining salvific factor:

• "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:44-46)

Here, our uncertainty is based upon our confusion of root with fruit, cause (grace) with effect (good deeds). Jesus had taught that if we are a (born again) good tree, we will inevitably produce good fruit. If I trust my doctor, I will take the medicine he gives me. If I don’t trust him, I won’t take it. I might not always take it on time. Nor will I always take it in the right manner (on an empty stomach). I might even get angry at the side effects it produces and stop taking it. However, my faith in my doctor will at least lead me to confer with him about my problems.

The fruit doesn’t cause the fruit tree. Instead the apple tree causes the apple. Good deeds don’t save us. There are merely the fruit of salvation. If I truly have faith, there will be changes pleasing to God. If I trust in my Doctor, I will go to Him and confess to Him what is wrong and listen to His admonition, even if it hurts.

Our obedience might be fumbling, but it’s still the fruit of salvation - obedience. Abraham’s nephew Lot had lived a compromised life at Sodom, but in his God’s eyes, he was (and is) “righteous Lot” (2 Peter 2:7). If we have confessed our sins to Him and trust in His provisions for us, we are TRULY His!!

HAVE A BLESSED THANKSGIVING!

Seek Judgment but also Forgive

2011-11-21T07:16:00.003-05:00

If we are supposed to forgive our enemies, how do we explain this:

• When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (Rev. 6:9-10)

How can the holy martyrs of God cry out for vengeance? Shouldn’t they instead be crying out for the forgiveness of their persecutors? Let’s not be too quick to dismiss this cry for vengeance as just an Old Testament sentiment – something that the God of the New Testament had wisely repented of. God’s judgments – His righteous requirements – are deeply woven into the fabric of even the NT:

• See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? (Hebrews 12:25)

Justice remains an enduring concern of God. He instituted the justice system to punish injustice, calling the courts “God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

The Agent of mercy – Jesus Christ Himself – even instituted judgment within His church. After church “due process” had been exercised, the unrepentant member was to suffer the judgment of excommunication (Matthew 18). In addition to this, when Christ returns,

• Destruction will come on them [the unrepentant] suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thes. 5:3)

With these examples of the holiness of God’s judgments, how can we fault the martyred saints for clamoring for judgment? But if they are a normative example for us, what happens to “forgive as you have been forgiven?”

Perhaps judgment and forgiveness can coexist together? While God had forgiven King David for his grievous sins involving Bathsheba and her husband Uriah, who David killed, David also had to endure the just punishment of his God. Evidently, punishment can coincide with forgiveness! Likewise, although we are to pray for all and to maintain an attitude of forgiveness, we are also to pursue justice – judgment and punishment – through the proper channels.

Paul required us to forgive and “bless” our enemies and to not seek revenge, because God had put in place another institution – the criminal justice system – whose role it was to exercise the “wrath” of God (Romans 12:14-21; 13:1-4). The justice system in its role to deliver justice frees us up to show mercy. God’s love and forgiveness didn’t eliminate the necessity for judgment. The evildoer would receive a taste of both – blessing and curse, the mercy of God and the severity of God. The two are partners.

Christians are often confused by this. They feel that if we bless and pray for the offender, we shouldn’t bring criminal charges against them. They wrongly think that we have to choose one alternative or the other. This misunderstanding might imprudently enable the abuser to go free and abuse again, bringing contempt upon the church because of our foolishness. Instead, we can personally forgive and pray for the offender and pursue justice at the same time.

We even find a similar principle among the congregation of believers. Although we must pray even for our enemies – and this includes our brothers in Christ – Jesus taught that a tangible and complete forgiveness, entailing restoration, requires repentance:

• "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:3-4)

No repentance, no restoration! This same principle also applies to excommunication. There could only be restoration when the excommunicated person repented (Matthew 18:15). Nevertheless, Jesus taught us to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). However, “love” clearly isn’t the same thing as receiving the offender into fellowship. We should pray for our lying friend who ruined our reputation, but we shouldn’t invite them back home until they have confessed and repented. Loving can be tough and even punitive.

There is nothing unholy about pursuing justice as long as it is pursued in a proper manner. If this is the case, there is nothing wrong with praying that God should right the wrongs. Nevertheless, mercy must take precedence over justice, as James wrote:

• Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! (James 2:13)

How then do we pray? Pray that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. His will sometimes requires judgment. However, with a forgiving heart, pray, before all else, for mercy. Forgive as you have been forgiven. But as the sinner cannot partake of God’s forgiveness until they repent, the excommunicated brother should not experience restoration – the full measure of forgiveness – until he too repents.

So pray for God’s wrath, but even more so, pray for mercy and forgiveness.

