the Christian in Culture

Stopping by the Woods on a Screaming Evening

2011-05-29T07:03:00.000-06:00

I was recently asked the question, “How do you get someone involved in the pro-life cause when they do not see any reason to get involved?” Don’t think I did too great a job answering at the time, but, on reflection and with much thought, here is the answer I now have for that question.

First of all, this was asked in the context of pro-life training based on the outstanding DVD training material, Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion, authored by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) and Scott Klusendorf (Life Training Institute). Mastering this material gives you both the scientific and the philosophical legs to stand against the pro-abortion position. One of the things it teaches is to simplify and focus the issue to the question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is just a blob of tissue then no reason at all is needed to kill it, BUT if it is a human being, then no reason for killing it is justifiable (with the exception where it is a clear medical choice between mother and baby dying or only aborting the baby will save the mother’s life).

One of my favorite tactics is to paint a word picture. Get the other person involved intellectually and emotionally. Get them to see the issue in their mind’s eye. You know the ending of the story – it must lead to the central issue, “What is the unborn?” and it must arrive there with both emotional and intellectual impact. So, this is an exercise of working backwards from the conclusion.

Here is my story. It is not the only one. You can construct your own.

You’re walking on a path through the woods when you are startled to hear what sounds like human screams. Instinctively, you turn to the direction of the screams, but you cannot see anything through the dense foliage. The screams continue.

What should you do? Investigate?

So, you softly make your way to the sound, until parting some leaves you see an adult brutally abusing a small toddler.

What do you do now? Try to intervene, call for help on your cell phone, or run for help?

What would you think of a person who simply said, “I don’t want to get involved,” turned back to the path, and continued their pleasant stroll through the beautiful woods – all the while ignoring the screams?

Is not some form of action to help simply the human response to this situation? Don’t we have a natural revulsion for the moral integrity of the person who does nothing?

That is the picture of the abortion holocaust happening in this country and around the world.

I’m not sure there’s much more to do for the person whose response remains, “I don’t want to get involved.” But, if the story seems to hit home, and they try to make a point of the difference between the toddler being abused and a fetus being killed in abortion, then, you’ve got your opening to say, “but that’s the real issue isn’t it? What is the unborn?”

That’s where the training kicks in. You now have the open door for the scientific and the moral case ready. And, you’re ready for the other common objections.

Death Defying Acts - Let Go, Let God

2011-05-26T05:33:00.006-06:00

Some people are so terrified of roller coasters they don't even want to watch others ride them. Then, some are so brave and death-defying they release their grip on the car and fling their arms skyward as the coaster crests the peak and accelerates through weightlessness down the steep track.

Actually, the brave are only acknowledging the truth that their death grip on the restraint wasn't going to hold them securely in the coaster through all the twists, turns, accelerations, and stomach heaving drops anyway. It's the shoulder harness and lap restraints holding them in. Their strength adds absolutely nothing - but a false sense of doing something and a diversion from enjoying the ride.

For years I was what I call a white-knuckled Christian holding fast to the hem of Christ's robe with all my strength. I wanted to be a faithful Christian, but, at the time, I thought it was by my will and my strength that I exercised faith over my mind's uncertainties. And it took a great deal of my attention and focus to hold fast.

I had a totally unscriptural (worldly) idea of faith as something your heart willed and forced on your mind to cover over doubts.

I knew there was a God - no question whatsoever about that - but it still seemed I had to hold on with all my strength. Then God brought Ravi Zacharias and his books into my life. I saw the Christian life of the mind and that there were reasons to believe what I believed. The faith I previously saw as an act of will became more an act of reasonable response to the evidence. My heart and mind were no longer schizophrenic but united into a whole being.

Just as God brought this into my life, it also dawned on me that it never was my strength holding God but His strength holding me fast - "and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." Jn 10:28

Realizing and acting on the truth is a very brave thing to do whether it's letting go on the roller coaster or letting go of God and letting (trusting, faith) His strength hold you.

Feed Me!

2011-05-22T15:25:00.001-06:00

Our stomach growls and aches when it's hungry ... and we generally give it the attention it demands. But what about our soul?

Our soul doesn't growl, but it does ache for true spiritual food. True spiritual food - God's Word; the fellowship of praise between us and the Father facilitated by the Holy Spirit; the fellowship of suffering; corporate and private worship; that abba, daddy, relationship; the magnificent wonder of revelation - brings a wholeness and fulfillment found nowhere else this side of heaven.

Yet, paradoxically, for all the "high" of soul food, we are "prone to wander, prone to leave the God we love." Prone to let the empty allures and enticements of the flesh draw us to the worldly for satisfaction by that which never can. Like a child testing its independence, we wander away from our Father until the soulish ache-pangs of depression, despair, and disillusionment cause us to cry out as Paul, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom 7:24)

I must confess: I'm a professional wanderer (as I suspect many of us are). But how do we stop the unending replays of our role as prodigal son?

The solution to every problem starts with the first step of acknowledging the problem to ourselves. God already knows. We need to come into agreement with God.

We ask God to help us where we are weak.

Then we intentionally set out to routinely feed our soul with what it craves.

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mat 4:4)

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'" (Mat 26:26)

"O taste and see that the LORD is good." (Psa 34:8)

Feed your soul.

Another Co (God and me) Incident

2011-04-09T09:49:00.009-06:00

One of the ministries I contribute to regularly is Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (http://www.rzim.org/), and every other month or so they send an audio CD with updates on the ministry or one of their many excellent speakers delivering a message.

About a month ago, I received a CD with Dr John Lennox giving his comments on the fatal logic errors in Dr. Stephen Hawking's recent book, The Grand Design, where Hawking purports to show that the existence of physical laws like the Law of Gravity are sufficient to ensure the universe would come into existence without any aid from outside influence or intelligence (God).

I loved that CD playing it at least 20 times in my daily 40 min commutes to/from work. Dr Lennox' insights and comments revealed simple truths that somehow had escaped me even after all my study in philosophy, religion, and apologetics. I shared the CD with many people. I kept telling myself I needed to listen to it at my computer where I could easily pause/rewind, so I could capture the many thoughts/ideas and names Dr Lennox mentioned ... but I just never got it done.

In addition to the occasional CD's, RZIM also mails periodic ministry updates in a small pamphlet, "Just Thinking". On a recent morning I happened to notice one lying on the desk near my keyboard that I had not opened, so I decided to take it as I left for work with the intention of reading it during lunch.

That morning while driving to work, a still small inner voice reminded me I had not transcribed the Lennox CD, yet.

At lunch I broke the seals on the pamphlet and opened to the first article, "Stephen Hawking and God" by John Lennox. Though this was not the identical presentation as the CD, it had all the important points - and it had a bibliography!

Purpose of Life is NOT Death

2011-02-06T06:46:00.003-06:00

Many non-Christians but, surprisingly many Christians too, make an assumption I think is false: God's purpose in giving life is just about people getting to heaven. In other words, God is just trying to get back as many of the souls He gave out as He can. Already starting to sound a little strange, isn't it?

I think saving souls is certainly important, but that is NOT the most important thing. Simply put, the purpose of life is not death. The purpose of life is to glorify God and we do so both by making wise choices to acknowledge Him and obey Him but also those who make bad choices end up glorifying God and showing His wisdom and His judgment. Look at Pharaoh.

Here is a sample pro-abortion argument where this misunderstanding comes into play.

The Greatest Adventure

2011-02-02T07:14:00.002-06:00

No great adventurer knows what he shall find at the end of his journey, but he counts on adventure with each step. So it is when God calls. Do not expect to see from begining to end but only His illumination from step to step for God's call is not to a destination but to the great adventure of discovering Him.

Virus In the Garden

2010-09-02T05:25:00.004-06:00

I have started "debating" atheists and others on Facebook. It is taxing, emotionally and intellectually, but I enjoy the fact that it forces me to think and organize my thoughts much better.

Recently, I responded to a post of this quote by Ron Patterson - "In the Bible we are asked to believe that the entire human race was plunged into sin because one woman took the advice of a talking snake... before she had any knowledge of good and evil." I want to share part of my answers to this issue:

Adam and Eve's sin was disobedience. Lacking knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with it. In fact, they already had knowledge of good from walking with God and having all good things provided for them. They also knew, again from walking with God, that they were not God - that there was a significant difference between their abilities and His. For example, God created; Adam got to name. So the temptation to be as God was an obvious falsehood they would have known to reject.

God knows the highest expression of Good - Himself - and the absolute pit of evil that exists where He is not, but God also has the ability to know all these things without being corrupted by the knowledge in any way. He has the omnipotence and omniscience to ensure His plan always works out in the way that brings the greatest good (His Glory) before mankind.

Adam and Eve were created as moral creatures - similar to God's moral nature - else they could not have known God as Good, but they did not have God's power to not be corrupted by this knowledge. For them, the fruit of the forbidden tree was a virus.

Squirrels get all the peaches off the trees at my lake house. If a squirrel had eaten the forbidden fruit in the Garden, God would not have cared.

The Tomb is Empty!

2010-04-04T06:10:00.004-06:00

The screams of a baby in the woods so compells us to its aid that we would rightfully judge one who walks away as inhuman. Likewise, the rumor of a man dying and rising from the grave, defeating every man's enemy, should so command our attention that failing to sincerely, thoroughly, and individually investigate the claim is the highest betrayal of our humanness. He made us to turn and respond to the way He calls - whether to the cries of a child or an empty tomb. Life or death. Will you turn aside?

http://thegoodnews.org/

Standing for Truth

2010-03-17T05:18:00.002-06:00

"Thank you for encouraging me to stand up for my faith." This was a young Christian lady's commendation to a national Christian radio network. I'm not sure this Christian radio network explicitly teaches Christians to stand for their faith or this is just the yound lady's summarization. Still, I think there is a much more effective way of communicating this idea.

Rather than teaching to "stand for our faith", I think we should be explicitly teaching to "stand for Truth". Here are several reasons this is a better way to express our Biblical mandate to be salt and light both inside the Church and to the unbelieving culture.

Faith, when Biblically understood, is a perfectly good word, but, we (the Church) have allowed the word to be misunderstood and marginalized by our culture. The first or "common" definition most people think of is the ability to believe in something that has no proof, or, perhaps, even to cling to a belief in spite of apparent contradictory proof. Blind faith. Is this Biblical faith? Absolutely not! Using the word, faith, just tells the world you are part of a marginalized minority and should be ignored.

Another common perception of faith is that it's more like flavors of ice cream than insulin. Our relativistic society sees faith as a personal preference, not a truth claim. You can have your faith and I can have my faith ... whatever works for you. To claim to "stand for your faith" is to start off swimming upstream against public perception.

Truth has been relativized, too, but nowhere near the degree of misperception of faith. Everyone, even the relativist, lives as if there are some moral absolutes - i.e. truths - and it's much easier to tackle this with logic and reason than to set everyone straight on faith. Claiming to "stand for truth" has a much greater potential for starting out on more common ground without having to fight the battle first over misunderstanding of the word, faith.

Ultimately, you have to talk about Truth, anyway, so why not just start there.

I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me. John 14:6 (NASB)

I would even go so far as to say there is just as much confusion over faith inside the church as out. Using words like truth and trust can enable us to bring clarity to the murky waters.

Tempted to Do It Your Way

2010-03-07T06:31:00.003-06:00

Saw the connection last Sunday between the insults hurled at Christ on the cross -

Mark 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. (KJV)

and those hurled by the devil -

Matt 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. (KJV)

Even on the cross, the devil tempted Jesus to acomplish the mission of salvation in his own way rather than according to God's plan. Jesus refused. So should we.

When human understanding is lacking, stand on the certainty of God's Word.

Peace on Earth

2009-12-20T06:39:00.005-06:00

Our dreams can be no higher than our language. How often we take beautiful God-filled words and make them so banal and so far short of the wonderful pictures God has painted for us.

Even many secularists will exchange Christmas cards carrying the phrase "Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men" - the Christmas angelic proclamation to the shepherds. It should be enough of a clue that if secularists would use the word "peace" then something (the meat) of the depth of meaning God intended is missing. Yet, could there still be a hint or clue there?

Most people first think of the lack of war or an unconflicted state of mind as the meaning of "peace", yet we are confronted with perpetual war and almost constant conflict - unless we find internal escape from the world with the Buddhists or accept the unreality of reality with the Hindus. We are all painfully aware there is a problem, we only differ on where the real problem resides.

The unbelieving world sees the problem as a correctable, superficial human problem (obviously, with other people) that will yield to liberal doses of education, law, and "I'm OK, You're OK" psychotherapy. But God has defined the problem as a hereditary illness and brokeness within called rebellion against God that we all have willfully embraced. We have estranged ourselves from home, and, like the prodigal son in a far country, we all long for home and the missing relationship - even when we don't know where home is, we simply know there ought to be a home.

