Critique Two - Part Three - Stating the Obvious

Separation of Church and State appears as the second principle of "loose consensus" proposed in the Secular Humanist Declaration. It is no surprise that this principle would be included as the humanist would have religion removed from all thought if possible, much less from matters of governance. I hesitate to even comment on this topic as it seems so very uncomplicated, but there has been such a focus on this issue in contemporary American culture that I fear something more duplicitous is taking place.

First, the separation of church and state, if taken at face value, is a quite reasonable and common sense statement. What is the purpose of the Church? In Paul's letter to the Ephesian church chapter 4 and verse 12 he states that the people are given gifts"...to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Chirst." In short the purpose of the Church is to equip the Saints to be more like Christ and to serve. What is the purpose of the State? Simply put, to govern the people, which for the United States means to provide protection so the people can realize their inalienable (or God given) rights to life, liberty and property. So, the Church and the State are naturally separated functionally in that they look to serve different purposes. Making much of the separation of church and state would be akin to jumping up and down and demanding the separation of the judicial branch of government from the executive branch. No one brings this up because everyone understands that those two branches of government are naturally separate in that they serve two different functions. To exclaim the separation is to state the obvious.

This is why I believe the continued pressing of this point is more duplicitous than a mere stating of fact. Cries of outrage on this issue do not come forth because of the desire to clearly state the difference in function of the two entities, nor do they come to make sure a priest is never elected to public office; rather, separation is invoked because people want to be out from under their accountability to God and feel that if they can secularize governance politicians will be accountable only to the people. It is interesting that the founders of this country understood all too well that although there was a natural separation in function between church and state, that all men were accountable to God individually, and therefore held themselves to a higher standard of governance. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of our Creator who bestowed upon us certain inalienable rights. These rights were being infringed upon by the English rulers of the day, which led the founders to fight a War for Independence.

How should this separation work out practically? I give two examples. One comes from a time when a King was in power over a united kingdom. During a time of war this king stayed home instead of going to battle, which was his rightful place. While at home looking over all he had command over, he saw the wife of a soldier who was fighting at her bath. He desired to meet with her, made the arrangements and engaged in an adulterous relationship. Intent then on covering up the activity the king sent the woman's husband to the front lines of battle where he summarily died. This activity was wrong, and where no one in his court would dare present himself to the king to question this activity a lowly prophet came and told the king a story and in so doing brought the king into account before God for his activity. King David's prayer of contrition is found in Psalm 51:4: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge." The king and the prophet went about their tasks independently serving their separate purposes, until the king violated God's absolute moral law. Then the prophet rebuked the king, not to replace him on the throne, but to bring him back in line with a law that was above them both.

At one time a Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for separate facilities, so long as they were equal, to exist to keep one group of citizens from coming into contact with another on the basis of color. One man, a minister, began a peaceable demonstration, with a strong backing of support and encouragement from his church affiliates to deny this activity. This man spoke in many arenas and gave his very life for the position that all men where created, and therefore had intrinsic worth that was not given by any man and could not be taken away or subverted by any man. In a speech that changed the outlook of an entire nation, including the state, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, in part, "...And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true...And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last. Free at last. That God Almighty, we are free at last."

The separation of church and state is a re-statement of fact; namely that the two entities serve and different purpose. However, both entities exist under the authority of, and are accountable to, God. This fact is immutable and does not change no matter how many times we cry out and remind each other of the separation of the two bodies. Mr. Kurtz would have a separation of church and state so that government officials would not feel obligated to abide by an absolute moral law. In the next few posts we will discuss why this position results not in absolute freedom, but in absolute depravity and bondage.

Critique Two - Part Two - Imprisoned by "Freedom"

'Free Inquiry' is the first proposition elucidated in the loose consensus Decalogue of secular humanists. Mr. Kurtz begins with the following: "We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. In the past, such tyrannies have been directed by churches and states attempting to enforce the edicts of religious bigots..." and he continues with "...The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result."

There are several things i'd like to say about the statements of Mr. Kurtz with regard to free inquiry. Firstly, is that the secular humanist position claims to be the champion of a freedom of thought while at the same time denouncing any ideas that include any form of supernatural explanatory phenomena. Mr. Kurtz began his declaration by emphatically positing a secular humanist position that "...is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values ..." Clearly this is a position in contradiction. In point of fact, the secular humanist position is exclusivistic in that it particularly and specifically excludes any position that includes the supernatural. In other words, everyone is free to inquire of any thought form and look to any position for explanation, except a religious one. In this way, secular humanism "shackles free thought."

Secondly, we must recognize that truth by definition is exclusive. The law of non-contradiction holds. In other words, something cannot be both 'A' and 'non-A'. Mr. Kurtz has stated that for secular humanists, "...the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result." This means that the search is as important as finding the truth. This position is also unsustainable. Once the truth is found, the search is over; in fact the very point of the search is to find the truth. Furthermore, once the truth is found everything opposite to the truth is untrue and must be discarded. For the secular humanist the perfect society and system of thought is ever seeking but never finding, to find is to fail. If a secular humanist were to ever find the truth and stand firm saying something like "killing innocent people is wrong at all times, in all places, in all circumstances, no matter what anyone else thinks", then he or she would commit the cardinal sin and be excommunicated for failing to permit free inquiry; they would be excluded for being exclusive. It is a self-destructive position that cannot be lived out.

This same point can be stated in a different way. One gets the feeling in the exposition of free inquiry and the system put forth that elevates the egalitarianism of ideas, or free inquiry, or looking at every idea as they are equally valid, that Mr. Kurtz believes everyone should think this way. As a committed Christian that espouses the Biblical-Christian world and life view and presents Christs statement that "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me", I would fall into the category of a religious bigot that proposes a tyranny over the mind of man. A secular humanist would no doubt denounce my position and attempt to persuade me to drop my 'religious bigotry' and adopt the secular humanist position of tolerance and freedom. But how is that attempt to separate me from my beliefs tolerant? Aren't secular humanists in fact claiming themselves to have 'the only way', albeit that everyone should be tolerant of all ideas and not purport to have the answer? Again, this is a contradictory position. As soon as the secular humanist states that belief in the supernatural should be opposed, they cease to be inclusive of all ideas.

Finally, i'd like to reiterate my concern regarding systems of thought from the last posting, because it shows up front and center in the forum of 'Free Inquiry'. Secular humanists propose a system of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. They have clearly stated in this first proposition that all ideas should be equally considered, free from any opposition. However, in societal relations some group will have to decide which idea to incorporate and ultimately press on its citizens. We will speak on this again in a later post, but in the end what will happen is that some group of people will decide which set of ideas all people will follow. The logical conclusion of the secular humanist position is totalitarianism (an elite group dictating for all the rest).

What does Christ offer as an alternative to this position. A system that holds up an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. An objective moral law exists that every human person ought to follow. All men are equal in that they are created by God to bring Him glory through worship, which includes full submission of every individual to God's elite ideal. The logical conclusion of this position is that no one has the right to dictate to any other. God established how all should live, and while following those ideals, individuals are free to interact in any way they wish within that framework. So, quite simply the position is as written in Matthew's Gospel chapter 22 and verse 37

"Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hand on these two commandments."

