Surviving In Oz

Graduation Prayers And The Fallacy Of Supposed Neutrality

I am writing this piece in response to an article published by The Indianapolis Star on March 11, 2010.  The article is attributed to the Associated Press, and is entitled, “Greenwood student sues to stop prayer”.  The article reports that Mr. Eric Workman, an 18-year-old senior at Greenwood Highs School in Johnson County where I reside, is suing the school to prevent students from offering a public prayer at the graduation ceremony.  Whether to have the prayer as part of graduation was reportedly put to a vote by the seniors of the student body at the beginning of the school year, the result of the vote being overwhelmingly in favor of the prayer.  Mr. Workman contends that both the vote and the prayer violate his constitutional rights.

I would like to address some of the specific points presented in this article, and in particular, the quoted statements attributed to both Mr. Workman and his lawyer, ACLU attorney Ken Falk.

“You can’t have a vote whether or not to violate somebody’s constitutional rights,” Falk said.  “It just doesn’t work that way.”  I would agree with that statement at face value, but in this case, it begs an important question.  Just whose constitutional rights are being violated, and how does one measure the constitutional rights of one student against that of another – or in this case, many others?  It seems that according to Mr. Falk, Mr. Workman has a constitutional right not only to not pray, either privately or publicly, but also to not have to listen to anyone else pray.  On the other hand, it seems that 1000 or more other students do not have the right to pray or otherwise freely express their religion in Mr. Workman’s presence.  I find this odd, especially considering Mr. Falk cites the First Amendment as the source of Mr. Workman’s supposed constitutional right.  Since the First Amendment deals with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, how is it that Mr. Workman’s freedoms of speech and religious expression are held in higher esteem than that of 1000 other students?

I can assume that the argument would be something to the effect that Mr. Workman is not trying to prohibit anyone from freely exercising his or her religion, but rather trying to prevent his being forced to participate in a religious exercise with which he does not agree.  Mr. Falk said of Mr. Workman, “he does not believe that anyone should involuntarily be subjected to prayer and religious beliefs [and that people at the ceremony should not be compelled to take part in a religious exercise].”  (The bracketed part of the previous quote comes from the article in The Star and is not directly attributed to Mr. Falk.)  I find that a curious position to defend, especially considering that, according to the article, “Workman is currently ranked first in his class and expects to speak at graduation.”  Obviously Mr. Workman believes he has the right to freely speak at graduation.  Has anyone spoken to him about specifically not espousing his religious beliefs as part of his remarks?  I certainly hope so.  After all, by his own admission, no one should be involuntarily subjected to religious beliefs.

At this point some readers may be ready to protest.  While the article does not specifically state that Mr. Workman is an atheist, the implication is there due to his claim that he should not be involuntarily subjected to “religious beliefs” and should not be “compelled to take part in a religious exercise”.  The argument goes that if Workman is an atheist, then how could he possibly make any comments that promote his religious beliefs, since he has none? 

This argument is completely fallacious, and yet I hear it frequently presented in cases such as these.  The assumption is that atheism is not anti-religious, but rather a-religious.  To be more specific, we Christians are to believe that atheists are simply not Christian; they are not anti-Christian.  While I certainly accept the possibility that not all atheists are openly hostile toward Christians in a personal way, it simply cannot be logically demonstrated that atheism is a belief system that takes some sort of neutral or void position when it comes to religion.  Atheism is every bit as much of a religious belief system as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam.  It is neither true nor possible that the atheist believes in nothing.  He most certainly believes in something.  He believes that there is no God.  Depending on the atheist in question, he may believe in something he calls “rationality” or “science”.  Unless the atheists among us expect the millions of Christians in this country to concede the non-existence of God as an objective fact, then atheism must be viewed for what it is, a religious (or philosophical, if you prefer the term) position, and not a scientific or legal one.

Yet, we are led to believe by Mr. Falk and others like him that forbidding Christian prayer in public is somehow religion-neutral.  This supposed neutrality is a fallacy.  However, it is not, as some Christians may believe, killing religious expression in America.  No, it is favoring one and only one form of religious expression, atheism, over all others.  Jesus, the Cornerstone of Christianity, said, “He who is not with me is against me.”  (Luke 11:23)  The very nature of the claims of the Bible make neutrality impossible.  Atheism is a contrary position to Christianity, not a neutral one.  Therefore, the idea that prohibiting one form of religious expression (offering a Christian prayer) in favor of another form of religious expression (not offering  the prayer because of unbelief) is somehow fair, neutral, and equitable is bogus.  Any high school, school board, court, or legislative body that takes such a position is codifying into law or policy that atheism is preferable to Christianity.  This is a direct violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause if there ever was one.