The external wars and conflicts are just extensions of the sickness and longings from within. For those willing to admit this source of the problem - me - God sent a Son to be born in a manger to make the only way to restore the wholeness between Father and us, His children.

And so the angels proclaimed at the birth of Jesus, "Wholeness and restored relationship with the Father is available to all who will acknowledge the Giver and accept the Gift." Now, there can be Peace even when there is no peace. In fact, without this internal "Peace on Earth", there is no hope of external "peace on earth" at all.

Savor the full beauty and wonder of that night long ago. See the Glorious picture of when our Peace came.

p.s. - Just viewed a video post by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) on this verse from Luke 2:14. He added one additional perspective - horizontal vs vertical. Secular application of "Peace" in this passage is horizontal, man to man, but the Biblical application is vertical, God to man. This is very similar to the common distortion of Mt 22:36-39 - "Love your neighbor as yourself." It appears the vertical relationship always preceeds and informs the horizontal.

Evolving to God's Image?

2009-11-04T06:40:00.002-06:00

Which is the correct interpretation of Gen 1:26 - "Let us make/create man in our image" or "Let us evolve this goo so that it will eventually come to our image"?

If the later, does evolution make us "better" and more God-like? Have we arrived there yet?

Do we finally just evolve into pure immaterial soul and out of time into eternity?

I think the jury has already condemned us.

Love Your Neighbor or Hate Your Neighbor?

2009-10-25T15:55:00.010-06:00

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " Mt 22:36-39 (KJV).

Many are familiar with this passage. The latter half of Jesus' saying, "Love thy neighbor," is so non-threatening you find parallels in other religions and even secularists can nod in agreement. However, this completely misunderstands, trivializes, and tramples the meaning and impact of what is intended. I don't know of a higher or more exacting standard of love for our neighbor than in the Bible, but this high standard can't be understood apart from the whole of Jesus' statement.

First, there is a clear precedence, first and second, 1) Love God with your whole being and then 2) love your neighbor. This implies you cannot really do #2 without doing #1 first, just as you can't stretch a single into a double in baseball by running from home plate across the pitcher's mound to second base bypassing first base.

Then Jesus says the second is "like" the first. How are the first and second alike? Both use the same Greek word for love - agape. The highest example of agape is Jesus' giving Himself to die in our place on a cross that we might obtain God's mercy rather than the judgment we all deserve. That's the kind of "love" we are commanded to love our neighbor with. A high love indeed. Imagine what that would be like.

But, unless we know that kind of agape love first expressed by God toward us, what example of love have we to share with our brothers? I have used the following to try to convey what I believe to be the enormous contrast between agape and the kind of love we settle for when we jump to #2 without knowing the love of #1 - "Compared to God's love shown to us through the cross, the highest love of natural man is but a better hate" ... so, without the high Biblical standard and with the dumbing down of love, there's little wonder there is real "hate" expressed in this world - even by some who can quote Mt 22:36-39.

Taking God, and God first, out of the picture leaves a pathetic, cheap, imitation love. So, do you love your neighbor or hate him?

In Need of Mercy

2009-10-05T05:18:00.006-06:00

Some thoughts on John 8:1-11, the passage on the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus by the ruling religious leaders.

The woman was guilty of breaking the law and deserved punishment as the religious leaders claimed. As events unfolded, it appears Jesus convicted these leaders of their sins, yet, instead of staying and receiving mercy as the woman did, they left with their deserved punishment still hanging over their heads.

Jesus was the only one who could grant mercy. The just penalty of God's justice must be paid, and He alone could and did pay it. He could grant this woman mercy because of what He knew He would do in fulfilling His mission on the earth.

The religious rulers missed out because they desired justice over mercy and ending up condemning themselves.

They Have Names, Too

2009-06-03T06:08:00.003-06:00

(Below was submitted for publication in a local newspaper.)

The counter silently clicks over as 165 babies are aborted every hour:

50,844,537 50,844,538 50,844,539 50,844,540 50,844,541 50,844,542 50,844,543 50,844,544 50,844,545 50,844,546 50,844,547 50,844,548 50,844,549 50,844,550 50,844,551 50,844,552 50,844,553 50,844,554 50,844,555 50,844,556 50,844,557 50,844,558 50,844,559 50,844,560 50,844,561 50,844,562 50,844,563 50,844,564 50,844,565 50,844,566 50,844,567 50,844,568 50,844,569 50,844,570 50,844,571 50,844,572 50,844,573 50,844,574 50,844,575 50,844,576 50,844,577 50,844,578 50,844,579 50,844,580 50,844,581 50,844,582 50,844,583 50,844,584 50,844,585 50,844,586 50,844,587 50,844,588 50,844,589 50,844,590 50,844,591 50,844,592 50,844,593 50,844,594 50,844,595 50,844,596 50,844,597 50,844,598 50,844,599 50,844,600 50,844,601 50,844,602 50,844,603 50,844,604 50,844,605 50,844,606 50,844,607 50,844,608 50,844,609 50,844,610 50,844,611 50,844,612 50,844,613 50,844,614 50,844,615 50,844,616 …

In one hour on Sunday, May 31,2009, another senseless killing surfaces a name - George Tiller. Every life is a precious life – even that of an abortionist. Maybe one name will help us remember that the millions that have already died should have had names, too – while the killing counter continues to roll:

Shamika Abbey James Theodore Juan Becky Sara William Rose Jose Thomas Nathan Lydia Lee Mary Kyle Nancy Julie Yevette Iola Rusty Chuck Audrey Vicky Orem Jimmy Delissa Catherine Harry Kenny Glissen Julio Pam Lisa Terence Sergio Jason Paul Amy Tiffany Jermaine Avery Shayla Jason Britt Gabriel Alwonda …

Legalizing Wrong as Right Sends More to Hell

2009-05-14T06:08:00.003-06:00

Pain has a purpose - to let us know something is wrong and give us a chance to do something about it.

The social pain of disapproval serves the same purpose. When social disapproval is inline with God's Word, that pain has a greater possibility of leading people to examine their contrary beliefs/behavior and turn back to the right path - repent. Giving the legal permission to do what is wrong salves over the conscience and allows the lost a greater weight of comfort in their wrong doing.

Whether it is legalization of abortion, sexual deviancy, or any other of a myriad of things the Bible is abundantly clear is wrong, legalization has the effect of sending more people to hell. Or, at the very least, prolonging their self-deception until they finally come to the end of themselves and reach out for God but still suffer the natural consequnces of the much deeper hole they are in because of the comfort of legalization.

This is not a trivial matter - it is grave, immediate, and important. We should be saying to those we've elected, "How dare you vote contrary to God's Word!"

Can Atheists be Good?

2009-05-04T06:19:00.003-06:00

This is a perennial question - can an atheist be good? My answer: they can only appear to do good things if we lower the standard for what we call "good."

Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, taunts Christians with the question, "Name one good thing a Christian can do that an atheist cannot."

Atheists can commit their lives to helping the poor, needy, and downtrodden, even "surrender their body to be burned" for their fellow man (i.e. "be good"), but they cannot fulfill the highest moral imperative - worship God. Apart from the Agape love of the cross, the highest love of man is but a better hate - and not really "good" at all.

Waiting Wasting Time?

2008-12-26T08:08:00.006-06:00

Stuck in line,
Just wasting time?

He seeks, inviting,
With you to share,
"Be still and know I am God."
Now, you're waiting,
And halfway there.

To worship His Glory,
Time's ripeness gain,
Or
Frustrated and angry,
Blessing disdain.

Your choice.

Imagine

2008-12-21T08:28:00.004-06:00

Imagine students walking into the science classroom saying, "Blinders ON," as they walk through the door.

Tucked under their arms is a science book with a "Blinders ON" bookcover with "Blinders OFF" on the back.

Sitting at their desk, they pull out their "Blinders ON" notebooks. On the notebook cover is the message: "Know the worldview you are being taught - who is holding the reins? Is investigation of ALL the evidence encouraged? Are you being taught what to think or how to think?"

And not just science - history, social studies, literature, economics, ...

Imagine churches innoculating their children and youth to understand what is actually going on here.

Blinders on! Blinders off!

2008-12-11T21:30:00.003-06:00

A 250 word article I submitted to my local newspapers. There will be more on this subject.

You’ve seen pictures of New York city carriage horses wearing blinders. This is a good thing; otherwise, the horse may get distracted and frightened by cars whizzing past.

When students walk into a science classroom with “nature’s all there is” as the underlying truth assumption for all “facts”, they’re being asked to don blinders, too. This is not a good thing – unless the students understand they are being asked to put the blinders on, and they remember to take them off leaving the classroom and entering back into a real world that cannot be adequately explained or lived in by “nature’s all there is.”

Look for the blinders preeminent Harvard biologist, Richard Lewontin, acknowledges: “It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation (nature’s all there is) of the phenomenal world, but … we are forced by our a priori (before any evidence is considered) adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Lewontin candidly admits science’s primo principle, “nature’s all there is”, is a philosophical assumption that will make up and believe anything to NOT see the Divine. Science has made its little box and pulled its head inside.

Are we teaching horses or students? “Nature’s all there is” (Blinders ON) or “follow ALL evidence wherever it leads” (Blinders OFF)?

Two Out of Three Stinks

2008-10-18T13:13:00.004-06:00

This is an article I submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Meatloaf’s song says: "I want you. I need you. But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you. Now don’t be sad, cause two out of three ain’t bad."

Some abortion supporters say abortion’s not the only moral issue. "Let’s agree to disagree on abortion and focus on issues like feeding the hungry and healthcare availability for all." Most would agree on these even if we disagreed on the means.

So, we’re saying that "two out of three ain’t bad?" Depends on whether abortion is significantly different and higher than the others - just as love is over "wanting" and "needing".

Here are two pictures. You’re serving in a soup kitchen when, through the window, you see a baby crawling onto a busy street. Do you serve the two homeless men in line and then rescue the baby? No! There’s a greater moral imperative to rescue those in immediate peril.

There are three objects, all spherical. One’s the sun; the others, marbles. Beyond the size difference, there’s another significant difference - the light from one enables us to see the others.

Either life is intrinsically valuable or not. If it is, there’s a much higher moral imperative to rescue the thousands being killed daily. Ignoring this makes a mockery of caring for others. If life has no value and can be ended for discomfort and inconvenience, there’s absolutely no sustainable reason to care for others. Morality becomes a tool for political advantage.

"Two out of three" is just stinkin' thinking.

Why are You Waiting?

2008-09-09T05:08:00.001-06:00

Why are you waiting? Every moment overflows with God.

When Man is the Measure of All Things

2008-08-08T06:05:00.003-06:00

... then all things must fit that yardstick. The star filled sky is reduced to miles and wavelengths. No beauty. No wonder or awe. No need to thank anyone.

Reality is replaced by its image - like a television soap opera.

Being an Adult Means ...

2008-07-21T05:33:00.000-06:00

Driving yourself to the dentist.

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous

2008-07-03T09:27:00.003-06:00

Below is an article I wrote that was published in a local newspaper. It was written in support of Louisiana passing a Science Education Act giving teachers the academic freedom to introduce other relevant materials when teaching controversial subjects such as evolution, global warming, stem cell research, etc.

As you might expect there were a lot of the typical science vs religion, separation of church and state, sneaking Creationism into the classroom, and shell-game pro-evolution/pro-science articles mixing micro and macro evolution with no distinction articles published in addition to a very slanted Associated Press article that should have been put on the editorial page but was not. My article takes a different slant by simply saying that it is dangerous to our children's lives (and the world) if they are simply spoon fed one particular view and do not know how to think critically about all the evidence and be able to follow it wherever it leads. Predictably, teachers have already been warned of possible lawsuits if some student is offended by the presentation of alternate materials. So much for academic freedom!

In some way, Ben Stein's recent movie, No Intelligence Allowed, precipitated this legislation although the issue has been fermenting for quite a while. This is an excellent movie with a lot of gotcha's straight from the mouth of some of the high evolution priests - like Richard Dawkins admitting there might be something to Intelligent Design ... but the intelligent designer must have been aliens.

Here is the article:

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous. Why? Because some students may really get the message and apply it to their lives! Macro-evolution theory (bio diversity explained by undirected and purposeless natural causes) is an explanation of life and, if true, has very definite implications on how we should live our lives and view others.

Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, explained the logical result of evolution: "We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating."

