What's Wrong with our Culture in a Picture

The Bible is no longer authoritative.  It now sits on the library shelf between Fairy Tales, Ghost Stories, and Mythology.

Christians can no longer assume a listener has a common understanding on God, Jesus, faith, sin, salvation or other Biblical themes.  We now have to do the hard work of backing up and laying foundations to understanding through Apologetics and appeals to common ground through general revelation.

Noble Sentiments in a Sound-Bite Age

"If you are being fed to the lions, it is tempting for one to believe that victory is defeating the lions, when in fact, real victory is dying in such a manner that those watching repent, because they now know that it is wrong to feed your brethren to the lions."

I love noble sentiments but there are things about this one that trouble me.  Yes, perhaps the main point is that the lions are not our enemy, or maybe the lions are and the crowd are the ones we are dying for.  Maybe I'm overanalyzing but here are a few thoughts.

1.  When it comes to dying, it's just me and the Lord.  No lions.  No crowds.  I hope I can die in such a way to honor Him.  The grace to die well will come from Him.  There's even precedent for shutting the mouths of hungry lions. 

2.  "... because they now know that it is wrong to feed your brethren to the lions."  How my death is perceived is up to God, not me.  Yes, I agree there are things you can't not know (a few psychopaths aside), but put that in the context of millions killed in Nazi camps.  Was it the example of their deaths that ended the Holocaust?  How many times has that been repeated?  Truth is the way forward, but Truth can come in many ways even military might.

3.  America is running full tilt toward another Nazi society.  Already the philosophy of "if you don't agree with us and celebrate what we celebrate even if it violates your conscience ... we're going to hurt you" is rising.  It's not hard to see that leading to a repeat of Christians vs Lions, but I do not believe that is a foregone conclusion.

4.  I know this is not the point of the above sentiment, but I don't think God has told us to put our affairs in order and go volunteer to die in the arena.  I do believe He is and always has called His people to stand up for Him in all things - to stand visibly against what is wrong, to be the lawyer fighting to protect First Amendment rights, to be the pastor rightly equipping his congregation and youth to be effective in their times ...

5.  If it comes that I am taken to the 21st century arena then I hope it's because I was a Mordechai standing in the gate while others bowed (Esther 5:9) and not that the FBI had to work hard to find enough evidence to convict me.

Noble sentiments are meant to provoke thought.  However, in our time, it may just be the shortfalling of Noble sentiments that they are pithy in an age of sound bites where people are used to being told what to think.  No real thought required.


Disclaimer.  A friend posted this sentiment as a Facebook comment and I posted the above (98%) as a response.  He subsequently posted an excellent response.  He did not negate my comments but explored some different aspects of the sentiment.  BUT I'm not going to give him equal air-time on my blog until he starts a blog and posts his response there - then, I'll link to it.  He needs to be writing to a bigger and potentially hostile audience than just his FB friends.

UPDATE 1/27/18: My friend started a blog.  The Spirited Nature - try it.  You'll see he is an excellent and thoughtful writer.

Resources for Opposing Legalization of Same-sex Marriage

This is a page of various resources for use in the traditional marriage/same-sex marriage debate.

What is Marriage   - Ryan Anderson, Robert George,  and Sherif Girgis

The key question is what basis does government have to be involved in marriage? This is an excellent resource, probably the best single document. It not only sets forth the case for traditional marriage, it also answers many of the common arguments.

Free downloadable PDF

Book

Book summary by Amy Hall

Marriage/Divorce study

People who seriously practice a traditional religious faith—whether Christian or other—have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

What appears intuitive is true. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes—attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples—enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public, and unbelievers….

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 1)

Intro and case against Homosexuality from the Bible

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 2) 

Policy – the public case.

Answering Specific Same-sex Marriage Questions

How Can We Show Love to Homosexuals? (Video)

Is Denying Same-sex Marriage Like Denying InterracialMarriage? 

 

Race/Sex/Marriage

Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? 

Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed to Adopt? 

Can Homosexuals Change Their Orientation? 

Is Homosexuality Just as Normal as Heterosexuality? 

Are Homosexuals Going to Hell? 

Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean it's Natural forHumans? 

Is 10% of the Population Homosexual? 

Are Homosexuals Born that Way? 

Should Christians Impose Their Moral Standards on Society? 

Can You Have Gay Friends If You Think Homosexual Behavior Isa Sin? 

Does God Punish Gay People for Being Who They Are? 

Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All? 

Did Jesus Never Say Anything about Homosexuality? 

Answering a Case for Same-sex Marriage (Video) 

No Holding Back other forms of Marriage

If marriage is anything we want it to be, then it can be ANYTHING!

 

Other Resources 

Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio) – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show."

Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."

Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection – "An Iowa court recently ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''
 

Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a relevant characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more ramifications when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage."
 

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"
 

Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage – "This self-described liberal Democrat supports California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children."
 

Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video) – Alan responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.

 

Stopping by the Woods on a Screaming Evening

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 or just continue your casual walk admiring the beauty all around while ignoring the continuing screams?  Wait for an answer here.

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, run for help, or refuse to get involved?  Again, wait for an answer.

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 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.

Peace on Earth

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 brokenness 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 the 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 external 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 precedes and informs the horizontal.

Legalizing Wrong as Right Sends More to Hell

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 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 consequences 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!"

Imagine

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" book cover 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 inoculating their children and youth to understand what is actually going on here.

Two Out of Three Stinks

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: 

1) 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. 

2)  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/hypocrisy 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.

Teaching evolution in the classroom can be dangerous

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.

Emotionally Satisfying Answers

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 managed 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 with my own children, 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 though we may not. Our response should be "Not my will be done but Thine."

That is our comfort, and that is the best emotionally satisfying answer of all.

All Those Hypocrites in Church

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.

The god of the Mirror

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 the God of the Bible, 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

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 reasonable Christ-honoring 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. To 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 constructionist 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 only 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 (just using him as an example). I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee 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 on these foundations from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that. 

 God help us.

"I Do" or "I Will"?

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

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?

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 media 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

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.

Three Significant Quotes

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.

The Failure of Public Education

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.

Future Topics - part 3

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 ...