We have a situation brewing here where it is possible that the desired religious expression and speech of 1000 or more students will be abridged in favor of the sensibilities of a single student, or perhaps a few students.  Not only that, but in the most bitter of ironies, this same student will be given the very platform the students desiring to pray will be denied.  When he has the floor, will he take the opportunity to espouse his belief system?  Will he exult in “reason” or “free-thinking”, “science” or “rationality” over the worldview of Christianity?  Will he speak of anything he believes at all that is in any way contrary to Christianity (or Hinduism or Islam or any other religion undoubtedly represented in the student body)?  If he does, then I submit to you that he becomes the very thing he says he opposes, one who involuntarily subjects others to his religious beliefs.  No doubt all the students will be expected sit quietly and politely while he speaks, freely sharing whatever he might wish to say, and yet somehow it is unconstitutional to expect the same courtesy from him.  Apparently we now live in a land where it is illegal for some to be opposed or offended, but not others.  If so, we have lost our freedoms of speech and religious expression already.

In this instance the religious freedom of the many is being subjected to the personal preferences of the one.  We used to have a word for that in America.  We called it tyranny, and we hated it with such passion that our forefathers crossed a vast ocean, faced untold hardship and danger in the new world, and took up arms to ultimately free themselves, and us, from it.  Will we now stand by idly and silently while lawyers, politicians, and judges seek to subject us to tyranny all over again?  I, for one, will not.

Angels We Have Heard On High…And Had Them Removed

The athiests are at it again, ever vigilant in protecting us from the scourge of religion run amok in the public square.  According to an article by Joshua Rhett Miller published on FoxNews.com, Sonoma County (California) Administrator Chris Thomas ordered the pictured angel and all other “religious” symbols removed from Christmas trees on display in all government buildings after a single complaint was filed by 65-year-old atheist Irv Sutley.  I say a single complaint with confidence, because Jim Toomey, public information officer for Sonoma County, said that he knew of no prior complaints about the Christmas trees.  It is ironic that in a supposedly democratic nation a single citizen can impose his will on every other citizen in an entire county of the populous state of California without a hearing, review, or a vote. 

To be fair, Sutley claims that the religious symbols on the Christmas trees violate a 1989 Supreme Court ruling stating that such displays constitute an illegal endorsement of Christian doctrine.  Even if the Supreme Court has ruled as Sutley says, the assertion is utter nonsense, no matter who is making it.  If putting religious symbols on a Christmas tree is government endorsement of the Christian religion, then demanding their removal amounts to government endorsement of the atheist religion.  Mr. Sutley’s worldview is clearly influencing his interpretation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

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

The only way that Mr. Sutley can claim that the First Amendment applies to the presence of Christian (or Buddhist or Judaist or “anything of a religious nature”, as he says he opposes in the article) symbols and not their government-mandated absence is to assume first of all that atheism is not a religion or belief system (which, of course, it is), and second of all that the government enforcing removal of such religious symbols does not in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion by those citizens who are not atheists (which, of course, it does).  It appears that none of the Sonoma County officials involved in this incident have bothered to examine these claims for logical consistency.  Instead, they simply bowed to the wishes of a single man who said the symbols were “extremely offensive” and part of the “cult” of Christianity. 

I just don’t believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior. – Irv Sutley

There are several questions I would like to ask about this statement.

1. Does the fact that Mr. Sutley does not believe the government has a particular right mean that it, in fact, does not have that right? 
2. From whence does the government actually derive its “rights”, or more accurately, its powers and authorities?  Realize, gentle reader, that any answer to this question other than “Irv Sutley and/or those who believe like him” causes his argument to fall apart.
3. Assuming Mr. Sutley is correct, and the government does not have the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior, what constitutes sectarian behavior?  The Random House Dictionary defines sectarian as “narrowly confided or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.”  Is it not obvious that Mr. Sutley’s statement is completely arbitrary?  One could just as easily say that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols on a Christmas tree intrudes on Christians and forces them into sectarian behavior, namely, that behavior limited to the interest, purpose, and scope of the atheist.  Mr. Sutley’s statement is self-refuting and hypocritical, for in making the claim he is doing the very thing he claims to oppose.

The Sonoma County government’s response to Mr. Sutley’s complaint is equally irrational.