There’s no more desperate or universal human cry than for meaning and purpose, but, as Gould and many others have said, life has no ultimate meaning and purpose. You’re the accidental product of an undirected and totally natural evolutionary process. You get to invent your own purpose! When teachers, scientists, and other authority figures teach young, inquisitive, and idealistic students macro-evolution, don’t we expect them to trust what they’re being taught is true? Should we then be surprised when some learn the lesson all too well attempting to find their liberation in life’s ultimate meaninglessness?
Sprinkle that onto today’s youth, already assaulted by an unremitting stream of fast food, “have it your way,” consumption-driven, escapist, selfish, pleasure-soaked culture of death, and surprise, surprise, we get school violence, disrespect, suicide (after all, your meaningless life is worthless), teen pregnancies, and absent fathers. If the evolutionists are right, “Survival of the fittest” translates into “Do unto others before they do unto you!” Rather than crazy, maybe Klebold and Harris really proved to be the brightest students of all for their 1999 Columbine massacre.

This should matter to you. Ideas have consequences. Some ideas produce cures for cancer; others, slaughter millions. Men will seize any justification for the evil they are determined to do, and evolution is a very convenient excuse for the trivialization of human worth. The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries. Three regimes alone – Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung – murdered over 100,000,000 people pursuing their naturalistic philosophy. Adolf Hitler was greatly influenced by evolution. He, and the doctors, scientists, and academics who followed him transformed “survival of the fittest” into justification for eugenics – the extermination of those deemed weak, inferior, and unfit to live. Unfortunately, we forget the mind numbing concentration camp images of heaps and heaps of human bodies piled high like so much fire wood. Naturalistic philosophy can only shrug at the ease with which flawed beliefs led vast numbers of seemingly normal and rational people to do such horrific evil. This is not to imply that all evolutionists will become Nazis or Communists, but, when science rejects open and honest debate and does not disavow and correct misinterpretation, then a loaded pistol is left out in the open.

Macro-evolution theory is not solely to blame for the ills of our culture, but it has become the religion of the secular/naturalistic philosophies driving our cultural institutions - and all this by shutting down serious discussion of counter evidence and the inherent limitations of science’s natural-only assumptions. Young people need to be trained to honestly evaluate ideas and the forces and assumptions behind them. This is particularly important as some of today’s greatest issues are ethical ones – embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, human-animal cloning, etc. These decisions need to be made by an informed public and not a closed scientific community that answers only to the highest bidder. Studying life theories - macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, and even Creationism - presents a wonderful opportunity for teaching our youth how to follow all the evidence wherever it may lead in the pursuit of truth. Their lives and futures are at stake.

Faith as Small as a Grain of Mustard Seed

2008-06-21T07:45:00.004-06:00

OK. I get it! Another embarassing, "Duh," moment.

Jesus tells his disciples, "And He said to them, 'Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountan, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." (Mt 17:20) I knew and have been told that faith is not about how much you have but who/what it is in. Now, I finally understand how this verse and others - Mt 13:31, Mk 4:31, Lu 13:19, and Lu 17:6 - actually teach that point.

Jesus is actually chiding his disciples in Mt 17:20 - something He did several times in the Gospel accounts - for the immaturity ("littleness") of their faith and especially as applying it to external things, in this case failing to cast out a demon. On one hand their immaturity was somewhat understandable because they had not yet seen the post-resurrection, risen Christ. Compare this "littleness" and powerlessness of faith as compared with what these same disciples did in Acts. Yet, even for not having yet experienced the resurrection, they have still been with Jesus and have seen His power. Perhaps again, their lack of maturity is because their faith was still an external thing that they had not yet experienced internally.

The woman with the issue of blood who was healed by merely touching Jesus' garment (Mt 9:22) was told by Jesus, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." She had a personal (internal) experience in the exercise of faith,"Everyone else has failed me. He is my only hope." She reached out for Him in her desperation, and the mountain moved.

The thing that finally struck me is that if Jesus wanted to say the quantity of faith was important, He would not have picked the smallest seed, but rather the largest!

Another thing significant about the smallest seed is found in Mt 13:31 where the smallest seed becomes a great tree. You can't see the great tree in the small seed; that is the result of working faith.

Have just finished reading a great book by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism. He gives an excellent illustration of the importance of what your faith is placed in:

"The faith that changes the life and connects to God is best conveyed by the word "trust.' Imagine you are on a high cliff and you lose your footing and begin to fall. Just beside you as you fall is a branch sticking out of the very edge of the cliff. It is your only hope and it is more than strong enough to support your weight. How can it save you? If your mind is filled with the intellectual certainty that the branch can support you, but you don't actually reach out and grab it, you are lost. If your mind is instead filled with doubts and uncertainties that the branch can hold you, but you reach out and grab it anyway, you will be saved. Why? It is not the strength of your faith but the object of your faith that actually saves you. Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch. (emphasis added)"

What is Truth?

2008-06-18T06:16:00.004-06:00

Pilate's response to Christ at His trial, "What is truth?", has been used by many unbelievers as a conversation stopper when talk has turned to eternal things.

Pilate did not have a problem with understanding what truth was. He knew exactly what he expected when he demanded truthfulness from one of his Legion commanders. Pilate's quip really meant "What has truth got to do with this situation, this rabble inciting to riot, and the power I have over you?" Pilate knew what the truth of the matter was but he was not going to decide Christ's fate based on the truth.

Everyone knows what truth is. Just ask them if it would be OK for their banker or accountant to lie to them. They know what truth means when it comes to money. What they may be uncomfortable about is how to determine truth when it comes to religous claims, but the answer is the same as when dealing with money - count the evidence.

Christians should be equipped and prepared to show the truthfulness and reasonableness of our faith.

The Greatest Wonder of Genesis Creation

2008-06-05T05:06:00.009-06:00

Many want to debate whether the creation account of Genesis 1 has God creating everything in 6 literal 24 hour days.

To me, the most amazing question if God spoke everything into existence in 6 literal 24 hour days is, "What did He do with the other 23 hours and 59.9999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
... you get the idea ...
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999 minutes of each day?"

the Evolutionist's Library

2008-05-07T06:09:00.006-06:00

Did you hear about the evolutionist who, after much study and thought, threw away his entire library of books - Shakespeare, e.e.cummings, Robert Frost, Issac Asimov science fiction, chemistry and biology books - and replaced them all with one book?

He replaced them with a dictionary. After all, books are just collections of words, and a dictionary is the comprehensive collection of words. No need of the extraneous books.

In fact, the dictionary is a special Evolution dictionary - the words are in random order.

When "nature" is all there is, reductionism is the inevitable result of the scientific search for explanations. As Richard Dawkins said, "We're just dancing to our DNA." How's that as an answer for evil?

g or G

2008-05-05T06:20:00.007-06:00

Anytime you are talking with someone else or reading articles talking about God, you need to keep your sonar alert for the g or G flip-flop phenomenon. You have to keep asking yourself, "Are they talking about god or God?"

How many times have you read articles penned by an atheist talking about God where you realize he/she is describing the god of the mirror, not God, the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Creator of the Universe?

Below is a rough approximation of an experience of one apologist during a question and answer time.

"Who created God?"

Apologist, "I don't understand your question."

(louder) "I said, who created God?"

Apologist, "I heard you the first time, but I don't understand the question you are asking. It doesn't make any sense."

"I want to know what caused God to come into existence."

Apologist, "Your question still does not make sense. You are asking me who caused the "uncaused cause", God. You are trying to deny the meaning of the concept of God by citing it's definition. Your question does not make sense."

Finally realizing his god view of God, "Oh."

Emotionally Satisfying Answers

2008-04-23T05:39:00.011-06:00

When I was very young, I absolutely hated getting shots - they hurt.

Every shot was a contest - me and Davy Crockett vs the evil nurse and Santa Anna - and, like the Alamo, the hero always lost. Though I don't remember it as being intentional, there was the time a nurse manged to get her chin in the way of my flailing little boots ...

It didn't matter how much my mother tried to explain to her 6 year old son that the medicine in the shot would make him well. I was looking for an emotionally satisfying answer. In fact the only answer that would be emotionally satisfying was -- no shot. I never got that answer.

More than once, I wondered how my otherwise loving mother could allow such harm to come to her favorite son!

Of course, now that I am older and have been in my mother's shoes, I see it differently. I see and understand now what I did not see nor understand as a child. The child wanted an emotionally satisfying answer; the parent wanted what was best for the child. Mama knew there was a greater good, even if the child cried and suffered pain.

We all want emotionally satisfying answers for tragedy, death, and evil -- but, like the child, the only emotionally satisfying answer we'll accept is for it to stop. For the Christian, we have the promise that one day all things will be made right -- death and evil will be banished, but, today, they are here and we are challenged to show forth God's Glory by perseverance and overcoming as our Savior did.

Also, the Christian has the assurance that our God is the wise loving parent that understands what we cannot and sees the purpose in what we go through. Our response should be "Not my will be done but Thine."

That is our comfort, and it is the best emotionally satisfying answer.

Secular Dreams

2008-02-23T15:03:00.002-06:00

Is worship confined to a time and place or is all of life to be a living worship?

Is there a place, a time, an action, or an idea over which God does not claim absolute sovereignty and the right of judgment?

Is there a place where the light of Truth should not shine?

Is there a place where the expression of God’s mercy and grace should be banned?

Is there a place one can flee where God does not hold one accountable for their decisions?

Is there a place where Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”, is not the most important question of life?

Is there a place where reality does not softly cry out its “madeness”?

Is there a time or place where there is no one to thank?

Where does just saying something is so make it True?

So, where is room found for “secular”? Only in the vain dreams of the Godless.

All Those Hypocrites in Church

2008-02-18T15:35:00.002-06:00

Below was submitted for publication to local newspapers. These articles are limited to 250 words.

Saying “the church is full of hypocrites” is like saying “hospitals are full of sick people.” Yes, the church is full of people who are sick - sick of living lives hypocritical to the God who is real. Tired of letting the world suck life out with false pleasures never fulfilled, they want the quality life – abundant and overflowing with meaning, peace, and joy here and now.

Like the hospital, not everyone who goes to church gets “cured”. After all, humility is hard, especially for us hypocrites, and acknowledging our own hypocrisy is where the road to healing starts. The fact that everyone who goes into a hospital doesn’t come out healed doesn’t stop people from going there – especially when the disease is serious and the hospital is the only option to save your life.

Then there’s that hypocrisy that some “honest” folks practice – looking only at the bad and ignoring the radically transformed lives they see coming out of the church. Everyone knows someone changed far beyond the power of any psychiatrist or Oprah. In fact, the “cure” is no more “inside” the walls of the church than it is the hospital. The power is in a personal encounter with the Truth of the God and Christ the church should represent.

If you can only see hypocrites when you look at the church, then I guess we’re just your kind of place. We’ll save a place on the pew for you.

Duh Moment

2007-12-19T09:08:00.000-06:00

I had a duh moment last Wednesday evening as I was leading the singing for a group of residents at a local assisted living facility. For those unfamiliar - or too old - a duh moment is that instant when something that should have been all too obvious suddenly becomes plain.

Here's an example of a duh moment. Back in the 70's (1970's) there was a television program called Hawaii Five-O about Hawaii's state police. We watched partly because we had just returned from two years in Hawaii and it was a connection to the places we had seen. I remember thinking at the time that Hawaii Five-O was a strange name. It wasn't until years later that it suddenly dawned on me - 5 O ... 50 ... Hawaii was the 50th state to join the union! We all have these embarassing duh moments ... right?

Anyway, back to my most recent. We were singing Silent Night and were on the third verse. How many times have we all sung " ... Son of God .. loves pure light ..."? It's really amazing how our minds work: I'm singing the song and happen to be reading the words when, all of a sudden, I see the words as if for the first time.

Duh!

It's not " ... Son of God .. loves pure light ..." but " ... Son of God .. love's pure light ...". It's not that Jesus loves pure light, but that Jesus is love's pure light! He is the pure light and radiance of God's Love to us.

"For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." John 1:9 (NASB)

"Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world ...'" John 8:12 (NASB)

That's what the author of the song, Joseph Mohr, meant. It's not that Jesus as love's pure light is a new theological discovery to me, but, that now, whenever I sing this wonderful Christmas hymn, I am singing it with the fuller meaning and understanding that the author intended.

What is also interesting is that all this time while singing and not fully understanding the intent, others could have been hearing with the right understanding. How easy it is to see and not see, to hear and not hear -- until it has been revealed. And how glorious that revelation!

I shared my duh moment with those at the assisted living facility that evening. The next time Silent Night is sung, maybe some will have a renewed joy in proclaiming and hearing the timeless truth of "Son of God, love's pure light."

My Christmas Gifts - Part 2

2007-12-17T09:22:00.000-06:00

(Part 1 is here)

Besides hearing the song, A Shepherd's Prayer, on the radio each year, God's other Christmas gift to me is a new perspective on the Christmas story. About six weeks ago, God grabbed me with this year's insight as I was reading my Bible. Have you ever noticed how many times "Fear not!" appears in the Christmas story - it jumped off the page at me.

Over the last six week period, I have probably done devotionals on "Fear not!" four or five times to different groups, but the longer I think on it, the deeper it gets.

There are three words/phrases that frame this - fear not, truth, and great joy.