Guilt, Shame, and the Uglies

2011-11-20T15:03:00.002-05:00

Have you ever felt so ugly and contaminated that you just wanted to run away? Your thought-life can do this to you. I have an ugly thought-life, and it makes me feel ugly within. I won’t tell you the substance of my thoughts. I’m just too ashamed to do so. Ironically, they really become ugly when I’m in the place of my spiritual hopes and greatest expectations – the church. They can become so filthy that I don’t want to see anyone afterwards. I just want to run.

However, the Lord has taught me some very important principles to deal with the uglies:

They are all too natural, and they intimately adhere to us – as closely as our own body. Paul explained it this way:

• For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Galatians 5:17)

Therefore, don’t be surprised by the intense internal battle (1 Peter 4:12). The Lord, however, has achieved a beach-head within our lives (Romans 8:10, 23). Although the final outcome has already been guaranteed, the war will continue to rage until we are finally home with our Savior. This means that we won’t see the end of the uglies until then. If instead we expect to decisively slay them ourselves, we will be disappointed and will think that something has gone wrong.

I might not be able to get rid of them at will, but I can confess and resist them. The Lord has shown me that I need to confess them as often as they pop up. It’s like a pinball machine. Whenever the bad-guy pops up, I’ve got to shoot him down. I do this by confessing my plight and crying “help me, Lord.”

This might sound childish or ridiculous, but we are children, sometimes simple principles really work! Consequently, I no longer have to flee church. My Lord truly forgives and cleanses me as He promised (1 John 1:9). The filth is really washed away! I can face others, confident in my Lord.

This trust is really the victory that overcomes (1 John 5:4-5) the sin and shame. We tend to erroneously think that freedom from sin is our victory. Instead, it is our sinful failures that lead us back to Christ. In fact, Scripture singles out confession/repentance as the only thing that makes the angels rejoice (Luke 15). Now that’s a victory!

I no longer have to vainly try to heighten my self-esteem and give myself pep-talks to combat my ugly feelings. Yes, I do give myself a pep-talk, but it’s His pep-talk and consists of His Words – His purifying wisdom (John 15:3). If I abide in His light, the darkness eventually flies.

I have to take captive the unbiblical thoughts and replace them with the Biblical (2 Cor. 10:4-5). I can’t merely confess the sinfulness of my thinking without substituting my thoughts with God’s truth. The vacuum left when I reject the sinful thoughts must be filled by others. Besides, I need verses of Biblical wisdom to repeatedly expose the sinfulness of my thinking. They are just too seductive! I need constant reminders of how filthy they truly are and my blessedness in Christ.

I have learned to be thankful that the uglies make me feel ugly and contaminated. These feelings place a gun to my head. They leave me with a sense of desperation and humble me. They coerce me to hate my sinful thinking. They also make me return to Scripture, which works mightily within me (1 Thess. 2:13).

Atheism: The Great Faith

2011-11-20T07:56:00.004-05:00

Increasingly, militant atheists arrogantly charge that we believe in fairy tales, and they’ve convinced themselves that they are providing a needed service to mankind by exposing this “fact.” While it is sometimes best to wipe the dust off your feet and move on, sometimes this isn’t advisable. Their attack take place while you are talking to a group about your Christian faith, and your flight might be interpreted as a failure to provide an answer. Therefore, here are some strategies you might consider.

You might ask them, “I wasn’t aware that I believe in ‘fairy tales.’ Can you point one out?” They usually have a prepared list including talking serpents and donkeys.

You might then answer, “Is there any reason why an all-powerful Creator couldn’t enable a serpent to talk?”

They’ll probably respond that you or he have never seen such a thing, to which you might simply respond, “Does the fact that we’ve never seen something mean that it’s impossible? Please tell me what makes something a ‘fairy tale.’” Or

“Don’t you believe in things that you haven’t seen – like atoms and gravity?”

As you can see, questions can be an affective tool, and you can do it with a smile on your face. They put the pressure on the atheist to defend his allegations. You can also take your questioning into his territory:

“What makes a ‘talking serpent’ more of a ‘fairy tale’ than your belief that everything just sprang into existence without a cause?” Or

“What makes a ‘talking serpent’ more of a ‘fairy tale’ than your belief that life just suddenly arose from non-life?” or “that all of life’s building blocks just miraculously self-constructed and came together?”

Of course, he can‘t give you a good answer. If he tries to, you might ask, “Where’s your proof?” He might instead assert that all credible scientists believe that natural causation explains these things and that it’s simpletons like you who deny naturalism and evolution.

Don’t be intimidated. Intimidation and ridicule are part of his strategy. Again, think of a good question that summarizes his charge and reveals its foolishness:

“Are you saying that whenever we question the prevailing scientific consensus, we become no more than ‘simpletons?’” or “Are you suggesting that we should always acquiesce to the ‘experts?’” You can even ask a simpler question:

“How do you know that ‘all credible scientists believe in natural causation to explain these things?’” Once again, you are putting the responsibility back on the atheist to prove his wild claims, and this is where the responsibility belongs!