To avoid any controversy and to satisfy this gentlemen’s concerns, the ornaments were removed. – Jim Toomey

The second part of this response makes sense.  The ornaments were removed to satisfy Irv Sutley’s concerns.  However, the first part can be true only if the atheist position is exclusively non-controversial.  This can hardly be the case.  The Sonoma County government has simply traded one controversy for another, favoring one worldview over another.  I wonder if a single Christian were to respond with the complaint I have outlined here, namely, that prohibiting the display of Christian symbols is an illegal prohibition of the free exercise of religion, if the Sonoma County Administrator’s Office would respond as quickly and easily by replacing the symbols.  If the answer is “no”, and it likely is, then the government, be it the local government of Sonoma County, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both have taken a position of favoritism toward atheism and prejudice against Christianity.

It is not clear from the article whether Mr. Sutley presumes that his position is somehow “neutral”, so I will not assume that he is claiming neutrality without sufficient knowledge.  I will, however, remind the reader that Mr. Sutley’s position is not neutral.  Neutrality when it comes to worldviews (belief systems or religions – whatever term you prefer) is impossible.  The very nature of Christianity demands that everyone choose a side.  “He who is not with me is against me,” Jesus said (Matthew 12:30).  Perhaps the most important thing we believers in Christ should take away from this is the fact that the easiest way for a local government to avoid controversy is to endorse atheism.  What does that say about our efforts to be salt and light in our world?

E.T. Phone Rome

An article recently published on FoxNews.com suggests that the Catholic Church is somehow trying to make amends for a perceived feud with “science” dating back four hundred years to its opposition of Galileo by commissioning a study of the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

“The questions of life’s origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration.” – Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory

It is interesting that a religious body that a significant majority of the world considers synonymous with Christianity would call the origins of life into question.  The Bible opens with this very topic; Genesis literally means origins.  Yet here we have the Vatican delving into the discipline called astrobiology, a field Dr. David Menton of Answers In Genesis comically derided as “the only one without a subject!”  The conciliatory tone of the article suggests that the Vatican is trying to overcome 400 years of perceived opposition of Christianity toward science.  Unfortunately, some mistakenly conclude that the Catholic Church’s refusal to accept Galileo’s astronomical observations were rooted in Biblical teaching.  Thus, a straw man is constructed wherein Biblical Christians are made out to believe in a geocentric solar system, a flat earth, a stationary earth, and all other manner “unscientific” fantasies.  The truth is that the Bible does not insist upon a geocentric solar system, for example.  This idea comes from ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Ptolemy whose ideas had become more compelling to the Catholic Church of Galileo’s day than the Scripture.  The oft-cited conflict between science and Christianity simply does not exist.  It cannot, in fact, if Christianity is true.  The God of the Bible possesses all knowledge.  Science, therefore, which is the pursuit of knowledge through observation and experimentation, is necessarily the pursuit of God.  It is other matters of faith, in this case evolutionary thinking, that conflict with Christianity. 

“Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe.  There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe.” – Chris Impey, Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona

Given the context of the article, it is fairly obvious that we are to interpret Professor Impey’s use of the word science to mean an evolutionary worldview and religionto mean primarily Christianity.  In that case, Professor Impey is correct about evolution’s view of the origin of life, but completely mistaken with regard to Christianity’s explanation.  Evolution assumes life is a special outcome of a random universe where the mathematical odds of life arising on its own are astronomically (no pun intended) remote.  Christianity, on the other hand, does not present life as an outcome of the universe at all, but the special creation of a personal and loving God.  Thus, the middle ground that Professor Impey speaks of does not exist.  To accept the possibility of a middle ground where life is anything other than the purposeful creation of Almighty God is to reject the Biblical worldview and embrace some other worldview wherein the universe somehow gave rise to life.  This is not to say that Professor Impey is insincere in his desire to have a civil conversation with Christians, or that he does not believe that life has meaning in the universe.  Rather, I submit that he knows innately that life does have meaning exactly because the Bible is true.

“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?  Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God.  This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God’s creative freedom.” – Rev. Funes

We can rule out that life did not develop elsewhere because the Bible clearly reveals that life did not “develop” here, either.  God created life according to His own purpose and power.  Proper Biblical exegesis does not put limits on God’s creative freedom.  Rather, it puts limits on man’s foolish imaginations.  It was God who told us that after six days of creative work, God was done creating (Genesis 2:1-2; Exodus 20:11).  The Creation account is very clear and specific in describing that humanity is unique among God’s creation, the only creature made in His image, and that the earth is also unique, being created first as a habitation for humanity.  The evolutionary study of astrobiology assumes that the vastness of the universe, the innumerable stars and planets, make the earth nothing special at all.  It is just another rock in an infinite cosmos.  Thus, humanity cannot possibly be unique or special, as well.  The processes that gave rise to intelligent life on earth must have happened elsewhere.  It should be clear, however, that the evolutionary view is not that of “science” backed by facts, and the Biblical view that of “religion” backed by myths.  No, the facts here, at least in the observational sense, are identical no matter which side of this particular debate one falls on.