Critique Two - Part One - A Common Thread

After having dealt with Atheism, as presented by Mr. Bertrand Russell, hopefully in a way that respectfully pointed out some shortcomings in that worldview, I am now going to attempt a critical response to another view on things that is probably more pervasive in contemporary culture, Secular Humanism. The reading on which i'll be commenting is by Mr. Paul Kurtz and is entitled "A Secular Humanist Declaration". Mr. Kurtz provides ten points in defense of his ideals, which I will attempt to address individually in upcoming posts. In this post, i'll use Mr. Kurtz's definition of secular humanism, address some of the introductory comments in the work at hand, and then mention a common thread that seems likely to be woven through the secular humanist position.

Secular humanism is defined by Mr. Kurtz on the Council for Secular Humanism (of which Mr. Kurtz in the founder and chair emeritas) website as, "...a comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance incorporating a naturalistic philosophy, a cosmic outlook rooted in science and a consequentialist ethical system." We will look at each of these in more detail in the course of study, but what we can look for as we go is a presentation and defense of a naturalistic, scientific and consequentialist position that will attempt to consistantly address the same issues for which religion purports to have answers. I will be giving some reasons I feel the secular humanist position is deficient and where the Biblical-Christian worldview does a better job in providing cogent, comprehensive and consistant answers.

In his introduction, Mr. Kurtz goes to some effort to present secular humanism as a strong force in contemporary culture and thought forms. His main emphasis is to establish secular humanism as a lifestance that has led to the "...improvement of the human condition..." has "...had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world..." and in "...making the good life possible for more and more people..." Mr. Kurtz also states that secular humanism has no dogma or creed, no "statement of faith" no solid, immovable position on which all members stand, but rather is based on a "...loose consensus with respect to several positions". Finally, Mr. Kurtz is clear in stating that the form of secular humanism that he intends to defend is one that is "...explicitly comitted to democracy." Although not defined, it is assumed that by democracy Mr. Kurtz agrees with Webster's definition:

government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled; majority rule

I would like to make clear before beginning that I do not intend to defend the Christian religion and how the church has addressed issues throughout history. Instead I hope to present Jesus Christ and His teachings, in the context of the whole of Scripture. I will do my best to present the Secular Humanist position correctly and simply respond to the points set forth in the article at hand, as this is how I would hope anyone reading these posts would do for me. It is quite important that it be remembered that we never judge a philosophy or worldview by its abuses, so characterizing an entire religion and all people who claim allegience to a system of belief as having the same views as those who would abuse and pervert that view would be unprofitable. I will attempt therefore to look at the ideas presented on their truthfullness and merit and nothing else.

With that preface, I would like to end this post with a common thread I believe will be woven throughout the presentation. This common thread has to do with two fundamental systems espoused and their difference to Biblical Christianity. These two fundamental systems are egalitarianism and elitism. Egalitarianism being a view of equality and elitism being a view of hierarchy or class or position. From the introductory statements of the Secular Humanist Declaration it is apparent that it is believed that ideas are all equal, that no one's idea of how things should be is any better than anyone else's. This is highlighted by the statements about how secular humanism is no dogma or creed and has only loose consensus on some points. It is also apparent that there is an elitism of people. A purely and staunch democratic position as well as the elevation of intellect, science and a determined ethical system puts people in the position of power (namely to decide right and wrong, good and bad, etc.). So, Secular Humanism then espouses an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. We will see this sustained as we go.

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, presents an egalitarianism of people and an elitism of ideas. All men are created in the image of God and are therefore on equal ground, whereas the idea of right and wrong, good and bad, is transcendent and immovable by human will, decision or fancy. These differences will be addressed in future posts and I look forward to exploring some of the outworkings and practical applicaitons of the Secular Humanist position. Until next time...

Critique One - Part Eight - Bad Coffee

I've been trying to imagine a way to describe in brief my summary thoughts on Mr. Russell's presentation on 'Why I am not a Christian' in particular, and on Atheism in general. Bad Coffee kept coming to mind: it is weak and doesn't do what it's supposed to. Bad coffee looks more like tea, and warm milk is about as effective a pick-me-up. What has become clear in the past few weeks is that when one chooses to jettison God, some real mental gymnastics has to take place to make sense of the world. Mr. Russell's arguments were like the bad coffee, weak and ineffective.

In the end, as C.S. Lewis so plainly put it, Atheism turns out to be too simple, a "boy's philosophy". Atheism has no ability to explain why we are here, who we are, how we should behave, or what will happen to us. What it offers in return is a stubborn individualism, the human intellect (which to be consistent turns out to be just a happy accident of time and chance), and science. Per my last post, i'd like to say a few last words about science. These excerpts are taken from C.S. Lewis and his paper, De Futilitate.

"The physical sciences, then, depend on the validity of logic just as much as metaphysics or mathematics. If popular thought feels 'science' to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken. Experimental verification is not a new kind of assurance coming in to supply the deficiencies of mere logic. We should therefore abandon the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought. The proper distinction is between logical and non-logical thought...

we can make no distinction between science and other logical exercises of thought, for if logic is discredited science must go down whith it...

logic is a real insight into the way in which real things have to exist...Unless we take to be knowledge is an illusion, we must hold in thinking we are not reading rationality into an irrational universe but responding to a rationality with which the universe has always been saturated...

I am well aware that many whose philosophy involves this subjective view of values do in fact sometimes make great efforts for the cause of justice or freedom. But that is because they forget their philosophy. When they really get to work they think taht justice is really good-objectively obligatory whether any one likes it or not: they remember their opposite philosophical belief only when they go back to the lecture room...In a word, unless we allow ultimate reality to be moral, we cannot morally condemn it...

The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if her realized this, he could not go on being indignant. The fact that he arraigns heaven itself for disregarding them means that at some level of his mind he knows they are enthroned in a higher heaven still...

we then of course have to ask how this ultimate morality in the universe can be reconciled with the actual course of events. It is really the same sort of problem that meets us in science. The pell-mell of phenomena, as we first observe them, seems to be full of anomalies and irregularitities; but being assured that reality is logical we go on framing and trying out hypotheses to show that the appaent irregularities are not really irregular at all. The history of science is the history of that process. The corresponding process whereby, having admitted that reality in the last resort must be moral, we attempt to explain evil, is the history of theology."

I want to make clear first and foremost that it is not my intention to demean or fail to recognize the advances and benefits brought about by science. I am a structural engineer by trade, and therefore am very thankful that there are some absolute constants in this world. If things didn't behave predictably I could not do my job, nor design structural elements with any assurance that they will behave in a manner consistent with what has already been observed. What I am saying is that we cannot take science, which is experimentation and observation, and use it as an explanatory tool for the most important and far reaching questions for humankind: namely origins, meaning, morality and destiny. It is not just that science has not been formulated or applied properly to answer these questions, it is that science cannot answer these questions.

What answer do I then give to these questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny? Not a person, not an organization or a denomination, not a program or thought form - I present Jesus - God, second person of the Trinity, the Word, the way, the truth, the life. If we take the Word and really examine what it has to say we find it is the most cogent, consistent and complete explanation available to those most important questions in life.

It has been said that in Christianity and the Bible joy is central and sorrow is peripheral, whereas in the world sorrow is central and joy is peripheral. It has also been said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult and left untried. A hard look at Jesus and the Christian-Biblical worldview will provoke serious thought about difficult issues, but will provide a non-contradictory answer. The alternative, i'm afraid, amounts to little more than a cup of bad coffee.