Eventually, your questions might force him to concede that science still doesn’t have the answers for the many mysteries of life – freewill, consciousness, life, DNA, the cell, the fine-tuning of the universe and even the “natural” laws of nature – but he’ll assure you that science eventually will have the answers.

You might merely conclude, “Well, it seems that you are a man of great faith, in fact, greater than mine!”

Anti-Semitism and Islam

2011-11-18T14:38:00.002-05:00

Anti-Semitism isn’t creeping back; it’s lunging forth according to Kevin Deutsch of the Daily News:

• In New York’s Jewish neighborhoods, the fear is palpable and the evidence mounting that there’s a surge in anti-Semitism. (Monday Nov. 14, 2011)

On the same page, Weichselbaum and Nelson wrote about,

• A recent spate of hate crimes and violence that has left the Jewish community on edge…The torching of three cars in Midwood, Brooklyn, the spraying of swastikas and the brutal beatdown of a Hasidic man in Williamsburg.

This escalation should not take us by surprise. Nor should we brush it off as merely unconnected events. They are occurring all over the West – wherever there are sizable Islamic minorities:

• In 2004, France experienced rising levels of Islamic antisemitism and acts that were publicized around the world. In 2006, rising levels of antisemitism were recorded in French schools. Reports related to the tensions between the children of North African Muslim immigrants and North African Jewish children. The climax was reached when Ilan Halimi was tortured to death by the so-called "Barbarians gang", led by Youssouf Fofana. In 2007, over 7,000 members of the community petitioned for asylum in the United States, citing antisemitism in France.

• There were recorded well over a hundred antisemitic attacks in Belgium in 2009. This was a 100% increase from the year before. The perpetrators were usually young males of immigrant background from the Middle East. (wiki)

• After Germany and Austria, Sweden has the highest rate of antisemitic incidents in Europe.[177] A government study in 2006 estimated that 39% of the Muslim population, harbor strong and consistent antisemitic views. Former Prime Minister Göran Persson described these results as "surprising and terrifying". (wiki)

• In 2010, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation after one year of research, revealed that anti-semitism was common among Norwegian muslims. Teachers at schools with large shares of muslims revealed that muslim students often "praise or admire Adolf Hitler for his killing of Jews", that "Jew-hate is legitimate within vast groups of muslim students" and that "muslims laugh or command [teachers] to stop when trying to educate about the Holocaust". (wiki)

• Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada also reached record highs in 2009, according to an annual report released by the B'nai Brith Canada organization. The survey showed an 11.4 percent jump in the number of incidents over the previous year, 2008…The organization noted there has been a five-fold increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Canada over the past decade. According to the Toronto Muslims website, Muslims living in Canada today number more than 750,000, with some 61 percent of those residing in Ontario, where the majority of the anti-Semitic incidents occurred.
The outbreak of anti-Semitism even seems to be worse in the Netherlands:

• Sixty percent of Dutch Jews are ready to pack up and leave the country. The cause is a boom of Islamic antisemitism in the famous multicultural Netherlands.
• The list of Dutch victims is dramatic: from the killing of the anti-Islamist political leader Pim Fortuyn to the persecution of the Somali dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the murder of the director Theo Van Gogh, condemned to death for his film "Submission," a denunciation of the crimes of Muslim theocracy. Fortuyn's successor, Geert Wilders, has lived under 24-hour police protection for many years. Now the Dutch Jews are ready to flee Holland.

Why? The article cites many reasons including, “attacks on the street, the appalling security around Jewish institutions, the attempted burning of synagogues…”

• From the data of the last report of the Dutch police, the number of anti-Semitic acts in the country has increased by 48 percent this year… Lester M. Wolff van Ravenswade described the difficulties faced by Jews living in Amsterdam. "I cannot go to public events dressed as a Jew, let alone go out on Saturday night. Which party do I have to vote for in order to live safely with the kippah on my head? ".

Israel is often blamed for the outburst of violence. Some argue that when the Israel – Palestinian problem is resolved, there will be peace among Jews and Muslims. However, this doesn’t seem likely. Anti-Semitism is embedded within the very fabric of Islam:

• Muslim religious schools operating in Britain are using poisonously anti-Semitic textbooks from Saudi Arabia to teach children as young as six that Jews are descended from "monkeys" and "pigs," and that Zionists are plotting to take over the world. The schools are also instructing children on how to chop off the hands and feet of a thief as per Islamic Sharia law. These are just a few of the findings of a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) exposé of Saudi-run Muslim schools in Britain.