As he was ministering in the Holy of Holies for the annual sacrifice, Zacharias was visited by an angel. I'm sure his first thought at the angel's appearance was, "Uh, oh! I'm dead! I've done something wrong." The angel's greeting, "Fear not!" addressed his immediate fear, but the angel's promise that Zacharias' barren wife Elizabeth would bear him a son seemed too unbelievable to be true. This was not possible in Zacharias' mind. The angel said this son would be the Elijah to prepare the way for the Messiah. This was too much for poor Zacharias, and, for his unbelief, the angel left him speechless until his son's birth.

I think Zacharias' unbelief was a problem of failing to see God's promise as Truth. Already distracted with the deep disappointment of childlessness, he chose his own understanding over the supernatural promise of God when, with an angel standing before him, the most believable and reasonable thing was to believe the angel. The question is, "What is true?" or, really, "WHO is truth?"

Here, Isaiah 8 12b-14a, comes to the fore: "And you will not fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the LORD of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread. Then He shall become a sanctuary." (NASB)

Today's science says "No" to the supernatural. God says, "I AM." Who is telling the truth? Whom do you trust?

Gabriel appeared to Mary. "Fear not!" Mary believed the angel's words though she did not fully understand. When there was a very real truth growing inside her, she trusted through the whispers and rumors.

As Joseph pondered the unbeliveable story of his pregnant bethrothed, Mary, an angel appeared with, "Fear not!" Joseph chose to trust the truth of the angel's message in spite of the scornful eyes and wagging tongues of the neighbors.

The angel hosts suddenly appeared in the sky to some shepherds in their Bethlehem fields. The quiet and silent night became anything but for them. "Fear not! Great news! A Savior is born! Go see! Go tell!" And the angel hosts sang, "Glory to God in the highest!"

The shepherds believed the angel's story. They went to town and found the baby just as the angels had told them. They told everyone the truth of the great glad tidings. "And the shepherds went back glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them." (NASB)

Fear the God who can; fear not the world that cannot.

That's the Truth!

Glory to God!

Joy to the World!

Created Perfect for His Purposes

2007-12-10T06:41:00.000-06:00

At the conclusion of the sixth day of creation, God looked at everything He had made and pronounced it was "very good." Genesis 1:31.

This is intended as a brief thought on the issue of sin in God's creation. I'm not sure how firmly I will stand on all the following, but this is where I currently am in trying to pull together scripture and what I have heard and read recently from people like Greg Koukl, STR, and John Piper, Desiring God.

It seems most people have a very difficult time reconciling a loving and all-powerful God with sin. In fact, atheists throw it back at us all the time as a disproof of God -- which is no disproof at all but, rather, a very strong case for God's existence.

I know, I said brief, right?

OK. Here's the big thought: God created a perfect world - one perfect for His purpose. And His purpose is to manifest His Glory to the utmost. Creation is not for my comfort; it is for God's Glory! God is the point and period of creation.

You can waffle around all you want as to whether God created sin/evil, but you have to allow at the very least that God allowed it in His creation.

God is in control. "And we know God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose ..." Romans 8:28

We are created moral beings - we make choices between good/evil. It is in the struggle of good/evil and the overcoming of evil that God's Glory is manifested in us.

Evil/sin plays a role in God's plan. It hurts, and it destroys -- but it cannot destroy those whose faith is in God - those whom He has called to be conformed to the image of His son, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). Where sin abounds, there God's Grace (and His Glory - our right response to His Grace) even more abounds (Romans 5:20).

Yes, even sin plays a part in God's perfect creation.

We, the natural man, seek after emotionally satisfying answers. I think the emotionally satisfying answer is there but it is very hard to come to a point of comfort with. In fact, it takes a lot of faith and a willingness to rest our emotional satisfaction in God's sovereignty.

My Christmas Gifts - Part 1

2007-10-31T04:46:00.000-06:00

A confession - I look forward to each Christmas season for the gifts that I get, but not the pretty wrapped ones on Christmas morning like when I was a child. Time spent with family, good food, vacation days, good food - these are all things I look forward to, and as much as I love and treasure those things, they are not the gifts I most anticipate.

I love hearing Christmas music everywhere - Christ-centered Christmas music. I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas is OK, but it doesn't hold a candle to the traditional carols and some of the more recent Christian Christmas standards. Besides, 5 winters of snow shoveling in Cleveland, OH, kind of tarnishes the White Christmas image for me.

My most favorite Christmas song has to be Move Me Closer (A Shepherd's Hymn) recorded in 1987 by Evie. It tells the story of a mantle-manger-set shepherd asking to be moved closer to the Child. It wraps the spirit of Christmas up for me.

Each Christmas for several years now, as I'm driving down the road and listening to the radio, there it is! Move Me Closer begins to play. Sometimes I just turn the radio on and the song begins to play as if it was just waiting for me to get in and start the car. Usually, I'll only hear it once each season. What a precious gift!

The album Move Me Closer is on has long been out of print and has become a collector's item - with a collector's item price. I once bid on a copy on eBay but dropped out after the price went above $50. Just today, I finally purchased a used copy of the CD. I have a habit of copying my favorite songs onto a few CDs so I don't have to carry a CD library in my car, but I don't think I'm going to do that with this song.

Even though I will have the CD and could play the song any time I want, I want to continue to anticipate and be surprised anew each Christmas season as God gives the gift of this special song and its message to me.

Move me closer to the Child ...

The god of the Mirror

2007-10-29T05:26:00.000-06:00

Very interesting 10 segment video of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Good) and Dinesh D'Souza (What's so Great About Christianity) at King's College NYC on You Tube. The first segment is here.

There has been a recent glut of "God/religion is bad" books by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Hitchens. As I have read commentaries and books on these, watched videos as the above, and based on my own experience with local atheists (including my semi-atheist younger self), two thoughts have been firming up in my mind.

One thought is that even when these people are willing to assume God's existence, they form their ideas, writings, and speech around the god of the mirror - not God, but a god fashioned in their own image. So, when Christopher Hitchens rails about how immoral god is, he is absolutely right. He's seeing his own image in the mirror. It's like those who choose to marvel at man's engineering and scientific greatness in building a magnificent telescope rather than be awestruck at the wonders revealed.

Then, notice the cool calculated vehemence and loathing coming through in Hitchens. Add to that the fact that these writers have all but given up on trying to support their positions with credible arguments and evidence - reason is thrown out the window. I recommend Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, where he and his wife expose the non-existent arguments of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. On the cover of The Dawkins Delusion, atheist Michael Ruse is quoted: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."

It's right out in the open. It seems we have turned a corner; the wraps are coming off; gasoline is being thrown on the fire.

Opportunity knocks.

Compromising on Rudy

2007-10-11T05:27:00.000-06:00

There was a reported meeting of pro-life leaders, including Dr, James Dobson, where the leaders expressed their willingness to vote for a third party candidate rather than support a so-called compromise anti-life/anti traditional family candidate who would promise to do some pro-life/pro-family things - i.e. nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, etc. In the pro-life community, there is debate among honest and sincere people as to whether this is a resonable course of action.

The debate basically breaks down along 2 paths. One group supports Dr. Dobson et al's approach which is in effect a shot across the Republican Party's bow to try to force them to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. The other group, it seems to me, basically argues that fewer unborn babies would die under a compromise candidate who presumably could win against Hillary. Too me, this is a lesser evil approach.

Below is something I posted to the blog at Stand to Reason on this subject. This is certainly not an exhaustive treatise on the above options - that may come in time.

One thing I would add is that if the Republican Party nominates a compromise candidate for president, I will immediately change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.

In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues.

A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. The promise to appoint strict constuctionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate.

Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation.
I don't care which party it is, but we currently have one party with planks that support our positions. The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections.

If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.

Only God knows if Hillary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckabee. I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee (just using him as an example) is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late.

I expect moral leadership from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that.

God help us.

bzzzzz zZAP! (2)

2007-09-29T09:41:00.000-06:00

Here is the previous post after considerable rework, revision, and additional thought. This is as it was submitted to local newspapers for publication (working in a 250 word limit). Thought it might be interesting for you to see the beginning and the end product.

“bzzzzz” "Hey, Martha, come look at this," Fred Lizard called to his wife. Scampering to the opening of their high Grand Canyon crevice, Martha found Fred staring intently outside. “bzzzzz bzzzzzzz” "Look at that beautiful sunset. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it." “bzzzzz” They stood there enraptured as the hues blended and gradually darkened with the fall of night. “bzzzzt” Even the fly lit and stared with a thousand lenses.

Do lizards, spiders, squirrels, deer, birds, etc watch the majestic display of sunrises and sunsets? Do they feel the same sense of timelessness, awe, and inspiration as we, or are they oblivious to the whole thing?

It appears this propensity for wonder is a particularly human fascination. In fact, the beginning story is really, "bzzzzzz zZAP!" While the lizard would not ignore dinner, we'll postpone eating to get lost in the vastness and beauty of sunrises, sunsets, storms, mountain vistas, snowscapes, seashores, the fathomless blue of the deep ocean, canyons, grassy plains, and symphonies. We'll spend hours accomplishing nothing, but taking it all in with a sense that time has not been wasted at all.

Everyone sees the painting, but few acknowledge the artist. True beauty is a telescope gazing on the Glory of the Creator - an invitation to eternal joy and fulfillment. In the words of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush aflame with God. But only those who see take off their shoes. The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.”

bzzzzz zZAP!

2007-09-16T16:57:00.000-06:00

bzzzzz "Hey, Martha, come look at this," says Fred Lizard to his wife. She scampers to the opening in their Grand Canyon cave to find Fred staring intently outside. bzzzzz bzzzzzzz "Look at that beautiful sunset. It just takes your breath away, doesn't it." bzzzzz They stand there enraptured as the hues blend and finally darken with the fall of night. bzzzzz

Do lizards, spiders, squirrels, deer, birds, etc watch the majestic display of sunrises and sunsets? Do they feel the same sense of timelessness, awe, and inspiration as we, or are they oblivious to the whole thing?

Actually the beginning story above can be written, "bzzzzzz zZAP!" It appears the capacity for wonder is a particularly human trait. We'll stop eating to get lost in the experience of the vastness and beauty of sunrises, sunsets, storms, mountains, snowy scapes, the sea meeting the land, the fathomless blue of the deep ocean, canyons, and grassy plains.

We'll spend hours accomplishing nothing but taking it all in with a sense that time has not been wasted at all. In this beauty is a hint of fulfillment beyond sight.

Every one sees the painting but few praise the artist.

Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush aflame with God.
But only those who see take off their shoes.
The rest sit around and pluck blackberries.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning

No More Goodbyes

2007-08-26T12:44:00.000-06:00

It seems life is full of goodbyes - us leaving loved ones and loved ones leaving us.

Some goodbyes we even look forward to - like leaving home to strike out on our own. Then, homesickness, however, reminds us there is a cost attached even to the freedom we desire. Goodbye.

Leaving home for a 6 month or more deployment is tough on both the service member and all of the family. You miss out on so much especially when your children are very young. Goodbye.

Saying goodbye to loved ones who have died is particularly difficult. Sometimes the mourning is all the more difficult because we didn't have the oportunity for one more "goodbye" or "I love you" when someone is taken suddenly with no warning.

I received the call that my mother was in the hospital in critical condition with cancer. My wife, our youngest daughter, and I packed up and set out from Cleveland, OH where I was stationed at the time to go to her bedside in Ruston, LA. In the week I was there, she rallied and was released to go home, but the prognosis was terminal.

Then came the morning I had to leave to go back to Cleveland. After the hugs and kisses, leaving her sitting in that kitchen chair, turning away, and walking to the car was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. I knew I would not see her in the flesh ever again. Goodbye.

The youngest daughter had spent the night with her other grandmother. We picked her up and headed down the interstate. About 10 minutes from Ruston, she said she had wanted to say goodbye to Gram. I don't remember my exact words to her, but we didn't go back. It's not that an extra 20-40 mins would have wrecked our schedule, but I didn't think I could leave again - say goodbye again.

Some goodbyes are bittersweet, like dropping your daughter off at college for the first time and driving away. Something has really changed. Parents and child both are exploring freedom, but the family has changed in a way that will never be recovered. Goodbye.

When our daughter and grandchildren moved away after living near for over a year, there's another hard goodbye.

For a father, giving your daughter away in marriage is tough. We may joke about pawning her off on some unsuspecting guy, but the humor just masks the scars. I'll never forget the few minutes sitting there with her in the stairwell off the foyer while we waited for her turn to go down the aisle - her grand entrance on my arm. Only a father can understand the pain of that goodbye.

Most of the time we think of "goodbye" with the expectation of a "hello" down the road. We kiss, hug, and say goodbye when going home from visiting the grandchildren already having planned the next visit. Goodbye.