Critique One - Part Seven - The Man in the River

Mr. Russell is at the close of his presentation and so I have thoughts on his last points herein. I will summarize and give some final thoughts on the whole at the next posting. As for the matter at hand, after reading the final two sections 'Fear the Foundation of Religion' and 'What We Must Do' I could not escape feelings of pity and sorrow for Mr. Russell. I'm sure he would have demanded me not to feel that way toward him, and most likely would have thought me weak and foolish for the concern. Nevertheless, the picture of a man in a raging river carrying him downstream faster and faster toward certain destruction would not leave me. What really broke my heart and brought me to tears was the calm defiance I saw in his face. It was as if he was in this mess, racing toward his own demise, and all the while was ignorant of his surroundings and perfectly at peace with the situation. Mr. Russell passed many years ago, long since having gone over the falls, but even now I so desperately want to throw him and line and pull him in, even against his will.

In his 'Fear' section, Mr. Russell says the following: "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear...Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death." I really don't feel this baseless assertion is worth a response. It is completely ludicrous to assert that all organized religion has is based in fear. For one, there is absolutely no way to prove that is the case. Secondly, it is a profoundly far-reaching and unilateral grouping of the majority of the known world (as the term Religion was used, which I presume includes Christians, Muhammadins and even the Pantheists). As easily as he can assert that Religion is based on fear (presumably of Hell or at least some sort of judgement), I could just as easily assert (without any basis in fact) that all Atheists chose their worldview out of fear that they would have to answer to someone other than themselves.

As a more intelligent option for the abject fear that was assigned to all religions without any supporting evidence, Mr. Russell offers up Science as savior. "Conquer the world by intelligence...A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage...It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future...the future that our intelligence can create." I have dealt with the issue of science in a previous post and will touch on it again in the final summary. I would however, turn to what the Bible has to say about courage. When I read Mr. Russell's thoughts the world needing courage my mind went immediately to Hebrews 11:35b-38 "Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned, they were sawed in two, they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins," these courageous believers endured all this for a belief in a way of seeing everything (worldview) that had consistent, cogent, non-contradictory answers to the most important questions in life - those of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. In other words, they knew how they got here, how they were, how to behave and what their future held. That knowledge gave them genuine and limitless courage in the face of trials and persecution that neither I nor Mr. Russell ever encountered. What more could be said except to echo Verse 38 of Hebrews 11, "The world was not worthy of them."

I mentioned Francis Schaeffer in the last post and I'd like to finish up these comments with some excerpts from his Escape from Reason.

"If you do not have the view of the Scriptures that the reformers had, you really have no content to the word Christ - and this is the modern drift in theology...Thus on the basis of the Scriptures, while we do not have exhaustive knowledge, we have true and unified knowledge...We need to learn that when we begin to tamper with teh scriptural concept of true moral guilt, whether it be psychological tampering, genetic tampering, theological tampering or any other kind of tampering, our view of what Jesus did will no longer be scriptural. Christ died for man who had true moral guilt because man had made a real and true choice...This personal-infinite God of the Bible is the Creator of all else. God created all things, and He created them out of nothing. Therefore everything else is finite, everything else is the creature. He alone is the infinite Creator...In science the significant change came about therefore as a result of a shift...to the worldview of materialism or naturalism...What is wrong? When nature is made autonomous, it soon ends up by devouring God, grace, freedom and eventually man. You can hang on to freedom for a while, desperately using the word freedom like Rousseau and his followers, but freedom becomes non-freedom...The basic position of man in rebellion against God is that man is at the center of the universe, that he is autonomous-here lies his rebellion. Man will keep his rationalism and his rebellion, his insistence on total autonomy or partially autonomous areas, even if it means he must give up his rationality."

This is why I weep for the man in the river.

Critique One - Part Six - Take Me to Your Leader

Christians have made many mistakes. Churches have made many mistakes. These are points on which Mr. Russell hammers away, and to which we as believers must stand up and face. Churches and Christians have fought the wrong battles, been on the wrong side of important issues and have missed the mark on many doctrinal points in which we should never waiver. It's interesting as I write this that an article in the local paper just this morning announced an astronomy exhibit opening at the Vatican. The article stated, "The ruling (of the Catholic Church against Galileo) helped fuel accusations that the church was hostile to science - a reputation teh Vatican has been trying to shed ever since." I am not a Catholic and am not here promoting or denouncing Catholicism, just reinforcing the point that some mistakes are not quickly forgotten.

These facts are black marks on Churches and Christians alike, and many, like Mr. Russell, have capitalized on it to build a case against Christ. Many times believers lash out in the face of such criticism fearing that their faith is somehow being compromised. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I for one thank Mr. Russell for being true to his worldview and bringing these shortcoming to light. Why would any Christian say something like that? What is the central message of the Christian faith, if not that man is fallen, broken and sinful; incapable of curing the disease of sin in his/her own life; and lives with a desire for forgiveness and a need for salvation. Jesus offers this forgiveness and salvation through faith in His condescention to become human, suffer and die on the cross, and to raise Himself to defeat sin, death and Hell. What has Mr. Russell done here but prove our point? Pointing out the mistakes of the Church only highlights the fact that man is fallen and actually stipulates the sinful nature of all humankind. Mr. Russell has not reached the end of the Christian faith, he has just found the beginning. Paul reminds the church in Rome of Psalm 14 which states, in part,

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (emphasis mine).

Churches will continue to make mistakes so long as it consists of humans. Christians will continue to make mistakes because Christians are first people. Thankfully we are not presenting the Church or ourselves as the answer. As believers, we should be constantly pointing to Jesus as the solution to the sin problem, not people we know, actions we can take, or groups we can join that will 'save us from ourselves'.

Finally, I must point out what should already be obvious, that Christians have not cornered the market on bad behavior. Churches do not have a monopoly on atrocities. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Bin-Laden - surely these names cannot be ignored. Further, if each and every person looks into their own heart, what explanation do they have for the evil they find lurking there. We can never judge a worldview by its abuses. I discount Atheism because of what I see as untenable core priniciples, not because Stalin was an Atheist and he oversaw the killing of millions of his own people. When discussing the efficacy of Christianity, we must always be cognizant of this principle and look not to what people who call themselves Christians do, or what churches do, rather we need to investiagate the claims of Jesus and decide if they correspond to reality and are coherent and consistant. I believe that they are, I believe in Jesus, and that is why I am a Christian and why I try to persuade people to walk with me in following Christ.

Critique One - Part Five - A Truth Ignored

"I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men...Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment...I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people know to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects." Having believed to have dealt a serious enough blow to the existence of God and to immortality, Mr. Russell moves on to Christ in his paragraphs entitled The Character of Christ, Defects in Christ's Teaching and The Moral Problem. As a Christian I must admit I was pretty upset at my first reading. A number of assertions were made and scriptures cherry-picked and taken out of context or with complete misunderstanding to press his point. I did read the section a few more times, however, as I myself only desire a hearing for the Gospel of Christ and felt the least I could do was not dismiss these ideas out of hand. I spent a day and a half thinking of his assertions and how to address them. It finally occurred to me that in all three of these sections there was common glaring void, a proverbial elephant in the room being ignored, Truth.