Where do these allegations “that Jews are descended from ‘monkeys’ and ‘pigs’ come from? They are part of the sacred writings of Islam, deriving from the Muhammad’s disdain of the Jews for not receiving him as their prophet and his subsequent genocide of at least one Jewish tribe. Consequently, we find that the Koran states,

• [Surah 2:65, 5:60, 7:166] “Jews are those who were cursed and transformed into apes and swine…”

• [Surah 8:55-56; 98:6] “Jews are the worst of Allah’s creation…”

The various collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad also encourage violence:

• Muhammad the messenger of Allah said, “Do not greet Jews or Christians with peace if you meet one of them in you way then push them over to a ditch or a narrow path.” (Hadith Number 4030, Reported by Al Muslim)

• Muhammad said that “the hour will not come until Muslims fight and kill the Jews and the Jews will hide behind trees and rocks, and these trees and rocks will cry out saying, ‘O Muslim, slave of Allah, this Jew is hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (Hadith no 5203; Reported by Muslim)

If Jews are no better than “swine,” it is not surprising to find such violent teachings. In light of the Islamic foundations for violent anti-Semitism and the escalation of anti-Semitism all over the West, it is imperative that the West take adequate actions to counteract both the hate crimes and the teachings that encourage them.

Instead, we find in the West a naïve assumption that if we are commodious enough to our Islamic minorities, they will assimilate and accept Western values. Such an assumption is unfounded and receives no support from any nation where Islam has planted itself. Rather, we need to understand the belief system that now confronts the West. It should be understood that Muslims can’t take others as friends. Consequently, any show of friendship by serious Muslims is only feigned in order to win others to Islam:

• [Surah 3:27] “Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah

• [Surah 5:54] O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other.

• [Surah 60:1] “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”… [60:4] “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

Jesus instructed His followers to be “as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves.” However, gentleness only represents wisdom as long as there remains a viable justice system to suppress evil. We therefore need to pray and to petition our leaders to be wise in this regard.

We Need to Suffer Various Trials

2011-11-15T13:09:00.003-05:00

The Christian life leads us through the “valley of the shadow of death.” It’s the only way to the heavenly city. However, as we journey through this “valley,” we often loose our way, thinking that God has utterly abandoned us.

For years I had experienced horribly troubling doubts about my salvation. It just didn't seem that my life was lining up with the promises of Scripture. I was convinced that someone took a wrong turn somewhere. However, I subsequently learned that these trials are normal for the Christian life, even necessary. They were also the “daily bread” of the Israelites, who often felt abandoned by God. In the midst of their various trials, they would forget about the many ways that their God had delivered them. Moses, however, admonished them to recall the things of the Lord – both the trials and the deliverances:

• Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. (Deut. 8:2-3)

It's important for us to understand the Lord's ways, so that when the trials arrive, we will not despair. Besides, we will never learn how to abide "on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord" without trials. If we are too comfortable, we will not seek the Scriptures for a deeper understanding.

Eaglets become too comfortable in their nest to try out their wings. The parents therefore begin to make the nest inhospitable by removing the down. Only then will the eaglet venture forth and depend on their wings.

We need to learn how to depend on God. This requires us to despair of ourselves and our circumstances. David had thanked God for his periods of torment and affliction:

• Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word... 119:71 It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees. (Psalm 119:67)

All of God's chosen people must endure affliction:

• We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. (2 Cor. 4:10-11)

If we want to manifest Christ in our lives, we have to experience His sufferings. These can take many different forms. It’s important to understand this, because we often doubt whether our suffering is the “authorized” suffering. We’re tempted to think that our suffering represents a form of pathology and therefore doesn’t count. We forget that our Lord works all things for our good (Romans 8:28).

Our Savior loves us too much to not prune us back so that we can bear fruit for His glory sake (and ultimately our own):

• I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. (John 15:1-2)

The grape vines must be pruned back every season if they are going to be productive. Otherwise, the vines have a tendency to suffocate themselves. Ironically, their fruit production can prevent them from bearing more fruit if they are not skillfully attended.

If we are not pruned back, our past accomplishments can blind us with pride – the most deadly threat to the spiritual life. Consequently, I find that after every spiritual success and that warm accompanying glow, my Savior must hold up the mirror to my face and show me who I really am. He reveals to me my lack of any true spirituality and righteousness. He reminds me of my utter helplessness and dependence upon Him, and He does this through painful trials.

I don’t like the trials and never will. They are painful as they must be to produce the types of fruit that God is looking for (Hebrews 12:11). If He loves us – and He does – He works on us overtime:

• For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" (1 Peter 4:17-18)

If we fail to see how necessary the struggles are, we will not be prepared for them. Therefore, Peter warns:

• Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:12-13)

The trials are inevitable. They’re also necessary. They prepare us for this life, and they also prepare us to meet our Savior with great rejoicing when He returns. If earth’s delights are so tantalizing, who then will long for their final home?