1. The earth is one planet among many in the universe.
2. There exists intelligent life on earth.
3. No intelligent life has been discovered elsewhere in the universe.

It is the interpretation of these observations that differ.  The Biblical worldview explains the earth’s solitary position in the universe as the result of God’s creative freedom, as Rev. Funes so eloquently put it.  The evolutionary worldview, on the other hand, views the apparent solitude of the earth as evidence that the earth is nothing special among the planets in the universe, further extrapolating that intelligent life is likely to exist elsewhere as a result.

“It was astronomical observations that let us understand that Earth (and man) don’t have a privileged position or role in the universe.  I ask myself what tools will we use in the next 400 years, and I ask what revolutions of understanding they’ll bring about, like resolving the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude.” – Tommaso Maccacaro, President of Italy’s National Institute of Astrophysics

It is not possible for astronomical observations alone to bring about such philosophical and moral conclusions with respect to the earth or mankind.  The astronomical observations to which President Maccacaro refers, when interpreted from a Biblical Worldview, support the opposite conclusion, as explained previously in this article, that the Earth and mankind absolutely dohave a privileged position and role in the universe.  (Actually, I would also accept that it may be more proper for me to say that they do not oppose the Biblical conclusions.)  The “not privileged” conclusion comes not from astronomical observations alone, but from evolutionary interpretation of said observations.  I would propose to President Maccacaro that the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude has already been solved.  The Bible explains it very well.  We are God’s special creation, so special that He has redeemed us from the curse of sin with the blood of His own Son, Jesus.  To assume that life at a level equal to or greater than our own exists elsewhere in the universe is to belittle the love of God demonstrated through His ultimate sacrifice.

Ashley Madison And The Evolution Of Adultery

A facebook friend caught my attention today with a cryptic post about the unbelievable nature of TV ads for Ashley Madison.  Assuming that Ashley Madison was some new sitcom, drama, or reality show, I decided to Google it.  I wish I could say with sincerity that I was shocked to discover that Ashley Madison is not a fictional TV tome at all, but rather a bona fide dating service in the United States that caters specifically to married people.  You read that right.  Ashley Madison’s business model is the facilitation of adulterous relationships.  The advertisements, what little I watched of them, were predictably soft porn in nature.  Again, while I was certainly disheartened and disgusted, I was anything but surprised.  In its current state, America has all but abandoned marriage as an institution.  This service is a half-step away from outright prostitution.

Believe it or, Ashley Madison is not where I want to focus this article.  The first hit in my Google search was a video clip on YouTube from a CNN interview with the CEO of Ashley Madison.  In a move more typical perhaps of Fox News, the CNN interviewer was vilifying the Ashley Madison CEO for unabashedly destroying marriages, destroying families, and wrecking the lives of children.  The counterargument was something to the effect that Ashley Madison does not promote adultery.  People who are going to commit adultery have already decided to do so long before calling Ashley Madison.  This firm is simply following the American way, creating a business based on a service for which there is an obvious market, cheating spouses looking for a score.  Whether the CEO’s claim is true or false is probably worthy of debate, but again, it is not the subject of my article.  Instead, what I found most intriguing from a worldview perspective were the comments posted by users of the YouTube community.

Take this one, for example.

Marriage is a conservative concept, not liberal by definition in the least.

Now that is a curious thing.  Marriage, by definition, is neither conservative nor liberal, neither is it merely a concept like supply and demand.  Marriage is an institution as old as humanity, established by God, and providing the basis for all of human civilization and the continuation thereof, the family.  Marriage is a covenant, not a concept.  It is a promise, not a proposition.  To assign marriage to the bailiwick of a particular political ideology is to strip it of its inherent value and meaning.  If marriage is a conservative concept, why do liberals get married?  Such a flawed definition of marriage eliminates its sanctity, which is precisely the point, of course.

Here is another posted comment.

It’s fantastic! When are people going to realize that infidelaty is a natural thing…We’re MONKEYs PEOPLE!!!!!