I capitalize Truth intentionally with respect to Francis Schaeffer who spoke extensively about true-truth and its necessity. Mr. Russell bases his entire criticism of Christ on whether in his mind Christ was "...the best and wisest of men." He then looks at bits and pieces of scripture and summarily decides he doesn't like Christ's viewpoint on several issues. Mr. Russell's fatal mistake here is never considering the question, "Is what Christ said true?" In simplest terms, truth is correspondence. If I say the grass in my yard is green, then the truth or falsehood of that statement is found by witnessing if the grass in my yard is in fact green. This is the question at hand with regard to Christ. Mr. Russell is not alone in his dislike of the idea of Hell, and he sees Christ's discussion of it as cruel. What if Hell is a reality, what if Hell is an actual place of eternal torment? If that is true, then cruelty would be not to tell people of its existence and provide a way of escape.

A full and exhaustive defense of Jesus as the Messiah is not possible here due to space and has been dealt with in much finer form in other works. I would offer two things for consideration. First, Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. He did not say He knew of the truth, He said He was the truth. If truth is correspondence, then Jesus was saying that He corresponded completely with every prophecy of what the Messiah would be when he came as foretold in the Old Testament. I will leave it to each reader to find out what those prophecies were and if Jesus in fact fleshed out each one. I believe that He did.

Second, Jesus forgave sins. I only recently gave serious thought to what that actually means. If someone were to yell at me for no reason and later realize their error and then ask to be forgiven for the offense, then I could acknowledge my forgiveness. It is an entirely different matter for me to approach someone on the street and tell them that I forgive them their sins. I have no idea against whom they have sinned! Furthermore, I am not the one offended! For Jesus to speak with people and during the discourse pronounce their sins forgiven, He was saying that they had sinned against Him, that He was the party offended, and further that He had the authority to forgive them.

Who is the man who could be so audacious as to make these pronouncements. Philip Schaff puts it this way: "Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, and Nepoleon; without science and learning, He shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and schools combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke words of life such as never were spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of any orator or poet; without writing a single line, He has set more pens to motion, and furnished more themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art and sweet songs of praise, than the whole army of great men if ancient and modern times. Born in a manger, and crucified as a malefactor, He now controls the destinies of the civilized world, and rules a spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the inhabitants of the globe. There never was in this world a life so unpretending, modest and lowly in its outward form and condition, and yet producing such extraordinary effects upon all ages, nations and classes of men. The annals of history produce no other example of such complete and astonishing success in spite of the absence of those material, social, literary, and artistic powers and influences which are indispensable to success for a mere man."

Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. He was the fulfillment of the promise long before made to the world, and the one identified by the man from the wilderness who said He was the One to be followed. He was fully God and fully man. Malcolm Muggeridge in his "Jesus: The Man Who Lives" says, "Jesus had previously told the disciples that whatever was prayed for sincerely in his name would be granted, to that point that mountains could be made to move themselves by prayer. If, therefore, he had truly asked God to deliver him from betrayal by Judas and all its consequences, his prayer would surely have been answered, and he have been spared the agony and bloody sweat that lay ahead. But, of course, there was the proviso; it must be, not as he willed, but as God willed. And it was God's will that he should be nailed to a cross, and thereby, as the victim of this, perhaps the cruellest form of execution ever devised, provide mankind for ever after with a fount of joy and hope, an inspiration to high endeavor, and a certainty of salvation."

This is the Jesus in whom Mr. Russell chose to disbelieve. Not merely a man like you or I who didn't measure up to his personal subjective preferences for stature or wisdom, but the way, the truth and the life. We must all set about looking at this Jesus and either accepting who He claimed to be and the evidences of what He said and did or denying Him.

Once again, i'd like to close by considering the outworking of Mr. Russell's worldview with regard to Jesus. We must always take a worldview and its assertions to their logical conclusion. Again, Mr. Muggeridge is much more eloquent in making these outworkings plain, "If, as often seems to be the case, we have driven Jesus away, or at any rate back to the catacombs, then we are totally at the mercy of our rulers, whoever they may be and whatever their ideology on behalf of which they purport to govern. The only antidote to the poison from Caesar's laurel crown comes from Jesus's crown of thorns. He alone can deliver us from the monstrosities and buffooneries of power, as has been discovered by the most perceptive spirits of our time, such as Sozhenitsyn. Faced with power at its most unbridled and most brutal, they turn for help and comfort, not to Universal Declarations of Human Rights and other pronouncements, solemn undertakings, Covenants and Charters in a similar vein, but to the man wearing a crown of thorns, decked out in a red robe of absurdity and with a court of jeering soldiers. There alone the sting of power is drawn and its pretensions are exploded, and the princes of this world have no recourse but, like Judas, to flee into the night."

Critique One - Part Four - Intellectual Ascent

"Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God." One could spend a lifetime with all the entailments of the ideas Mr. Russell presents in the two short paragraphs on morality and justice. Again I will be brief and present only three points for consideration.

(1) Unfounded Beginnings. Once again it seems Mr. Russell is content with his own, and other individuals interpretations of God instead of actually investigating what the Christian position on God actually is. He singles out goodness and justice to present his case, but the Bible actually presents many names for God. The significant point here is what the Bible is and what it does not say. The Bible is the revealed Word of God (or God describing Himself to us) where we see who God is and how He operates. The Bible does not say that God exhibits certain qualities, but rather that He is Almighty, Most High, Everlasting, Provider, Banner, Peace, Lord of Hosts, Sanctifier, Shepherd, Righteous, Ever-Present, Master, Transcendent, Savior, Father. This is significant because to prove God doesn't exist you would have to prove that He is not those things (not just that He appears to not be those things in some situations). This is, I believe, the fatal flaw with Atheism; namely, the affirmation of a negative in the absolute. More on this later.

(2) As regards goodness in particular, I would only do injustice to the topic if I were to do anything but reiterate C.S. Lewis from his 'Mere Christianity': "In other words badness cannot succeed in being bad in the same way that goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled...Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow of steal from his opponent. And do you new begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing."

(3) As regards justice, again I defer to Mr. Lewis: "But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line...A man feels wet when he falls into water, because a man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet...Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God does not exist-in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning."

As I mentioned before, this topic is deep and requires much thought. Ultimately, the Christian knows that God is good and He is just. He created and it was good. He created man and woman for man and it was very good. Mankind chose sin and with the entrance of sin it went bad. Only an unjust, unloving, bad God would leave us to our own devices and not do everything He could to set things right (like sending His only Son to suffer and die to defeat death and the grave so all humankind would have the opportunity of salvation). This is precisely what He has done, why we should fall on our face before Him as those unworthy of such mercy, and why He has every right to command our exclusive faith, love and worship.

Critique One - Part Three - An Eternal Choice

Mr. Russell spoke briefly concerning the Natural Law Argument and the Argument from Design as continued support for why he chose not to follow Jesus. He indicated that advances in science had convinced him that chance was a better explanation for why things are exactly the way they are than is the Biblical creation account. Mr. Russell admittedlly spent a short amount of time on this point because of the vast amount of detail involved. Likewise, my comments in response will be brief. There are only two points i'd like to present for consideration.

First, science is an explanatory agent. Science is observation. We believe something to be true, we devise a way to test that explanation and observe the results of the test then make a judgement to the validity of the first premise. Therefore, if science were perfected then we would have an explanation for how everything in the universe works. We quickly see the limitation here. Science can never explain why things are the way they are because we cannot observe origins. True scientists would admit as much. This means that science can have nothing to say about origins, only untestable, unobservable premises. This is why I believe advances in science only make clearer the case for creation. The more we discover, the more difficult it is to explain the intricate details by time and chance. If one looks at just two recent proposals for intellegent design, namely irreducible complexity and specified complexity (look briefly at the make-up and operation of blood clotting and DNA, for example) one would easily see that the passage of time makes ideas of chance as moving beyond the limits of plausibility.