Someday, there will have been a final goodbye - when death slams the door on hello's and hugs and kisses. But if God be with ye (goodbye), we are ushered into a place where there is no need of goodbyes for all of eternity. Some hello's may have been deferred for a short time, but there will never be another goodbye for goodbye is just an earthly word.

"I Do" or "I Will"?

2007-08-19T06:46:00.000-06:00

My wife and I attended the wedding of the daughter of friends at our church. Saying the bride was beautiful is like saying apple pie is good, so let's just say this hot apple pie had ice cream on top.

As I was looking through the local paper this morning for my mother-in-law's weekly column, there was the bride's picture under a caption to the effect: local couple says, "I Do." I don't remember them saying, "I Do." What I heard was a lot of "I Will's." Now, I'm sure somewhere in the ceremony they did say "I Do," but it's the "I Will's" that I remember.

Maybe 35 years of marriage colors my hearing - 35 years of "in sickness and in health", "for richer, for poorer", the blessing of children and curse of teenagers, separations and wonderful homecomings (courtesy of the military). The "I Do" of 35 years ago may have sealed the contract, but it is the "I Will's" that have sustained it and enabled two strong-willed people become closer to one.

Marriage is God's creation and God's plan. He is actively involved. It's really three contracts in one - the bride pledging her faithfulness to God; the groom, his commitment to God, and the bride and groom saying to one another that, on this day, "I Do," but, forever, "I Will."

(dedicated to Laura and Ryan)

Moral Relativisim

2007-07-29T06:20:00.000-06:00

Below is one of my articles that ran in local newspapers today (7/29/07). Article submissions have a 250 word limit. It's pretty much motherhood and apple pie on the subject - thanks a lot to Greg Koukl and his material from Stand to Reason.

Is torturing children for personal enjoyment right or wrong? Surprisingly, some would say, “I don’t like that and would never do it, but who am I to judge?” Sound familiar? Welcome to the dominant philosophy of our culture – moral relativism.

In moral relativism, there are no universal moral absolutes – no Rights, no Wrongs – just preferences. Modern tolerance – doing whatever you want with none to say you’re wrong – sounds appealing, doesn’t it? This myth of moral neutrality eliminates categories of good and bad; Hitler’s morals were just different, not evil. Phillip Johnson says it’s become more intolerant to “name evil than do it,” but aren’t we denying our humanity when we fail to condemn what’s so obviously Wrong? Some things demand judgment! Unmask the moral relativist by asking, “You wouldn’t murder, but you think others should decide for themselves?”
Moral relativism doesn’t fit reality. It’s unlivable; still, it floods in through our education, political, and media establishments. Its allure is freedom from accountability from sin, but denying sin no more eliminates its consequences than naming Gollum’s ring "Precious" made it harmless. When “Judge not” is more popular than “For God so loved,” we’ve clearly lost our way. The real answer for sin is forgiveness, not denial.

A co-worker used to say, “Reality will prevail.” Thank God for the brick walls and pain of reality that signal we’re going down the wrong road, but, oh, the price we pay for our ignorance and lack of conviction. Will America wake up in time?

Has LA Sen. David Vitter Undermined His Moral Authority?

2007-07-15T06:35:00.000-06:00

Of course, the recent admission by Louisiana Senator David Vitter that he had used prostitutes in the past was like dripping blood to a sea of sharks. The feast on this traditional pro-family advocate is in words and phrases like, sanctimonious, hypocrisy, lost his moral authority, etc - as usual, stink'n think'n is rampant in discussions of this situation.

This article is not a comprehensive treatment of the issue. I just want to work out (by writing and hopefully getting some feedback) some thoughts on the stink'n think'n, and, hopefully, help others see the same.

The first issue to deal with is the moral authority issue. That's the unseen subterranean mole-works undermining the whole foundation. What is the authority behind Sen. Vitter's moral pronouncements? If the authority is David Vitter, then, yes, he has certainly tarnished his authority to speak of his personal subjective beliefs. If his beliefs are universally and objectively true, however, then how has he undermined that moral authority? Isn't it the moral obligation of all to speak these truths regardless of how poorly we may exemplify them?

Notice that those who raise this issue are telling you something about themselves - they are the "true for you but not for me" moral relativist crowd who do not believe in universal objective truths - besides the universal objective truth that there are no universal objective truths. People with this viewpoint never have the authority to suggest their personal morality as "oughts" for anyone else.

The next important and related point is that the messenger does not determine the truthfulness of the message. The presence of law-breakers does not invalidate the law. Most murderers and liars know there is both a written law and a higher moral law they have broken. The law is no less true when spoken from the mouth of the sinner than the saint; however, the character of the messenger does determine the credibility with which the message is received -- especially when the message is unpopular (unpolitic).

Sen. Vitter is a hypocrite living in a universe of hypocrites, if you take the simple minded definition of hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another. We have all lied, cheated, and stolen, yet we tell our children to not lie, cheat, and steal. So, we are all hypocrites by this simple definition. Calling someone a hypocrite, using this definition, is like saying, "Welcome to the human race."

Perhaps a more useful definition of hypocrisy would be advocating for something you know to be untrue. If I taught first graders that 1 + 1 = 1, but used 1 + 1 = 2 when dealing with my bank, then I am a hypocrite. It is in this sense that saying one thing and doing another is true. Is behavior contrary to stated belief always a demonstration of hypocrisy (by this definition)? In Vitter's case, "What do David Vitter's actions prove about what he believes about the sanctity of marriage?" On just a little reflection, we all know of times when we do things in violation of what we really believe, and later, we may be sorry that we did them.

Unfortunately, we do not know and cannot know with certainty what Sen. Vitter actually believes, but, given the totality of his walk and talk, it is still more reasonable to believe he is expressing his true beliefs in upholding the sanctity of marriage -- even with a substantial moral failure such as this. And, even in the recovery from this failure, he and his wife have exemplified dimensions of that sanctitiy in pursuing the routes of confession and forgiveness.

As usual, a person's view of Sen. Vitter will be driven by their philosophy.

Foolish Public Education

2007-06-08T16:44:00.000-06:00

Submitted to local papers for publication:

“The God who is totally irrelevant and can be safely ignored is not God.” This is the subtle, but effective, indoctrination our children receive through 12 years of so-called “religiously neutral” public education.

IF there is a God, then all meaning, morality, and all Truth are rooted there. Teaching anyone contrary to this fundamental and basic foundation is teaching a lie and seeking their harm. Teaching our children religious neutrality “… doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson.)

Wouldn’t teaching the existence of God and his basic characteristics – justice, love, mercy, etc – in public education be indoctrination? Yes, but no more so than the current “religiously neutral” approach!

But someone will be offended. Teachers can deal with incivility and hatefulness, but Truth always offends liars!

But it’s illegal. Not by the founding fathers or the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not there. Belief in God, disbelief, and ignorance are all religious positions. Pick one!

But, but, but …. Come on. We can send men to the moon and can’t figure out how to do this? We haven’t tried. We twiddle our thumbs and argue about prayer at graduation while generations of our children get foundationless educations. No wonder we keep getting more and more foolish with the passing years.

Personalize the Debate

2007-03-31T08:09:00.000-06:00

This posts answers what I hinted at in green at this post.

A good friend, Rev. Clarence Powell, relayed this true story to me:

One day, while serving at the Baptist Children's Home in Monroe, LA, Brother Clarence received a call from a young college student thinking she had dialed a number to arrange for an abortion. (Some might think this was a case of dialing a wrong number, but I think she got the right connection - another one of those co (God and you) incidents.)

As he listened to the girl talk about wanting to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, Brother Clarence had a moment of divine inspiration. He asked her, "What's the baby's name?"

The girl, somewhat taken aback by the question, floundered around, and Brother Clarence explained that all little girls dream one day of being a mother. They even think of names for their children. So, he asked her again, "What's your baby's name?"

She replied, "Mary."

Brother Clarence said, "Well, let's talk about Mary." He prayed for Mary, and, to his surprise, the girl on the other end prayed for Mary, too!

Brother Clarence referred the girl to a local pastor who got in touch with her and offered love and encouragement. See the difference personalizing the discussion made.

The next time you are debating with someone about abortion, use this tactic. Instead of talking about impersonal fetuses, the unborn, etc, give the baby a name. In fact, I would go so far as to deliberately use the name of one of their children, if I knew it. They may not go along with this, but there's no reason you cannot do it, even if you have to do it one-sided.

You cannot have a debate that is all emotion, and you cannot have a meaningful debate that is all cold hard facts (unless you are debating a computer -- and if you are losing the debate with the computer, you can just turn it off). For a debate to be fruitful, it must appeal to both the mind and emotion. Do not neglect the God-given power of the rightness of cradling a newborn in your arms! Giving the baby a name helps paint this picture.

Now, go back to my earlier post, referenced above, and use "Mary" where you see green words. See the difference it makes.

Taking the Roof Off

2007-03-24T07:39:00.000-06:00

Here's a pro-abortion ploy. How would you answer this?

Pro-abortionist - "Where does an aborted fetus go - heaven or hell?"

Christian - "It's true that the child* even in the womb carries the mark of original sin and is therefore sinful before God, but the aborted baby* has certainly not reached the age of accountability where God holds us accountable for realizing our sinfulness (estrangement from Him) and recognizing our need for Jesus as the only way He has provided to cover our sinfulness and restore the relationship. So, I guess the answer to your question is the aborted baby* goes straight to heaven."

Pro-abortionist - "Well, if there's a chance the baby*, when it grows up and passes this so-called age of accountability, may not find your way to god and end up going to hell, then aren't we doing the child* a favor by aborting it and sending it straight to heaven? You should be in favor of abortion!"

You may be already thinking, "What do I say?"

There are several different approaches you could take here, but let's look at just one. Francis Schaeffer (famous and influential Christian apologist of the 20th Century that you really should know) advocated a tactic called Taking the Roof Off. Basically, he said people will find all kinds of excuses to hide under to support what they want to believe -- even when what they believe is irrational. This idea of hiding under, he likened to the snow/avalanche shelters built in the mountains of his native Switzerland to protect hikers.

Schaeffer's tactic to help the person see the irrationality of their position is to take the roof off their position and allow the rocks and boulders of truth to pelt upon them. You do this by carrying their position/belief to its logical conclusion and outworking.

Taking the Roof Off in this particular case might go like this, "If, in your opinion, abortion gets babies* to heaven and getting to heaven is a good thing, then getting more babies* to heaven is a better thing, right? So, why not abort every child? Everyone goes to heaven! What do think? (always end with a question - throw them the ball)"

It will probably dawn on the pro-abortionist that this is really not such a good idea. After all, if the government legalized killing every child in the womb, who would be around to pay into Social Security for the pro-abortionist to be able to draw out of the system? And it may even dawn on them eventually that the end result of their idea is the extinction of the human race.

The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but you can definitely expect the pro-abortionist to protest your misunderstanding of what they said. This gives you the opportunity to allow them to more fully explain their position ... which gives you the opportunity to use the Take the Roof Off tactic again or use another tactic. The main point is that you can stay engaged and make the other person think.

I must confess I have never heard the above argument used by a pro-abortionist, but it would not surprise me! Also, I am not using it as a strawman (easily defeatable distortion of a person's viewpoint) but as an example for using the Taking the Roof Off tactic. This is not the only tactic that could be used here, but it does lead to an interesting conclusion. I also used this argument for its shock value. Since you probably never heard it either, it made you think - like finding a shuttered window you had never seen in your home and throwing it open to reveal a new vista.

You may also have picked up on another fatal flaw in the argument. It reasons there are three winners in an abortion - 1) the woman having the abortion (implicit), 2) the child who goes to heaven, and 3) the Christian who should be happy another soul has gone to heaven. Now, after using the Taking the Roof Off tactic as above, the pro-abortionist would probably back pedal furiously to make the point that she/he is not proposing that sending children to heaven is the reason justifying abortion but that it is a collateral benefit that should make Christians happy. But should this make Christians happy?

Isn't the pro-abortionist confusing reward (heaven) with the purpose of life? And the purpose of life is? (You do know, don't you?)

The most succint statement I have found is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end (purpose) of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever."

It's like the man who buys a new car off the showroom floor and takes it straight to the junk yard. Afterall, that is the car's eventual reward -- but is that what a car is for? Has the car fulfilled its purpose?

I'm not going to develop the argument here, but you can see where this is leading -- a witnessing opportunity about the meaning and purpose of life. And, it's leading back to the central question of the abortion issue - What is it? (that abortion kills).

* there is another tactic related to the words in green I will explain in another post - here

You Don't Have a Soul

2007-03-21T05:56:00.000-06:00

"You do not have a soul; you are a soul. You have a body." C.S.Lewis

Did that wake you up?

You are a soul, made for eternity, that just happens to have a body right now, temporarily. The body perishes; the soul is immortal.