How come there are so many other organizations being prosecuted [b]y churches, such as LGBT, that are helping many young kids confirm their identity, and yet the church completely ignores something like this which so much worse then someone who realized they were gay? Why am I being the one prosecuted for who I love, and yet something like this is allowed to put their advertisements of something that causes nothing but pain everywhere?

Plus 8

Much to no one’s surprise, Jon and Kate Gosselin publicly called it quits on their marriage two weeks ago on TLC’s Jon & Kate Plus 8. Barring an unforeseen (but certainly not unwanted by this blogger) reconciliation, their ten-year marriage is coming to end, but the show, of course, must go on.  FoxNews.com reports that they plan to continue the show as always, chronicling the parents’ interaction with the juvenile octavarium as they live apart rather than together.

As with the millions of other American families that suffer the same fate without the omnipresent stare of the TV cameras (roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce), there is undoubtedly plenty of blame to go around.  The news, the tabloids, and the blogs are eager to blame Jon, Kate, TLC, greed, infidelity, narcissism, the paparazzi, Santa Claus and George W. Bush (isn’t he to blame for just about everything?) for their demise.  My goal, naturally, is to approach this very public tragedy from a worldview perspective.  I would like to think that rather than looking for someone or something to “blame”, per se, I am instead interested in finding a possible reason in the worldview of this couple that could have led, at least in part, to their decision to divorce.

As I read the FoxNews.com report on what I will refer to as “The Divorce Episode”, one theme emerged in the comments of Jon and Kate so quickly that it immediately caught my attention.

Kate: “It doesn’t matter where Jon and I are in our relationship. My kids still matter the most to me.”

Jon: “I don’t hate Kate, but I have to do what’s best for me and my kids.  You know, them first.”

Kate: “I don’t hate him. Never have, never will.  He’s the father of my children.  They’re great kids, the best.”

Kate: “I’m not very fond of the idea, but I know it’s necessary, because my goal is peace for my kids.”

Kate: “I will not lay down and die.  I will go on for my kids.”

Jon: “It’s just not good for our kids for us to be arguing in front of our kids.  If we can’t be cordial to one another, then we decided to separate.”

Do you see a pattern, here?  All of these comments have the air of nobility, self-sacrifice, and genuine concern for the welfare of the children about them.  The problem is that the “kids first” mentality is not a biblical one, and, therefore, is not conducive to a healthy or lasting marriage.  Ironically, if Jon and Kate truly wanted to do what is best for their children, they would work out their differences and stay together.  Sadly, like so many others in our nation, they seem to have abandoned the idea that a two-parent home (husband and wife) is the best environment for children. It is nonsensical to abandon the marital union that produced the children for the sake of the children, yet I believe it is precisely this type of thinking that is at the heart of Jon and Kate’s break-up.

The first quote I listed from Kate is incredibly instructive.  “It doesn’t matter where Jon and I are in our relationship.  My kids still matter the most to me.”  Again we are presented with a bitter irony, a self-contradictory position that I doubt Kate, or many of us, have taken the time to think through carefully.  On the one hand, it can be said that because the kids matter most to Kate, her husband took a back seat in her life.  In that way, the second statement is the cause of the first.  It does not matter to Kate the condition of her marriage, because she has put her children before her marriage. The contradiction comes in when we consider that if her second statement were actually true, then the first one must of necessity be false.  If Kate is primarily concerned with the total welfare of her children, then she would understand that her marriage absolutely does matter.  In fact, it matters more than any other aspect of her life as a parent.

Let us not pin all the blame on Kate, however.  Jon said, “I have to do what’s best for my kids.  You know, them first.”  I know I keep repeating myself, but here is yet another irony.  Jon’s “them first” (and probably also “me first”) mentality caused him to neglect his marriage, ultimately leading him to a decision that is bad for his children, not good.  If he truly wanted to do what is best for his kids, he would start with being reconciled to their mother and keeping his marriage vows to the wife of his youth.  (Please note that I do not mean to imply that I endorse unconfirmed reports of Jon’s infidelity.  When I refer to Jon keeping his marriage vows, I am referring to the “until death do us part”.)  Jon is absolutely right that it is not good for them to argue in front of the children, but his solution is wrong.  Separation is not the right solution for arguing spouses or their children.  Reconciliation is. 

