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.

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.

Blinders on! Blinders off!

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)?

Secular Dreams

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 for a beautiful sunset or sunrise? 

Where does just saying something is so make it True? 

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

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.

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?

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.

Evolution - Dead Man Walking

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"?

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.

Public Educators Against Vouchers

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.

Suicide by Atheist

"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