When you look at another person, don't look at them as a body; look at them as a soul.

Try living with this thought in your mind for a while. It should give you a different perspective on things.

Appropriate to the Situation

2007-03-02T06:19:00.000-06:00

Another from my notebook - this one dated March 8, 1995.

Yesterday while rushing home from work - I was only going to have 15 minutes to change and leave for the Gideon's Pastor Appreciation Banquet, I was listenening to music on one of the Christian radio stations. They began to play the song, "People Need the Lord."

I had been thinking what I was going to say when I was giving the invocation prayer that night at the banquet and the song on the radio struck a deep chord - "that belongs at the banquet," the words are so apt to what the Gideon/church relationship is called to do. I actually gave thought to reading the words to the song as part of the invocation but decided that was not quite what was right.

That night at the banquet, after my invocation and after the meal, Gideon brother Sammy Brewster brought the special music for us. He sang, "People Need the Lord."

Another Co (God and me) Incident. Praise the Lord!

Co (God and me) Incidents

2007-03-01T06:57:00.000-06:00

The below was written in my notebook and dated 12-22-99:

Last Friday morning, my wife was listening to the Christmas music playing on the radio as I was getting ready to leave for work. She remarked that the song just ending was one of her favorites -- it was a song I liked, too.

I decided to myself that I would find a CD with that song and give it to my wife as a Christmas gift. However, by the time I got to work, I had forgotten the name of the song!

After straining my brain trying to remember the name of the song to no avail, I finally just said a little prayer, "Lord, if you want me to get this for my wife, you'll have to help me remember."

That evening after rehearsal for our Christmas cantata, our choir director had us sit together in the auditorium to go over a few last things. As he was wrapping up talking about what we would be doing on Sunday morning, he mentioned that so-and-so would be singing a special - Breath of Heaven.

That was the song I couldn't remember.

God answered and my wife got the CD for Christmas.

Jesus is Contrast not Comparison

2007-02-16T06:35:00.000-06:00

"... Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame ..." Hebrews 12:2

Joy? Some places in the Bible words just leap off the page, grab your collar, and pull you down close. This is one of those places for me. I've always found this nugget fascinating - to call the excruciating pain, suffering, humiliation, and rejection of the cross ... JOY?

We try to compare the pain and the objective to be gained, but Jesus is really not about comparisons. He is about contrast. "In Him was light ..." - light and darkness are contrasts. The examples of His life and what He said are a contrast to what we think life is. Sin has so corrupted us. We settle for life on a level so far below what was intended that true life can only be seen as a contrast. You just can't compare yourself or anyone else to Jesus. He simply stands so far apart.

The love of the Father shown in Jesus makes the best love of man look like hate - contrast, not comparison. In Hebrews 12:2, the joy of fulfilling the Father's mission for Him made the very real pain so insignificant it could only be thought of in terms of contrast. He puts things in their right perspective. Jesus shows us the joy of doing the Father's will as a diamond reducing our sin-distorted fears to peanuts.

Begin to see in Jesus contrasts, not comparisons, and see what a difference it makes.

Little Hugs are Special

2007-02-09T06:36:00.000-06:00

You may have to be a grandparent to really understand this.

Little Hugs are Special

Running into my arms
Eyes bright with love,
Little arms flung round
My neck squeezed tight.
Little hugs are special.

Soft cheek pressed to weathered face,
Sweet kisses and “I love you's"
All a little heart given
With nothing held back.
Child loving father loving child.

Love, out of proportion to any merit,
Unconditional, and pure.
Eternity to spend in this moment
Could not consume the joy.
Knowing here echoes of Truth.

“Don’t bother the Master with these.”
“He’s on important business here.”
But stopping, Jesus says, “Forbid them not,”
“Let the little ones come unto me.”

Running into His arms
Eyes bright with Love,
Little arms flung round
His neck squeezed tight.
Little hugs are special.

Soft cheek pressed to weathered face,
Sweet kisses and “I Love you's"
All a little Heart given
With nothing held back.
Son Loving Father Loving Son.

And the Father’s extravagant Love shown
In this most unlikely and simple thing.
Reminding us with each little hug and kiss,
“For such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Yes, little hugs are special.

c Harold Henderson, 2003
This work may be freely reproduced in unaltered form for non-commercial use.

Three Significant Quotes

2007-01-15T10:46:00.001-06:00

Here are three quotes that have opened my eyes to the impact of secularism/humanism in our culture. I guess you can say, these quotes helped me put the pieces of the puzzle together.

First, before you read the quotes, I want you to picture in your mind the culture as the soil into which the Gospel is sown (Luke 8:5-15).

"No one indeed believes anything unless he first thought that it is to be believed.” St. Augustine

"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." Gresham Machen

Now, if you are getting it, I think this one nails the lid on the coffin and should send chills up and down your spine ...

"When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get the point that God must be an illusion. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they become atheists, but they are likely to think about God in a naturalistic way, as an idea in the human mind rather than as a reality that nobody can afford to ignore.” “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” by Phillip E. Johnson, pp 89

All three synoptic Gospels tell the parable of the sower; however, I like Luke's account best because it tells us the most about the heart in the culture (soil) that holds the word (seed) fast and bears fruit with perseverance. That heart is described as "honest and good" (NASB and KJV), "noble and good" (NIV). Note that it is not the seed that makes the heart this way; this is a precondition of receiving, holding fast, and bearing fruit. This is the heart that will open up to and allow the working of the Holy Spirit.

Look at our culture today, and it's plain to see that our culture does everything in its power (whose power? Satan's!) to pervert hearts away from being "honest and good". Whereas 60 years ago, there was sufficient Chrisitian influence in the institutions of culture for this kind of preconditioning to still be pretty dominant, today we cast seed on thoroughly rocky and hard soil.

Are you concerned with why more are not being saved?

Among other things we do to reach the lost as individual Christians and as the Church, we need to be cultivating the culture with God's definition of nobility, honesty, and goodness just as the farmer prepares his soil to receive the seed. Unfortunately, I don't see an emphasis, or even an awareness, of this in most evangelistic communities. We keep on pretending the soil is as it was 60 years ago -- and with predictable results.

And, don't forget the effect on those inside the church of swimming in this polluted culture every day - but that's a topic for a later post.

Diamonds for Peanuts - Abortion

2007-01-06T10:10:00.000-06:00

This is probably the first of many Diamonds for Peanuts posts. This piece was submitted for publication in local newspapers for the 34th anniversary of the 1973 Rowe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.

I’ll let you in on a secret, but, first, take this intelligence test. There are three pictures in a row: two sparkling diamonds and a peanut. Pick the two that are alike. Would you pick the peanut and a diamond? A lot of people think you would.

This is the way some people argue ideas; they take two things with vastly different values and make them appear alike. A recent editorial headline ran, “Abortion is wrong; so are protesters.” Whoever wrote that headline is equating the “evil of abortion” (the writer’s words) with the incivility of some abortion protesters – diamonds and peanuts.

Another good example is the pro-abortion argument that “unwanted” children are better off dead than for some to suffer abuse and poverty. Even if all “unwanted” children suffered abuse and poverty, is it really better that they be killed? Not to diminish abuse and poverty, but isn’t this another diamond (the value of life) vs. peanut (abuse and poverty) comparison?

Those who argue this way are trying to inflate the significance of their peanut to that of a diamond. But, like the politician’s favorite ploy, “I could never personally condone abortion, but who am I to push my beliefs on someone else,” reduces sanctity of life to personal preference like flavors of ice cream, this trick ends up reducing precious diamonds to cheap peanuts.

“Hey, lady, I’ll trade you a peanut for that diamond on your finger. OK, two peanuts.” Is life really so cheap?

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

2006-12-14T07:04:00.000-06:00

This was submitted to local newspapers for publication:

The man thought he was dead. Trying to convince him otherwise, the doctor asked, "Do dead men bleed?" "No," the man thoughtfully responded. The doctor pricked the man’s finger drawing blood. Amazed, the man exclaimed, "Dead men do bleed!" A bad starting thesis, "I am dead", can corrupt evidence and conclusions.

Preeminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Lewontin explains science’ devotion to naturalism: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation … we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door …"

Real power is in ideas, not weapons. In the twentieth century, ruthless Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots pushed evolution’s practical consequence, "life has no intrinsic value," and men died by the tens of millions. The naturalism of scientific method fed men’s naturalistic ambition, "might makes right." Evolution’s theory, "red in tooth and claw," ran red over the ground.

So, life is a cosmic accident; we are products of blind chance. If true, then Stalin is not responsible for his crimes. He was just dancing to his DNA explains the evolutionist. Should you be concerned about the scientific theory of evolution?

Lewontin let the cat out of the bag. Science’ obsession with materialistic answers is not scientifically required at all - it’s a philosophical commitment. The real controversy to be taught is not science vs. faith but science’ faith in naturalism. Remember the "dead man"?

"Professing to be wise, they have become fools"

2006-09-28T06:31:00.000-06:00

The below 250 word article was submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Former atheist, C.S.Lewis, was a “reluctant” convert to Christianity being dragged “kicking and screaming” into the fold through the unrelenting process of revelation and reason. He wrote an allegorical account of this process called “The Pilgrim’s Regress.” Where John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress” describes Pilgrim’s climb up the mountain toward faith, Lewis’ book goes back down the mountain using his newfound perspective to analyze why John, the main character, rejected other paths.

One chapter has John in jail. Daily, the jailor brings their food providing commentary on it while they eat. If the meal were meat, he would tell them they were just eating carcasses and discuss details of the slaughtering. Milk was just one of the secretions of a cow. Eggs were just …

These comments bothered John until, in a flash of insight, he realized the jailor was talking nonsense. He was trying to make unlike things alike – that milk was like sweat or dung. “Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?”

Gay marriage, abortion, hate-filled politics, child molestation – what should you expect when the only firm foundation for telling right from wrong, God, is banned from the public square and public education? Generations have now been taught God does not exist or, at best, is irrelevant. To gain this mirage of freedom, we’ve sacrificed truth. Professing to be wise, we’ve become fools – our own jailors.

The Failure of Public Education

2006-09-09T17:33:00.000-06:00

This is a 250 word article being submitted for publication in several of my local newspapers.

If from kindergarten we taught one plus one equals three, should we be surprised when the number of out-of-balance checkbooks and bankruptcies increases? Of course, no one’s teaching this lie, but, even with record setting education expenditures, Louisiana is last in the nation - but perpetually getting “better.” Even allowing for dedicated, sincere, and committed teachers and administrators, let’s face it, we have a failed public education system.

What’s the problem? Perhaps the failure of public education’s not due to low teacher pay, high teacher/pupil ratios, or the number of computers/child. Perhaps it is the very foundation upon which today’s idea of education itself rests. America’s early settlers and founders believed one of the primary purposes of education was to equip children to live God honoring and Godly lives. In the 1930’s, humanist/secular ideas invaded and began to dominate America’s public schools. The 1963 court decision against prayer in schools was but the culmination of a plan to remove the influence of God, the cornerstone of our liberty, on the minds, hearts, and behavior of our children.

Someone said, “You can make straight A’s and still flunk life.” We are failing miserably at the one, and succeeding terrifically at the other. Failing education is not a victimless crime; it victimizes us all! While not solely to blame for our cultural disintegration, education is a major part of the solution. Let’s scrap the sinking ship we now have and rebuild on the firm foundation our forefathers knew.

Public Educators Against Vouchers

2006-07-31T06:01:00.000-06:00

Two headlines on the front page of our local paper - Public educators want to nix voucher system and Officials seek answers to rise of violent crimes. I almost had to laugh at the irony of these two headlines appearing together.

Now, pay attention to this disclaimer right up front: The public education system is not the cause of the violence; however, it is culpable in that it should play a very significant role in the civilization of children/youth - a role that it is not accomplishing today. I would submit it has been hogtied by the government into a position that makes it all but impossible to do this

The problem with public education is not inadequate funding but that it does not clearly understand it's objective - and when you don't know where you are going, any old way will get you there.

If asked, most teachers and education administrators would probably say their mission is to teach facts - to educate students, to impart knowledge. But, is this enough? Knowledge is merely a tool - a means, not an end. It is, perhaps, more important to teach how to use knowledge to be a productive member of society and to be fulfilled personally. I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt who said something along the lines of "teaching knowledge without morality just produces more intelligent criminals."

I would like to propose a clear mission statement: Equipping students with the knowledge and character to be productive members of the local community and to lead fulfilled personal lives.

More on this subject to follow.

Facts are not Enough for Morality

2006-07-14T05:56:00.000-06:00

A local atheist had an article in the newspaper saying we should teach logic and good reasoning at the earliest ages in our educational system. He went on to say that some people are simply not persuaded by facts, preferring to cling to their view points butressed by selectively culled facts.