"I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves...although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out...it is not such as to render life miserable." I am glad Mr. Russell at least recognizes that people have real problems with the outworkings of his views, although he quickly dismisses those individuals concerns. We cannot waive our hand at the reality that people are miserable. If one holds that everything came to be via time and chance then there is nothing to hope for. Death is the end. We'd have to consider whether considering anything important (origin, meaning, morality, destiny) was worth consideration. The Bible is clear that man is immortal, and will spend an eternity in one place or the other. This gives the Christian an unswerving hope no matter the situation, and the skeptic despondency and hopelessness even in the best of times.

Mr. Russell has missed the logical conclusion of his arguments against natural law and design. If we are all here as a result of time and chance, then man is just an accident, an unexplainable phenomena in the universe. If this is the case, then why should I as an accident care one whit what another accident thinks about anything? In other words, Mr. Russell's worldview discourages anyone from even considering his worldview. What Mr. Russell rejects, and disciples of Christ offer, is the peace, contentment, joy and hope that comes with belief that we are created in the very image of God, for the glory of God who makes available salvation, justification, sanctification and an eternal home in His presence through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a choice each of us must make.

Critique One - Part Two - Bad Assumptions

"'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, 'Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause."

This treatment of the First Cause Principle by Mr. Russell appears at first blush to be pretty logical, but there seem to be some bad assumptions behind his position. Namely the following:

(1) Mistaken Equality. In mathematics we understand the simple formula, If A=1 and B=1 then A=B. In this case, A and B are equivalents because the have the same value, and are therefore interchangeable. Saying A equals unity is the same as saying B is equal to unity. Unfortunately Mr. Russell makes this assumption about God and man, namely that they are equal with regard to causation. It could be stated thus, "If man has a cause and man is equal to God with regard to causation, then God must have a cause." Once we make the assumption that man is somehow on the same footing with God we are no longer discussing Christianity.

(2) Necessity. Man is not a necessary being. Human existence is not a pre-requisite for the function of the universe. We are dependent, this is why we must have a cause. The Bible is not confused here. God is a necessary being, independent and eternal. There has never been a time when God was not. This exposes a small part of the beauty of the Trinitarian view of God, the three-in-one (and we bring in Christ here). God didn't have to create anything because there was community in the Trinity from eternity past. Hence, "In the beginning God created..." He was necessarily there eternally before the "beginning" and created because He chose to do so.

I am not here trying to make a defense of the First Cause Principle in all its detail. I am concerned only with the usage of it in Mr. Russell's line of argument against the existence of God. I believe the assumptions inherent in the First Cause Principle as described by Mr. Russell are not valid and therefore cast no doubt or shadow on the existence of God.

Critique One - Part One - Slaying Straw Men

In this 'Critique One' I will be concerned with Bertrand Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian". I will not post a point-by-point response, but will share thoughts as they come and where I feel they warrant attention. My first comments are on his opening thoughts on 'What is a Christian'.

"We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian...you must believe in God and immortality...you must have some kind of belief about Christ." Mr. Russell says that a Christian "...must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men." He also states that while he personally does not think "...that Christ was the best and wisest of men..." but that "...I grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness."

It is interesting that Mr. Russell speaks of God and Christianity here without once referencing the Bible. To what does he look for his definition of a Christian? His own ideas? Popular Culture or Opinion? Political Institutions or Committees? Isn't Christianity at least somewhat concerned with Christ? Doesn't Christ appear most often in the Bible? This is especially confusing since the definition of a Christian appears in the Bible and is quite simple. Acts 11:26 says, "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Quite simply, a Christian is a disciple of Christ (which is to say he or she follows, or belongs to Christ, or is in fact a 'little Christ').

I fear Mr. Russell needs to begin by erecting this 'straw man' so that he can spend the remainder of his treatise torturing and bludgeoning it until finally all who read or hear his position will beg him to put the poor fellow out of his misery. If some fallacious 'straw man' is in fact his target, then I agree it needs to die. In fact, don't waste any more time on it at all. I'd just as soon Mr. Russell look true Biblical Christianity in the face and explain why he chooses not to be a disciple, or follower, of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Christ.

As for Jesus, Mr. Russell make more assumptions about his character and generously allows the description of "a very high degree of moral goodness." Again, we look at scripture and see that through both implication and direct answer Christ claims to be God, nothing else. C.S. Lewis says it this way in his 'Mere Christianity', "I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

We Must Go Back

I listened intently to our President’s speech on health care, as did a great many throughout the nation. There have been many comments and projections made since that night. In my case, one comment caught my attention and has arrested my thoughts in these past few days. It caught my ear mainly because I no longer take things that are said at face value, but rather recognize that behind every statement there is a bundle of ideas due to which an outlook is formed. Ideas have consequences, and therefore it seems most important to me to try and determine the bundle of ideas (commonly called worldview) that precipitates, or gives rise to, the stated opinion or view. With that preface in mind, the comment was one regarding our American character (which was referenced from a letter from former senator Kennedy).

Quoting from former senator Kennedy’s letter, Mr. Obama said, “’What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country’. Later Mr. Obama stated ‘I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.’” These are statements, or propositions presented by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama. The pertinent question is: From where have the uniquely American answers to the moral issues come. In other words, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama both feel these qualities of individualism, defense of freedom and healthy skepticism of government, is something unchanging that has existed since the foundation of this country and is not dependent on the societal, political party, or societal convention of the day. I heartily agree, but what is the basis of this unchanging moral law, or principal, or driving force that is behind the United States of America?

To answer this fundamental question, we must look back at the foundation of the country. Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”. The moral foundation of our country is found in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. It states, “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”. Our founders understood that every human is created by his or her Creator with certain common rights. Those “inalienable rights” were not given by any governing body, nor could they be molested or taken away by any governing body. The original intent of the framers of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the people to seek out Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by the dictates of their own conscious. So, we are ruggedly individual and self-reliant because we are endowed with life and liberty by our Creator, we defend freedom because we have been given freedom by our Creator, and we should have a healthy skepticism of government because the people we elect have a sinful nature which tempts them to do what they ought not to do (just like the rest of us). After all, that is why we need government in the first place, and why we the people elect, and can fire, those governing us, and why there are three branches of government that were established with a set of checks and balances. This, in brief, is the way in which the founders of this country saw the establishment of the United States of America, and the worldview behind the qualities that former Senator Kennedy and President Obama referred.

I believe that the current line of thinking, or worldview, through which many people currently see these and other topics is taking our country down a wrong road. The incontrovertible fact (borne from a study of the founding documents of this country, our state constitutions, and the men from whom our founders got their ideas for a constitutional republic, like Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke) is that the United States of America was founded on a Biblical worldview. They believed that God established the state, the family and the church, gave each a key function to perform and provided an absolute moral law (as revealed in the Bible) as a guide. Each is related and accountable to one another, and ultimately each is accountable to God. There is much disagreement about this point. Every attempt is made today to deny God’s oversight over every aspect of life. I know the basis of these attempts and have just one question in response. Why do all our delivered Presidential speeches end with, “May God bless you, and May God bless the United States of America?” To whom do our presidents refer? Are our presidents asking God to bless all of us individually and our country collectively in all matters except those of government, state, education, civil and criminal law, motor vehicle operation and any other activities on publicly owned property? Or instead is Mr. Obama petitioning the God of the Bible to continue to act in the words of Benjamin Franklin, which he uttered before the passage of our Constitution, “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.”
So what is the point? We chose to go down a road some years ago where our country has systematically attempted to remove God, the Biblical worldview and the absolute moral law from every state institution. This is not how the country was founded. Health care is just one small part of the shift in thinking that is pervading all avenues of American life. In my opinion, we need to return to how this country began, with every individual and institution accountable firstly to God and then to one another. Some today are calling themselves progressives, but to what are they progressing? In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back the soonest is the most progressive man…There is nothing progressive about being pig headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”

Justifiable Homicide?