The scripture is clear.  God hates divorce.  (Malachi 2:16)  Malachi 2:15 makes it clear that the unique one-flesh relationship of husband and wife is the best possible means to raise godly children.  Jon and Kate did not get married because they had 8 children.  Rather, they were married because of a choice to love one another, and the 8 children are the product of that love.  To put the children before the union of flesh and spirit that produced them is to put the cart before the horse.  Strong marriages make for strong families and well-adjusted children with the proper worldview of marriage modeled before them.  What are Jon and Kate teaching their children about marriage?  Are they not teaching them that the best thing to do for their own children later in life if trouble crops up in their marriage is to avoid conflict by dissolving the marriage?  Thus, the cycle of divorce is perpetuated.

God’s instructions for the family order are given in Ephesians 5:22-6:4.  To summarize these instructions, the Bible says:

1. Wives are to honor and respect their husbands.
2. Husbands are to love their wives in the same way that Christ loved the Church, meaning they are to give their very lives for their wives.  Husbands are to protect, provide, and nurture their wives, loving them faithfully and unconditionally.
3. Children are to respect and obey both parents.
4. Fathers are to train their children in love without being harsh for harshness’ sake.  As a minister I respect very much once told me, “Be firm.  Be fair.  Be friendly.  Mean what you say.  Say what you mean.  Do what you said you were going to do.”

Notice the higher place the spouse is given in the family relationship to the children. The Bible does not specifically instruct fathers to love their children not because fathers are not supposed to love their children, but rather because God, in His infinite wisdom, understood that loving one’s children comes more naturally than loving one’s spouse, especially as the years of parenting wear on.  Husbands and wives must be diligent to preserve and protect that first love for one another and to cultivate that intimacy that produced the children in the first place.  Otherwise, they will succumb to the tyranny of parenting and neglect one another’s needs for the incessant and understandably selfish demands of the children.  This does not make a divorce the children’s fault, mind you.  Children are expected to act like children.  It is the adults’ responsibility to act like adults and not cater to the children 24/7 at the expense of one another.  This is good parenting.  This is a biblical family at its finest.  The best thing a husband and wife can do for their children is put one another first, not at the expense of their children, but for their sake.  Please understand that I am in no way advocating selfish neglect of children by self-absorbed parents.  That is another matter for another discussion.  I am simply trying to paint a biblical picture of a healthy family.

The modern curiosity that we call reality TV has provided us with a real-world example that we can all learn from.  I began this article with a picture of just the children on purpose, for Jon & Kate Plus 8 has shown us what happens to a family when the kids are the focus, and the spouse is left out of the picture.

Did Life Begin Without Intelligence?

British scientists recently reported that they may have figured out how life began on earth.  The brief summary says that these scientists believe they have overcome some problems with the “RNA” first theory that posits that, among other things, since DNA is much too complicated to have “popped up in an instant”, its single-stranded cousin, RNA, must have come first.  While I have not read up on the details of these new findings (yet) in the British journal Nature, the summary itself is worthy of a few observations.

First, it is clear that these particular scientists are both naturalists and evolutionists, as evidenced by the fact that they are attempting to explain the origins of life apart from a creative act by God (or any other intelligent entity, for that matter).  Like all naturalistic evolutionists, they believe that the present is the key to understanding the past.  In fact, in their worldview, the present is the only means of understanding the past.  If life arose by chance via random processes, there are, by definition, no eyewitness accounts available of the origin of life.  This may not seem like a problem unless we understand that the origin of life on earth is a historical event.  If we were going to prove how it happened, a historical proof, not a scientific one, would be required.  Allow me to elaborate.

Science depends upon repeatable, measurable observations to draw conclusions about the behavior of the physical universe in the present.  These conclusions can then be used to predict, often with great accuracy, how the universe will behave in the future under the same set of circumstances.  It is important to note that the conclusions come about exactly because there are intelligent people available to witness the events, measure them, and draw those conclusions.  Evolutionists seek to apply these same conclusions, taken from observations from the present, to the past in order to explain events that, in their worldview, no one witnessed.  The problem is that all such conclusions depend upon the right circumstances or conditions in order for them to properly predict certain behaviors of the physical universe.  Thus, the “evidence” we have in the present, when used to explain the past, is all circumstantial, and while circumstantial evidence can be included in a historical proof, it is not sufficient by itself.  Every system of justice from the ancient Law of Moses to the modern American legal system requires eyewitness testimony to prove historical events beyond a reasonable doubt.  Any extrapolation that an evolutionist or naturalist may make about past behaviors of the physical universe based upon the present observable behaviors has a built-in assumption, namely, that there were never any conditions or circumstances that might have influenced or altered those behaviors in any way.  That assumption must be taken on faith, since there are no eyewitness accounts available to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think of it this way.  What if a scientist, or a group of scientists, having incredible insight and vast amounts of knowledge of the workings of chemistry, physics, and biology, were able to take the raw materials they believe were available before life began and actually create a living organism, complete with cellular structure, DNA, the whole bit?  Would such an accomplishment prove anything about how life began on this planet in the first place?  Absolutely not!  The only thing it would demonstrate is that intelligent creatures were able to take the raw materials available to them and create life from it.  While I fully acknowledge that such a demonstration no more proves the biblical worldview than the evolutionary one, my point is that what happened in the past cannot be proven by experimentation in the present.  Without historical data, it is speculation.