Here is my response:

When Gary Sloan is right, he’s right. I heartily agree all students should be taught sound reasoning skills from the earliest age. The brain has become the least used muscle – politicians, television and radio talk hosts, rappers, and movie stars do our thinking for us. Emotional slogans pass for good reasoning. “Feel” and “think” have become synonymous.

Oh that people did live by facts and good reasoning; then, there would be no legalization of mothers killing their babies. The scientific facts are incontrovertible that from conception the embryo is genus homo sapiens (human being). Neither size, level of development, environment/location, or dependency can be construed as justification for killing the fetus without also justifying killing classes of already-born persons.

Of course, facts alone are insufficient for such moral judgments; values and worldviews come into play. Hidden in the above argument is the value that it’s wrong to take innocent human life - not just wrong for me but wrong for all. Discussion of values opens the door to truth – is there objective, universal truth? Are some things wrong for all people at all times? How about the ancient ritual of placing living babies onto the red-hot arms of idols?

Yes, we need to include good reasoning skills and rules of logic in early education, but that alone, without knowledge of objective and universal truths and values, is like training in the use of hammer and saw without knowing the objective is to build a house.

A Moment's Taste of Eternity

2006-07-13T06:03:00.000-06:00

Sudden moments of perfect beauty
Taking our breath away.
Filling us with awe and wonder,
Pointing beyond, yet strangely familiar.
Reminders of where we really belong.

Translucent ocean hues darkening into deep,
Your newborn first grasping your finger,
Sunrise, sunset, full moon, and more.
Pointing beyond, speaking softly
The One we seek seeking us.

Eternity suspended in love’s surprise
Sure every tick of time should be such.
Experiences sustaining hope
Til one day every moment will be so,
When we finally return home.

Overwhelmed at the glimpse revealed.
Love's finger-painted picture just for me,
And just for you, and just for you ...
Love so personal yet undiminished
Though shared with infinity.

Joy's consummation instinctively rises.
Praise and thanksgiving are due.
Hearts must sing, must not be silent.
Simply the rightness of it all.
This taste of eternity in a moment.

But some see and don't see.
Almost-joy festers having no one to thank,
And unfulfilled denies the hope intended.
Closed hearts and clenched fists
Lost in knowledge miss the point.

A glimpse of heaven's Master
Reaching down to all,
Loving His creation.

@ Harold Henderson, 2002
This work may be freely reproduced in unaltered form for non-commercial use.

Flag Burning Amendment

2006-06-28T05:07:00.000-06:00

Below is an article I submitted to local papers for publication about a year ago ...

In port, the Command Duty Officer presided over retiring the colors at
sunset - standing on the flight deck, at attention, and saluting as sailors slowly lowered the U.S. flag. This was my favorite duty, so it might surprise many I would oppose a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

Like many Americans, I, too, am angry and disgusted when I see our flag burned - whether in a foreign land or here at home. To see an American burn the flag seems almost traitorous. In my opinion, most who do this are ignorant of their own history and callously indifferent toward the patriotic feelings of the multitude. It offends me deeply, but I am not hurt physically or emotionally beyond what I experience daily behind slow drivers on the interstate.

Most see this as a freedom of speech issue. Most would agree we should be very careful in allowing the government to curtail our freedoms - bought in blood shed under this banner. So, what is the compelling and sufficient reason to ban flag burning? No one is hurt (except, hopefully, the one holding the burning flag); we’re just offended. Constitutionalize this ban, and the words, "I’m offended," take on Constitutional force! Stop for a moment and think what a liberal court could do with that precedent!

Let’s compromise. Require a license to burn the flag. Two requirements - first, pass an American history test, and then there must be a tear in your eye when you burn my flag.

Harold Henderson, CDR, SC, USN (ret)

... about the only thing I would change is the last paragraph to add a provision making assault against a flag-burner a petty offense with a stiff $50 fine.

Suicide by Atheist

2006-06-24T06:28:00.000-06:00

"If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. ... You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature." G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy.

That man has a soul is generally accepted by most common folk - even writers and artists - though we may quibble over exactly what this soulishness means. For this article I would like to set forth a definition that most would accept - a throbbing ache for fulfillment. We seem to be born with a longing for meaning and significance. Most of us eventually discover that meaning and significance are not found in the physical pleasures or acquisitions of life. In the words of Ravi Zacharias, "The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced what you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has let you down." (from Can Man Live Without God)

But where do we look to satisfy this soulishness? That's the issue.

The Christian view is that the soul is a God implanted compass to draw us outside of ourselves pointing us to look to something higher and greater. That's all I will say about this view because I want to focus on several atheistic/humanistic approaches.

The first view I call the honest view. I will use famous 20th century atheist Bertrand Russell as it's proponent. His remark that life must be lived in a state of "unyielding despair" both states that there is no higher purpose or meaning to look to and correctly analyzes the life result of that belief - despair, with no hope and no way out. In short, Russell says there is a yearning but no ultimate fulfillment for life. There is no meaning.

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook."We may yearn for a 'higher' answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating" Stephen Jay Gould

The second I call get over it. A proponent of this view was the late Stephen Jay Gould. As shown above, his view says man can be liberated and exhilarated (his notion of the soul's fulfillment) if we just face the facts squarely and get on with it. Interestingly enough, though, his language gives him away - "This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." If man is just a cosmic accident, why should there be anything to trouble or terrify? Man's soulishness becomes a cosmic joke played by blind chance.

"The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite." Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Richard Dawkins is an example of the third view which I call counterfeit. Dawkins seems to agree that the things that give meaning to life are not the physical but the ethereal experiences of awe and wonder from science, music, poetry, etc. From his evolutionary/atheistic perspective, however, Dawkins is amazed at what the mind of man can conceive rather than that man's mind can conceive at all. It's like those who look at the amazing pictures from the Hubble space telescope and only marvel at man's accomplishment of building and placing such a great and powerful instrument.

Conclusion. Yes, it is fearful to contemplate the vastness of empty space teaming with billions and billions of stars. How small and insignificant this makes man -- if the measure is man alone. No further can the atheist/humanist go. Left with the honest assessment of unyielding despair, or the get over it bravado of the superficially troubling, if not terrifying truth of accidental and meaningless existence, or the counterfeit of looking low to the creature for awe and wonder, these all draw a giraffe with a short neck - man with a much diminished soul - in short, inviting man to suicide.

"Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end." G.K. Chesterton

Time Matter Chance

2006-06-23T05:26:00.000-06:00

Once upon a point of infinite density, Nothing that was Something went boom. Then there was Everything. Everything eventually named Something Matter, the tragic character in our story. Sadly, Matter had no mind; yet this makes our tale all the more amazing!

Now Matter had only one companion, the hero of our fable, a mysterious stranger of unknown origin called Chance. Chance, though blind, was a brilliant artist. Chance taught mindless Matter to paint, and paint our pupil did. Matter painted a universe from center to rim on the canvas of a vacuum. And lo, innumerable galaxies emerged, filled with infinite wonders, beauty, order, and life. The inspired brush strokes of ignorant Matter, guided by the hands of blind Chance, created a cosmic masterpiece.

But as Matter and Chance were working away, they failed to spot our villain called Time. Time crept in unnoticed back at the boom and was extremely wound up about being stirred from his sleep. Time determined there and then to wind down again and thus rub the masterpiece out – as soon as he got hold of that Chance! Chance, being blind, didn’t see Time coming, and mindless Matter was helpless to intervene.

Now Time ruins the painting little by little and brags that by Chance, it’s just a matter of Time before the canvas is blank and the boom will swoon and everything that was Something will be Nothing again, once more a pointless point of infinite nothingness with no Time for Chance to matter anymore.

Excerpt from Searching for Truth, Discovering the Meaning and Purpose of Life by Joe Boot, pp 53-54.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 3)

2006-06-19T04:33:00.000-06:00

Go here for the previous post in this series.

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven."

I know exactly what Dawkins is talking about. It's exactly the way I felt as a four year old when my mother - who I thought loved me - and the enemy nurses held me down to give me a shot when I was sick! Absolutely no pity or decent human feelings. Thank God my mother had faith to believe the shot would make me well - not absolutely guaranteed - and that the lesser (my temporary discomfort - certainly not from my point of view) was outweighed by the greater. This is a common principle we all use and should be applied to Dawkins' quote.

The problem obviously is the context and how you judge the reasoning used to evaluate the greater/lesser moral equation. The 9/11 hijackers believed heaven was the goal of life, and the only way by their faith, Islam, to guarantee heaven was as a martyr. Further, they believed their religion mandated the killing of non-believers, infidels. Looks like perfectly good reasoning to me, IF their religious understanding is true.

Everyone falls back to their core beliefs and principles from which to reason and justify their actions. Well, maybe with the exception of those who just act like animals with no need for justifying their actions to any moral standards at all. We can see that the 9/11 hijackers would try to justify their actions based on their religious beliefs. So, where do other mass-murderers find justification for their lesser/greater moral evaluation? Let's take Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc - the greatest mass murderers of all time, and all in the progressive 20th century.

Since they were atheists, I would suggest they can only look to their DNA. There is no good or bad - only "what is." They evolved by a process that endows no special moral place to the human animal above any other animals - "Nature, red in tooth and claw," in Tennyson's poem "In Memoriam." After all, this is what Darwin's theory of evolution has proved, hasn't it?

"Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent."

Few atheists are honest enough to admit that without a transcendent moral law, morality simply becomes a matter of individual moral tastes - some love their neighbors, some love to eat them. "Might makes right" becomes the operative principle.

Thank God most atheists live to a much higher moral standard than their beliefs require.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins (part 2)

2006-06-16T05:52:00.000-06:00

(go here for part 1)

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."

Sometimes, even an atheist can hit the nail on the head - incompatible faiths! The religions of the world make incompatible claims. Christians claim Jesus rose from the dead; Jews disagree. These are major differences, not minor. While it is theoretically possible that no religions have the truth, it cannot be that all are true. Gathering people together of different religions for prayer to their different gods is just an act of covering all the bases -- "we don't know which god is the true one, so we'll just pray to them all". Somehow, I doubt the true God - especially if He has gone to a lot of trouble to make men aware of Himself - is going to take that very seriously!

The only religions that could get together and pray in unity are Christianity and Judaism for they, at least, share the same God even if (to the Christian) the Jew only knows him partially.

One of the underlying problems of 9/11 was a religion, Islam, that condones, and obviously to some requires, killing of infidels - just look at the recent problem of the convert to Christianity in Afghanistan. Some will say that extremists have hijacked a peaceful religion, then I will say the burden is on the leaders of peaceful Islam to aggressively help put an end to those who have hijacked their religion. Other than some verbiage here and there, I have not really seen any such organized attempt.

Although there were old testament times when the God of the Christian and the Jew instructed the Jews to wipe out entire races, these instances were very specific in their rationale and were only for a very specific time and place. There is no generalized condoning of killing infidels in Christianity/Judaism - in fact, just the opposite is true. The Jews were commissioned by God to be a blessing to the nations. Roman 2:4 (NASB) gives the true definition of tolerance for the unrighteous: "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" Christianity makes converts through persuasion and the opening of hearts - not by sword or suicide bomb.

If you were to gather religions together, then gather them in commitment to the preciousness of human life - committed to action not just words. Unfortunately, abortion-full America, would show up with bloody hands.

I Agree with Atheist Richard Dawkins

2006-06-14T05:40:00.000-06:00

I'll bet that title got your attention! Obvoiusly, as a Christian, I don't agree with everything infamous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins has said, but there are a few things I believe he got right - unwittingly. It's kind of like Caiaphas saying, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” (Jn 11:49-50, NASB), and the crowd crying out for Jesus' death at his trial before Pilate, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25, NASB).

Examples:

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out." This one is rather tame. Who wouldn't agree - you would be surprised! Many people think minds are meant to always be open. I disagree. Minds are meant to close on facts guided by the light of truth. Openness is just a mind-phase enroute to closing.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." I agree because Dawkins obviously does not include Christianity in his definition of religion (remember, religion is man seeking after God/Godlessness - Christianity is God seeking man) since the early pioneers of modern science were Christians. These men/women were propelled by their belief in a God of order who revealed Himself in the complexity and order of His creation. For them, uncovering the mysteries of the universe was akin to touching the mind of God. Unfortunately, ignorance (much willfull) on matters of religion is epidemic in our culture and most do not see this distinction nor know their science history. True science goes where the evidence leads ... but, wait a minute, isn't Dawkins an evolutionist?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Once again, as above, it is obvious that Dawkins excludes Christians from those of faith and for the same reasons. I'm sure there is a word that describes ghost words. In our culture today, the word faith has an unseen, but clearly understood, preceeding ghost word - blind. Of course, from the context of his quote, it is clear this is what Dawkins is referring to. Anyone who has actually studied the Christian Bible knows that the Biblical concept of faith is more a reasonable faith or trust - definitely not blind. Unfortunately for Dawkins, though, this kind of leaves him hanging on the horns of his own quote. What kind of faith does it take to believe that Darwin's theory of macro evolution is true -- in spite of the lack of evidence in support of it and the growing body of contradictory evidence?