There has been much in the news lately surrounding the issue of abortion, from articles on the effectiveness of the "morning-after pill" and the US Surgeon General's views to skepticism of what may or may not be included in the upcoming health care reform bill. I have thought about this issue for a long time, and struggled with many aspects of the issue. Abortion is an emotionally charged topic that has been debated at the highest levels of government for years. Even the mention of the topic provokes vehement debate and the Roe v. Wade decision is as polarizing as any that i've ever heard discussed. Perhaps this is so because something is being killed. Regardless of what position people take, each side can grant at least that starting premise because if nothing were alive and growing there wouldn't be a debate.

Each of us has different backgrounds, fundamental worldviews, experiences and biases that shape how we see any given topic under consideration. Those biases bring out different views on different topics. I will be open and honest and pre-set for everyone my biases: I am a 34 year old white male from a middle class family. I am a Christian (which is to say a disciple of Jesus Christ) who believes in the Bible as the Word of God, the existence of a triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit), and the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior as an exclusive requirement for salvation. I am also a husband of nine years, a father of four and an advocate of the pro-life position. I wanted to get that out in the open to begin with because in the remainder of this article I will not again invoke God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, my ethnicity or my family. Anyone’s experience, point of view or bias is only valid and meaningful if it corresponds to the truth. Abortion has to do with one question, and one question alone: what is the unborn?

The principle of biogenesis says that life only comes from pre-existing life, and that everything reproduces after its own kind, i.e. dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and elephants produce elephants. Therefore, if we want to know what something is all we have to do is determine what its parents are. Using this principle we can determine that a 2-year old child is a human being because its parents are human beings. Killing an innocent child is not an acceptable practice either morally or legally because it is a human being, so the pertinent question would be, is there any difference between a 2-year old and a human fetus? I believe there are only four differences between the two: size, location, environment and degree of development. None of these four differences represent a different level or degree of humanity; i.e. there is no difference of personhood between a 2-year old child and a human fetus, they are both unique individual human persons.

A human fetus is much smaller in size that a 2-year old but that does not mean the 2-year old is more human. I may be 6'-4" tall but certainly no more human than my wife who is nearly a foot shorter, so size is not a measure of humanity. Location is also not a measure of humanity. I spend about half my typical day at home and the other half at work. I am not more human at work than at home or vice versa. A triathlon was held recently at Lake Cammack where people spent about 20 minutes in the water and about another 60 minutes on land. None of those competitors were any less human when they were in the water, so environment does not dictate a degree of humanity. Finally, level of development cannot be a legitimate tool to show a different level of humanity. Would we suggest that those who suffer with Downs Syndrome, ALS, Parkinson's or Alzheimer’s are less human than any of the rest of us? Certainly not, in fact we struggle constantly with raising awareness so people will see those so afflicted as fully human persons.

What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person. A woman would have no more right choosing to kill a fetus than she would in choosing to kill a 2-year old. As horrific and deplorable an act as rape or incest, which is devastating to the woman who is violated in that way and deserves punishment of the perpetrator to the fullest extent of the law, still would not be sufficient grounds for the subsequent violation of the life of another innocent human being.
These are unbelievably difficult issues that go straight to the heart. Therefore they deserve serious consideration and a sometimes painful look at what is right. The truth is that our ethnicity, background, life experience, gender, level of education or any other influence on our lives is outside the central question that remains for us all to consider seriously: What is the unborn?

Declaration of Dependence

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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." Men of our young republic made this declaration some two hundred and thirty three years ago while living under the thumb of the English tyrannical monarchy. Men not much older than my thirty-four years with the strength and courage to recognize a stifling influence in everyday life and culture and to announce with humble authority their disapproval and intended separation from those powers that would seek to rule over them by pernicious force. Things have certainly changed much since then. I have been paying particular attention with the coming of our Independence Day this year and have seen that we are now country miles away from the intentions of our founding fathers.

Thomas Paine submitted to the public his 'Common Sense' as an apologetic to stir their thoughts of freedom and move them from their natural inclination toward indecision and sloth. He wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil… Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise... Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others…Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.” Our government was never meant to be so complex and far-reaching that its citizens could not understand its laws or determine its boundaries. Yet today we have an ever more complex tax system, a parade of new laws, regulations and governing bodies, and government intervention into private enterprise in all facets of life, and an attempted entry into nationwide health care.

I see much similarity between this departure from the true understanding of the original intent of our government and how we govern our own lives. Almost two thousand years ago the apostle Paul wrote of man, “What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 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.” All humankind is described in the Bible as lost, blind, dead in their sins and therefore in need of a Savior. We are now, however, being told that we are inherently good. The problem is that some have made the extension that since we are basically good, then we are also perfectible and have tried to convince us all that we can better ourselves. C.S. Lewis said in his 'Abolition of Man' “This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity…It is the magicians bargain: give up our soul, get power in return…It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere ‘natural object’ and his own judgments of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will…The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite…”. Similarly, but in much more pointed language, Malcolm Muggeridge challenged us to realize our current oppression when he stated, "Similarly, it has become abundantly clear in the second half of the twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in the process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and labouring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and becomes extinct."

What Lewis and Muggeridge are trying to get us to see is that by assuming that we are good by nature, and operating within our own limits in an attempt to perfect ourselves, we are only succeeding in destroying ourselves. We have put our confidence in our own ability to solve our own problems, our thoughts and attitudes turned to our own comfort, welfare and provision; our single train of thought centered on having things our own way in an attempt to free ourselves from any and all boundaries. I’ve often thought of this struggle like a man in a slip knot, the more he struggles to free himself the tighter he is bound. We need to stop the struggle to free ourselves and look to the One who has provided the way to real liberty.

As we take time this July in remembrance of our previous Declaration of Independence from English tyranny, let us embrace a Declaration of Dependence on the Lord Jesus and thereby step out from under the oppression of our own selfish and prideful desire to have things our own way, and instead step into the light of the knowledge of the truth. We are created in the image of God but with a nature of sin and disobedience; the only way to freedom from this bondage of sin and death is through belief in Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself said in John's Gospel 14:6-7 “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.’, and in 8:35-36, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

A Challenge for Fathers

Father’s Day has been a bit different for me this year. Throughout my developmental years Father’s Day was a time in June to recognize my father and grandfather for the love they showed me, and the examples of what I wanted to be when I grew up. My first son was born almost six years ago and at that time I was still thinking mostly of the family patriarchs, which now included another great example in my wife's father. Now, two more sons later my focus has shifted more toward myself, and being a father in my own right. My thoughts had been swirling for some time on the issue, but recent societal and cultural trends coupled with my reading of a book by Blaise Pascal have provided some clarity.

Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for his mathematical work with conic sections and atmospheric pressure, but he was also a proficient thinker of his day and wrote several works that provide some dramatic insight into culture that is relevant today. Pascal wrote "The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet it is the greatest of our miseries. For that is what prevents us principally from thinking about ourselves, and which, without our being aware of it, bring about our ruin". At some point in all our lives we begin to search for some important answers to life. Some have said that truth, purpose and fulfillment in life can best be described by finding coherent answers to questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny; or stated otherwise: Where did I come from? Why am I here? How should I behave? What will happen to me when I die? What Pascal is saying is that when we begin to look seriously at those questions, we figure they are just too hard to deal with so we willingly seek out things that will divert our attention. Just a quick look at our culture today and it is easy to see that life for fathers in particular, and for men in general, is rife with possible diversions. I took five minutes and generated the following list of things to which we give our time: work, television, sports (watching and participating), internet, time out with friends, vehicles, hobbies, lawn and garden and travel (with work or vacations) just to name a few. I am not suggesting that these things are in and of themselves a bad thing; but as Pascal states so simply and eloquently, "we run heedlessly over the edge of the precipice, after placing something before our eyes to keep ourselves from seeing it." As fathers our diversions are devastating because our sons and daughters will be the next ones to ask questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny and we will have allowed ancillary distractions to completely take the place of the conveyance of truth and meaning in their lives. A recent promotion on the largest sports network challenged men to protect their “fanhood”. According to the associated commercials, a man could commit no more egregious mistake than to be asked a question about the local sports team and not be able to come up with the correct answer. The message was conveyed with total clarity: knowledge of the physical attributes, histories, and statistics of your favorite sports team was a more important use of time than contemplation of issues of truth, morality or the nature of God and man.

Perhaps the most pertinent question of our day is what possible explanation could there be that sufficiently links those four questions of life? I have spent the last 3 or so years seriously reading and studying to try to come up with my own answer. I am absolutely convinced that a Biblical worldview in general, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, is the only way to answer these most serious of questions in a non-contradictory way. In addition to being a great mathematician and thinker, Pascal was also a committed follower of Christ. He wrote, "…if there is one true religion on earth the course of all things must direct them toward it as toward their center…that true religion must be so definitely the goal and center toward which all things gravitate that whoever knows its principles can comprehend fully the nature of man in particular and the course of the world in general…the Christian religion which consists essentially in the mystery of the Redeemer (Christ) who, uniting in himself the two natures, human and divine, has drawn men out of the corruption of sin to reconcile them with God in his divine person." Meaning in life comes from the existence of an overarching purpose. The Bible provides this overarching purpose in the form of worship. Archbishop William Temple describes worship this way: "Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. All this gathered up in adoration is the greatest of all expressions of which we are capable." In short, God created us so He would receive glory, and when everything we think, feel, do and say is with the directed intention of bringing Him glory then it is also filled with meaning.

Psalm 16:9-11 says, "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand." Romans 12:1-2 says, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will." All fathers pass something on to their children. My challenge is for all fathers, for all men (as some may some day be fathers), to spend more time considering those things most important in life; to think about our origin, the meaning in life, what morality really is and where it comes from, and what will happen after we are gone. These are questions our children will inevitably ask. We can either help them answer those questions by passing along a coherent framework of truth, or we can teach them to shirk the consideration of those questions in lieu of diversions. I, for one, have a lot of work to do.

Should we Compromise our Position on Compromise?

We need to build bridges and cross the aisle so we can find the middle ground. We hear more and more rhetoric of that ilk these days in all segments of the population, and on the surface it sounds pretty good. Spending time talking to people, looking at collective survey or poll data and research results, having dialogue with experts in specific fields and then coming to points of compromise seems to be the right thing to do. Compromise is without question a beneficial practice, but only if the issue under consideration is not foundational (or essential).

I believe this issue represents a serious mistake in logic and a systemic problem in the United States today. In our efforts to conform and be “progressive” and “relevant” we have forgotten that compromise is not a requirement. In fact, if we compromise the essential, foundational principles of our lives, then all is lost. To build a bridge there has to be two fixed sides separated by a gap; to cross an aisle there first has to be a separation of the seats; for a middle to exist there has to be two ends. We know when a race is half over because we have a starting line and a finish line. When building a house, one can choose either brick veneer or vinyl siding and one can choose wallpaper or paint, but a wise builder cannot choose to build without a foundation.
So the question becomes what are the foundational principles of life, and who decides what they are? I would submit that we do not, and in fact should not be allowed, to decide these principles. I also believe the founding fathers of our nation and our state would have agreed. Two hundred and thirty three years ago, the founders of this nation penned the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies, it begins: “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. 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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” According to the founders of this nation, our foundation is laid on the unalienable Rights, and self-evident truths to which we are endowed by our Creator, and two distinctive points emerge. First, the words “unalienable” and “self-evident” indicate that the rights and truths of which they speak exist outside of us, were not established by us, and therefore cannot be changed by us. Second, they felt strongly enough to leave their country en masse, to fight and ultimately to die to protect those foundational principles.

The Preamble to our own North Carolina Constitution states, “We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Jesus taught a parable on foundations in Luke 6:47-49, “I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

Jesus Christ is the foundation of a solid life, and the Bible is the written Word on which the foundational aspects of our lives should be based. We have a foundation that must be preserved. Whatever the foundational topic under debate, we must not go to popular opinion, or poll results, or the emotion of the day for a point of compromise. We must consult the foundational principles of our lives and hold fast. I believe that if we adopt the position that it is alright to compromise anything, we will end up compromising everything. We will slowly but surely chip away the entirety of our foundation, and when the torrent comes, we will collapse and our destruction will be complete.

I am well aware that many who read such statements will say that those are narrow-minded, intolerant, old-fashioned, or perhaps even ignorant views on life. The simple fact of reality is that there is truth, and the truth is exclusive by definition. There is a definitive line that has been established. Many groups work very hard to move the fixed line of absolute moral truth by changing laws, or appealing to popular opinion. Let us make no mistake, the line of truth does not move, we only decide as a group to move across it. We hear in many arenas the statement, “…and the truth will set you free.” The rest of John 8:31-32 and 34-36 is almost always conveniently left out: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free…I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Truth is important. Foundations are necessary. Let’s turn from the urge to compromise away all the principles of prime importance in our lives and stand firm on the rock on which we are founded.

Complete Joy at Easter

I had a unique experience this Tuesday, April 7 that gave rise to an experience during this Easter season unique in my life. I have three young boys (ages 5, 3 and 16 months), the youngest of which was diagnosed with a cyst in his throat that required surgery. In the days leading up to, and on the day of, the procedure I documented the feelings and emotions my wife and I experienced and saw some pretty startling truths. These truths have almost entirely been lost in a market driven and secularized culture, but in my opinion sum up what Easter is all about.

Once we found out a surgical procedure was recommended, and would be the best course of action, the feeling that my wife and I both had was the same: I don’t want my son to go through this. He is only 16 months and won’t know much of what is going on, but he will be taken away, put to sleep, examined and operated on in a room by himself and have to go through some discomfort in the days following his hospital visit. I love my son, I know he won’t like it, so I don’t want him to have to go through it. I was jolted when I thought about God the Father and His plan for Jesus. Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” In John 12:27-28, Jesus speaking of his death says, “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” There was a two-week time frame between my son’s diagnosis and the operation and I didn’t want him to have to bear it. God’s plan for His Son was the cross of Calvary.