This is where the biblical worldview provides concrete answers that the evolutionary worldview cannot.  In the Bible we find an eyewitness account of how the universe, the earth, and life upon it all began, God Himself being that eyewitness.  If God has always been there, He is a reliable source of information on historical events.  In the biblical worldview, there is no such thing as a “prehistoric” event, for the Bible starts with the words, “In the beginning.” (Genesis 1:1)  The whole idea of a prehistoric period in the existence of the universe is an evolutionary one, and not a biblical one.  God has given us a record right from the very start.

The second observation I want to make relates to the nature of RNA and DNA, and how they could have arisen naturally through random processes.  Some may think that the problem with this theory lies in the complexity of these molecules.  Indeed, it is the immense complexity of DNA that, according to this short news article, caused scientists to look elsewhere, at RNA, for a simpler information-carrying compound that could have arisen first.  However, is it not true that complexity is a term that has no meaning in the absence of intelligence?  It does not matter if three atoms come together by chance, or three million.  Those are just numbers.  Complexity carries with it the implication of design, purpose, and function.  How can you have any of those things without intelligence? 

All scientists agree that both RNA and DNA convey information, a genetic program or code.  It took intelligent people to recognize these codes, and to determine their purpose and function.  If, in the beginning, some number of molecules came together at random, even if that random combination was the same as what we would today recognize as the simplest of all existing RNA strands, what … force (I don’t even know what to call it from the naturalistic worldview) would have prevailed upon that compound to suddenly represent information, information that must be propagated to the descendants of said living thing?  It is an enormous leap of faith to assume that random processes would eventually give rise to intelligence that would later recognize the coded patterns in RNA and DNA, both of which must have existed and conveyed information before there ever was intelligence!  Yet it must be true that every evolutionist believes that, somehow, the laws of nature compelled these early RNA molecules to launch the engine of life and control its continued operation, all in the absence of any active intelligence.

The biblical worldview seems to offer a much more plausible explanation for what we observe in nature.  Information requires intelligence, and since every cell of every living organism on earth has within it all the information required to maintain and reproduce itself, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligent, personal being put that information there in the first place.  Where else could information have logically come from?  That Prime intelligence, the first Designer of all things, is God.

What do you believe?  Do you believe that life and its vast complexity arose by chance from simplicity, moved by amoral forces with no purpose at all, and in the absence of all intelligence?  Or, do you believe that God created all things in their wonderful complexity, understanding that in all their complexity, they are less complex than their creator?  This is what we observe in our world, as we humans can create things of astounding complexity, yet none of them anywhere close to the complexity of us. 

As I heard Frank Turek once say, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist…or an evolutionist, for that matter.

Probably, God Is A Woman

FoxNews.com reported today that Cybill Shepherd, the actress of Moonlighting fame, has “developed quite the hybrid of religious convictions.”

“I’m a Christian Pagan Buddhist Goddess worshiper, but I’m also a feminist. I think the ultimate glass ceiling is God, in another words, if we think God is a man, then we make man a God, and I studied and learned that there is a whole other history of the worshiping of the great mother. I really think that probably God is a woman, [and] that helped me to break through that celestial glass ceiling.”

Ms. Shepherd’s religious smorgasbord of a worldview is quintessentially postmodern.  Even though she is 59 years old, her description of her “faith” is an excellent example of the worldview most American young adults have adopted.  George Barna’s research reports that about 80% of teens and young adults are more likely to develop their own personal set of beliefs than accept those of a church or denomination.  They eschew labels they deem restrictive, especially those that imply some set of moral absolutes, such as “Christian”.  This is the legacy of moral relativism, which is itself the legacy of evolutionary indoctrination.  The thinking goes that if we have evolved from the simple to the complex, then we shall continue to evolve to ever-increasing heights of complexity, knowledge, and enlightenment.  This applies to matters of faith and religion just as much as to all other aspects of the human experience, all programmed into us, not by God, but by evolution for the sole purpose of the advancement and betterment of the species.  All you have to do is watch one program on The History Channel or Discovery Channel on the topic of faith or religion, and within five minutes you will see what I am talking about.