I may continue this later ...

You may want to go here and check out more of Dawkin's quotes.

Influences - Authors/Books

2006-06-09T05:32:00.000-06:00

Who influenced you the most in the way you think?

I am an avid reader. You will learn a lot about me by knowing the authors I read the most - not that learning a lot about me is the important point but rather that you might look at these authors, too. Here is a list - the ordering is a rough measure of their influence:

God (through His agents who actually wrote the books)
C.S.Lewis
Francis Schaeffer
Ravi Zacharias
Chuck Colson
John Piper
Oz Guinness
Phillip Johnson
Peter Kreeft
Norm Geisler
Greg Koukl
Frank Peretti
Phillip Keller
Lee Stroebel

Here are a few books that had a big impact on me. It's hard to pick just one from each, but here's a start:

C.S.Lewis - The Screwtape Letters. Fantastic insight into how Satan works. Tells us as much about ourselves as about Satan. A good, highly readable, book to start falling in love with C.S.Lewis' writing.

Ravi Zacharias - Can Man Live Without God. I remember sitting on the hotel balcony at Marco Island, Florida, reading this book with tears coming down my face. It simply touched something very deep in me. I believe it was the awakening of an awareness that we really were made for God and it could be argued successfully.

John Piper - God's Passion for His Glory. This is Piper's narrative (and most importantly his explanation) of Jonathan Edward's essay, The End for which God Created the World. The book showed me that God's passion for His glory is the measure of His love and commitment to our joy. God does things for His glory. That is the chief end (purpose) of all things. In terms of the day-to-day influence of how I view God, no book other than the Bible has had more influence.

Frank Peretti - This Present Darkness (fiction). Gave me a tangible understanding of the unseen spiritual warfare that surrounds us. This book almost makes the unseen visible.

Chuck Colson - The Body. Gave me an early vision of what the church could and should be.

Lee Stroebel - The Case for Christ. Though so many of the books/authors I read had something to do with apologetics, this book, and Lee's subsequent books, gave form to the practical apologetics for evangelism. We have a really good and sound case to make to the honest and sincere inquirer.

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek - I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Outstanding resource for the intellectually honest seeker or the Christian looking to discover the sound rational basis of faith in 12 progressive steps starting with is Truth knowable and leading inexorably to the Bible is the Word of God.

Future Topics - part 3

2006-06-06T04:27:00.000-06:00

Still more topics for future posts. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

Signs of Disintegrating American Culture. We have forgotten our foundations. Always be wary when people run to enact laws to set right what cultural moral/restrictions should have stopped. The fundamental principle of our republican form of government is self-government. When the power to govern self fails and laws are passed to accomplish what moral restraint - individual and collective - should have restrained, then individual freedom will be eroded. This is a one-way street to disaster. Here are some examples we see today in America.

Gay Marriage. That we would even think to debate over the definition of marriage is a huge red flag in itself. I am all for open debate and this issue will be debated, but just realize how far our society has fallen by the simple fact we would even think this is an issue. At it's core, this is precipitated by a cultural shift to define our rights according to our pleasures.

Amendments to Protect the American Flag and to Prevent Protest at Miltary Funerals. I am a 22 year veteran of the US Navy, and I am as patriotic as the next guy. I understand the outrage and anger being expressed by those who see the American flag being burned by other Americans and those who see loud protests against the war as a grieving family lays their fallen soldier to rest - BUT the bottom line of both these amendments is to outlaw being offended. Sorry, there is not and never should be enshrined in law a right to not be offended - for any reason. This is a bottomless pit. Besides chipping away at our rights of free speech and protest, just think where liberal judges will take this new "right" to not be offended.

Abortion. There simply shouldn't have to be a law to prevent the killing of innocent unborn human persons. This is just too obvious - or, at least, it should be. Here is an example of how a corrupt and evil culture has redefined the God-created role of a loving, giving, and nurturing mother into a killer!

Acceptance of Divorce. Here we are back to marriage, again. Marriage is a committment, and committment - through thick and thin, easy and tuff - is the centerpiece of integrity. Every marriage will have its rough spots. Why do we make it so easy to bail out of problems rather than encouraging the two to work through the problems -- often coming out stronger on the other side. Our culture has elevated Me-first self-centeredness to a virtue rather than self-sacrifice ... and this is the environment we raise children in!

Look at how divorce - inside the church - is accepted with no consequences! Law can only help the recovery so far - like Louisiana's Covenant Marriage option which many states have modeled. Only the church can restore the true environment and meaning to marriage.

Here's a challenge for churches and pastors in states with Covenant Marriage licensing options: commit to only perform and use church facilities for Covenant Marriages!

Increase in sexual perversion. Love = sex! Me first! That's the message of Hollywood and pop music. God's plan has been totally inverted. With all the child molesters and sexual predators, we are reaping what we have allowed the culture to sow.

More to come ...

Future Topics - part 2

2006-06-04T06:14:00.000-06:00

Here are more topics for future posts. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

Stuck in the 50's. When it comes to witnessing our Christ to others verbally, it looks to me like most churches (at least my own denomination, Southern Baptist) equip members to witness in the culture of the 50's (1950s). All the programs and methods assume an open, if not friendly, culture that believes there is a God and is willing to give fair and open consideration to claims of God's word. Ha! "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." The church has failed to equip believers for today's anti-God, quick slogan culture. No wonder witnessing and baptism rates are abysmal. No wonder our youth are so susceptible to humanistic college professors.

When someone says, "Well, all religions are really alike, aren't they?", quoting John 3:16 is a totally inadequate response.

All religions claim to be True. A religion is a system of belief - that includes humanism and atheism as a religion. To believe something is to hold that it is true. BUT religions believe contradictory things - Jews say Jesus was not God; Christians say He was. All religions may be wrong, but all cannot be right. Even those who say they are tolerant of other religions are intolerant of those who actually have the temerity to say their religion is true and the others are false. But even this - tolerance of all - is a claim to exclusive truth because it says the intolerant are wrong!

Someone sneaks in every night and replaces pages of Webster's. When God thought man was getting too uppity at the tower of Babel, He confused man's language and split him up into different people groups. Well, the devil is trying that, too. Perfectly good words are getting changed under our noses. Words like gay, faith, hope, love, etc. When we in the church use these words, the culture is hearing and seeing something different.

To Boil a Frog, Put him in Cold Water -- or -- If you Think things are Bad, Wait till you Open Your Eyes! Inch by inch; bit by bit. Every tiny step downhill is calculated to not disturb the feeling of normal. An old Chinese proverb (aren't all Chinese proverbs old?) says, "If you want to know about water, don't ask a fish." However, the perspective of decades reveals just how radical the cultural transformation has been. The times in which we live are anything but normal. And let's not call it progress - outhouses to indoor plumbing is progress. The ideas of the culture we live in are intended to mold and shape people after man's image - not God's. These times are evil and wicked, and we (the church) should not be comfortable here in the least.

If there is no God, then why apologize for Despair? Bertrand Russell, the prominent atheist of the last century, said life has to be lived in unyielding despair. I think Russell was giving an honest evaluation of atheism in answering the universal soul-cry of man for meaning and significance. The late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould likewise betrays his belief system when he uses words like "superficially troubling, if not terrifying," to describe man without higher purpose or meaning. If the hearts cry for meaning and significance has no fulfillment, then a cruel joke has been played on man. But who do you blame? Not God, He doesn't exist! It must be time + matter + chance.

A Twist - Are the Jews responsible for Jesus' death? On one hand, it definitely was Jews who held an illegal trial and condemned an innocent man. Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate. It was Jews who chose Jesus to be crucified rather than Barrabus. Technically, it was the Romans who executed the punishment, but the punishment never would have happened without the Jews calling for it.

Here's the twist. Christians know Jesus to be God - part of the Trinity. How can God be killed? He can't. So, in this Christian understanding, neither the Jews nor Romans present in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago killed God. It is simply impossible for man to kill God. In fact, Jesus Himself absolved them of guilt when He said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." As God, Jesus had the authority to forgive sin. Then Jesus gave up the spirit and died. He was not killed.

Bottom line: If a Jew accepts Jesus as God and savior, then no guilt remains. If he doesn't, it still is not the Christian who could condemn, but his own religious system for the illegal aspects of what was done. Ultimately, Jesus hanging on the cross was the best gift ever given to this world, but, like every gift, it has to be received.

Future Topics

2006-06-03T18:32:00.000-06:00

Here are some of the topics coming in the future. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

My testimony. I wasn't born a Christian even if I was born in America and had Christian parents and grandparents. Thank God there is a God because only He could have gotten through my thick skull at the age of 22. Mine is one of those brick wall experiences.

Treating symptoms, not the disease. Every now and then some social problem rises up and gets Christians motivated to action. After the beast is slain, we go back to our comfortable pews content in what we have accomplished for the kingdom. In fact, we have done little or nothing for the kingdom at all. We just put a little ointment on the rash and totally ignored the underlying disease. The rash is guaranteed to come back.

Loss of Virtue. Harold's definition of virtue: man's reflection of God's holiness. Today's culture hates virtue. Culture should be a virtue pump -- particularly in our schools. Attempting to build virtue on any other foundation than God is building on shifting sands. The culture is the soil we scatter our seeds into. "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." Luke 8:15.

Second things First. In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus summarizes all the law and the prophets: "And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "

Have you ever noticed how many people run right to the second commandment paying only lip service, if any attention at all, to the first? It's like trying to stretch a single into a double in baseball by running from home plate straight across the pitchers mound to second base. It doesn't work that way. We don't know how to love #2 until we know love #1.

Universal Truth exists and is knowable. Many will debate that there is only relative truth - true for you but not for me. If it's only true for you then why should I care one whit for it? Others deny any truth exists or that truth is knowable. My question for them - "Is that true?" They keep trying to show it's true there's no truth.

People live what they really believe, and they live as if truth exits. Do you care whether your doctor is lying or telling the truth? How about your accountant or banker?

Relationship, not religion. I'm not into religion. Religion is man trying to get to God. The God I know gave a lot to re-establish a lost relationship. He actually takes joy in His creation.

Not about Winning. It's about obedience and love. Many people are frustrated with the decline in our culture. They'll say something like, "But what can one person do?" People don't have the right motivation about engaging the culture. How could David think he could defeat Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:47 says, "... for the battle is the Lord's ..." Each can do what one person can do and count on God to do what God can do. That's part of the message of Jesus' feeding of the multitudes.

A Reasonable Faith. Everyone has faith. Faith is common. It takes faith to fly on an airliner - faith that a big hunk of metal will really fly and faith in the crew that they know how to safely fly the airplane. There is no absolute guarantee against crashing, but you weigh the odds and find that faith in flying is resonable. The best synonym for the Biblical idea of faith is trust. Some people put their trust in unreasonable things. Some peole have blind faith - often in spite of the evidence. True Bilical faith is a faith butressed with reason. It cannot be completely reasoned to, but sufficient evidence exists to point you in the right direction and carry you a long way. "Come let us reason together." Jesus explained things to his disciples.

OK. Enough for one reading. More topics to follow.

Welcome to my Blog

2006-06-03T09:44:00.000-06:00

Welcome. This is my first blog, so forgive me as I stumble around.

the Christian in Culture. Why this name? Well, I've been on a journey with God (that may sound rather presumptious but more on that later) over the last 13+ years mostly focused on this topic. Another possible name could have been "the Seed in the Soil", but theCinC was the first that came into my head. Plus, with my military background, I thought theCinC (as in the Commander in Chief) rather catchy, too.

As a purpose, I hope to develop my ability to challenge and motivate the Church (God's people already in the fold) to be effective in the culture - see it as an opportunity - in reaching the lost (God's children not in the fold). I'll share insights from the Bible, life, my voluminous reading, etc - and listen to other's thoughts. You are an important part of this blog - "as iron sharpens iron" comes to mind.

I hope this blog will do several things:

Help me clarify and develop ideas. I tend to do my best thinking while writing. Writing also forces me to develop one thing at a time - I tend to skip around on many things and get very little down in writing.
Share my thoughts and insights and get feedback.
Make a difference. Ultimately, that should be the goal of every Christian - to make an eternal difference in the lives of people. I am a hopelessly romantic crusader (for the Truth).

Just a note for the non-Christian or even non-religious (an oxymoron but more on that later). You are welcome here. I hope you will find the things said here to be well reasoned. Though this is far from a comprehensive statement of my faith, I initially came to believe in God because it was more reasonable to believe in His existence than not. Again, you are welcome here. Your participation is invited - afterall, you really are the ultimate target of the ideas found here. You are an invited guest, not the enemy.