Another key point brought to my mind was the love of a father. God sent Jesus to the cross to suffer because he loves us. John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him.” This is a kind of love that is beyond my comprehension. Fortunate for me that God is not bound by the limits of my intellect.

My son had no idea what he was in for when he woke up on that fateful Tuesday morning. He woke and went to a new place with lots of lights and funny equipment, saw a bunch of new people, drank some liquid that made him very sleepy, and woke up groggy and disoriented with a tube coming out of his hand. Jesus, however, was not in the dark or under any illusions of what He was going to do. Luke 9:51 says, “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.” Jesus knew of God’s plan and went to suffer, willingly, again out of love. Jesus himself spoke as recorded in John 15:9-15, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed by Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay his life down for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

Finally, all through this process my wife, my son and I were surrounded by support. We had good friends offer to watch our other two boys during the time at the hospital. Phone calls, emails and words of encouragement were constant from the time of the diagnosis. Family and friends came to the hospital, and smiling faces were waiting on our little boy to come out after his discharge. Jesus died on the cross alone, all the throngs of followers during his times of teaching, healing, feeding the hungry were all gone. His disciples scattered, and only a few remained at the end. God himself had to turn His back in a withdrawal of support as the sin of the world was laid on the shoulders of His perfect son. A person going through the process of scourging and crucifixion was unbearable. Feeling that pain with the addition of the sins of all people, for all time, and experiencing it all alone is quite simply beyond comprehension.

One similarity did come to mind in the end. My son came through the procedure with no complications. He was walking around playing, eating, drinking and napping like nothing had happened within three hours of the surgery. Likewise, the Easter message is good news. “On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus…but the men said to them, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.” (Luke 24:1-3,5-7).

Important Questions, Meaningful Answers

A cursory review of various outlets of news media and "water cooler" conversations will illuminate the fact that we are surrounded today with a wealth of important questions; questions regarding safety, security, health, wealth and prosperity, life and the future. Many times we encounter these important issues without ever considering whether or not the answers we get to these questions are meaningful. Do we really want a well thought out answer that is based in truth, that corresponds to reality, and that is personally relevant, or are we satisfied with any response as long as it sounds right?

There are many factors that contribute to answers we give to important questions: worldview, emotion, experience, knowledge, and motivations to name a few. But what is a legitimate and meaningful foundation for important answers? Why not consider an important and sensitive current topic, like the recent address our President made concerning embryonic stem cell research. "But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." Sound science and moral values are not, and have never been, inconsistent because they both have the same point of reference.

The key is the origination of the value-laden terms that are used. According to the address human beings are called to care for each other and ease human suffering, and are given the capacity and will for research, humanity and conscience. But who called us, and who gave to us? If the majority of us believe that the universe and everything in it is a product of time and chance then there is no meaning, no value, no reason and no purpose in life. We are just another piece of furniture in the universe. It would be like a rock saying that it had been given the capacity and will to remain in the river for all its days.

In my opinion, the God of the Bible is the reason there is no inconsistency between sound science and moral values. Genesis 2:1 says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in their vast array." Genesis 1:27 states, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Colossians 1:15-17 informs us concerning Jesus, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." There has never been a time when God did not exist, and at a specific point in time He created everything and established all physical interrelationships. God created human beings in His image (creativity, conscience, reason, etc.) and gave us the tools to discover the wonders of His creation (sound science).

A meaningful answer to the question at hand can only come from first asking the one question that is absent from almost every recent conversation I hear on the issue: Is life precious? Human life is a creation of God, in His image, and is so precious to Him that He established a means for personal relationship through the suffering of His only Son. In his address, the President stated, "...scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.” While our hearts go out to those suffering with physical maladies, we cannot use those emotions as the reason to endorse research that would destroy other equally valuable lives.

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psalm 139:13-14) God has already established the value of every life. That value applies to those with a severed spinal cord, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and the unborn fetus. If there is a chance that one life (human embryo) will be destroyed, then it would be despicable to destroy that life for the sake of research. Our meaningful answer would then be at odds with the current address, and more in line with a previous Presidential response on the issue, "Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life...And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means."

Troubling Times, Thankful Heart

Record losses in the stock market, continued layoff announcements, cutbacks in every segment of society, corruption in corporate America and in American government, more implications in performance enhancing drugs in sports, and a bleak forecast for the near future economically. Every day more bad news is announced and more talk abounds about the ills and woes of society. I have found it odd that in a time like this my thoughts have been focused on thanksgiving. I hear no one talking about being thankful and i'm sure if a poll was taken most would say that is because there is nothing for which to be thankful. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Thanks has been defined as follows: a grateful feeling or acknowledgement of a benefit, favor or the like, expressed by words or otherwise. We may feel there is nothing to be grateful for in the present times, but think back to the time before the recent gloom and doom; how many outpouring of thanks and gratitude went out in those times of growth, wealth and prosperity? None. To whom do we owe our thanks? Who is responsible for the benefit, favor or the like in our lives as previously defined? Is it possible that there is no one to thank, or have we just forgotten how to be thankful?

In my opinion, we have forgotten how to be thankful because we have forgotten God. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner for Literature in 1970, said the reason for the general malaise of the Western world was because the West had forgotten God. In the United States we have been steadily progressing down a path to eliminate God from all phases of life. We have pressed ideas of time and chance, and that we as humans have all the answers, abilities and strengths required to build ourselves up with our own hands. Ideas have consequences, and the prideful notions that we are the measure of all things, has led to a refusal to give credit where credit is truly due. If we are solely responsible for our successes then we are also solely responsible for our failures; and when troubled times arrive we become bound by the shackles of worry, blame, fear, depression and despair.

A recent list of Presidential rankings has been touted of late. A majority of those more distinguished than I consider Abraham Lincoln the greatest President in American history. In his Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day issued on March 30, 1863 he said, in part, "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!" Later that same year amidst national civil upheaval, in his proclamation that lead to the establishment of Thanksgiving Day, President Lincoln wrote, "No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy."

Personally I have been struggling with difficult decisions and work load at my vocation, my wife has been dealing with debilitating headaches due to a severe sinus infection, my three sons all are suffering with some form of sickness, and we are going through cutbacks financially along with everyone else. At the same time I have an overwhelming sense of thankfulness because above it all I have been shown indescribable favor, and I have been given great benefit. Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples prior to His crucifixion as recorded in 1 Corinthians 11, "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." I serve a personal God who created me and cares enough for me to provide a way for my salvation, redemption, justification, sanctification and glorification. If we would remember that gift, borne through ultimate sacrifice, we continue to have reason to give thanks no matter the circumstance.

Psalm 107:10-15 says, "Some sat in darkness and the deepest gloom, prisoners suffering in iron chains, for they had rebelled against the words of God and despised the counsel of the Most High. So he subjected them to bitter labor; they stumbled and there was no one to help. Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress. He brought them out of darkness and the deepest gloom and broke away their chains. Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men, for he breaks down gates of bronze and cuts through bars of iron." In these troubling times, why not enjoy the freedom and peace that comes from the realization that I have reason to be thankful. That I live each day, whether good or bad by my standards, under the watchful eye and protective hand of a personal, creator God, who has promised to work all things out for my eternal good and sacrificed all for my benefit and to show me favor. In this troubling time, let’s give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men!