To the person who accepts an evolutionary worldview (but does not reject religion altogether, as an atheist would, for example), faith and religion are tools at humanity’s disposal to better themselves, and not so much a means to either connect with a supernatural being or receive a moral code to govern one’s behavior.  All religions are human in origin, and therefore contain elements of truth, virtue, and superstition.  Ultimately, they are simply a vehicle through which humanity has expressed the higher ideals that will propel its evolution.

Understanding this worldview helps us make sense of Ms. Shepherd’s statement, because we can better understand her perspective.  Humanity must continue to evolve.  Therefore, humanity’s faith must evolve as well.  That is why it is not a problem to add, remove, modify, and combine elements of many different religions to produce a faith that is better.  After all, isn’t that how we got here in the first place?  Reading between the lines of Shepherd’s statement, we can see that she may or may not actually believe that God is a woman, or that God even exists as an objective reality.  For her, neither of those things is really the point.  The point is that she has adopted a belief system that empowers her as a woman, allowing her to “break through the celestial glass ceiling” and, thus, advance beyond the primitive notion that God is a man, and all the oppressive misogyny that goes along with it.

The biblical worldview is completely incompatible with this line of thinking, and not because the Bible insists on describing God with male terminology.  If the God of the Bible exists as an objective reality, then there is no truth or knowledge to be invented or discovered in the sense the evolutionary worldview thinks of it.  Rather, all truth and all knowledge are possessed by, and therefore revealed by, God Himself.  To what other source can a person logically go to gain greater wisdom, enlightenment, or understanding than to God, who possesses all knowledge, who made everything, and who has always been there?  The Bible teaches that while knowledge certainly increases on the earth (Daniel 12:4, Ecc. 12:12), humanity is not evolving to a higher existence or ideal.  On the contrary, man was created in perfection, and fell into sin resulting in death, disease, pain, and suffering. (Genesis 3, Romans 5:12)  If anything, humanity is devolving to unfathomable depths of moral depravity.  The higher existence to aspire to is the one in which we are reconciled to God, as He originally intended, not one of ever-increasing self-actualization.  This is the purpose of faith, to bring us to the God that exists, not to invent a god that best suits our evolutionary agenda.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is our connection to the unseen, supernatural (meaning “above nature” and not “imaginary” or “unreal”) world in which God operates.  The point of faith is to get to God; to know Him, understand Him, and experience a relationship with Him.  The evolutionary worldview separates faith from God, making it a human construct for human purposes, but Hebrews 11:1 shows us clearly that the object of our faith matters.  If our faith is in faith, or more directly, in ourselves and our ability to construct a workable belief system, then does our hope have any substance?  On what foundation is such faith based?  However, if our faith is in God, then the substance, the foundation, of our hope is real, powerful, and eternal.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him

Where Cybill Shepherd’s worldview differs most acutely from a biblical worldview is in the object, point, or purpose of faith.  The follower of Jesus Christ understands that the point is to please God, and this is not a limitation about which one ought to become bitter.  Rather, to please God is to draw near to Him, and the nearer one draws to God, the better he will become in every sense of the word.  We are not trying to break through a glass ceiling and push God out of the way so that we can evolve to a place of ultimate empowerment.  That is what Satan tried to do, which should give a clear indication of the spiritual origin of the worldview we are discussing here.  Rather, we endeavor to increase in authentic faith in Jesus Christ, until, as Ephesians 4:13 says, “we reach unity in faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

I suppose you could call that “spiritual evolution.”

Christianity Will Not Be Tolerated

A recent article from OneNewsNow.com reported that the new Administration may have a decidedly different view of the National Day of Prayer from the Bush Administration.  While President Bush always embraced the National Day of Prayer with an official White House observance, this year’s organizers say that they have yet to hear that the White House will be holding such an official observance.  The article goes on to say that certain advocacy groups are trying to break what they perceive to be the National Day of Prayer Task Force’s monopoly on the event.  Apparently, these groups sent a letter to President Obama asking him to declare the National Day of Prayer a day for all Americans of all faiths, and even for nonbelievers.

The objection, of course, is that the National Day of Prayer Task Force is a Christian organization promoting prayer in Jesus’ name to the God of the Bible.  To use one of the more ubiquitous buzzwords of our day, the aforementioned advocacy groups would prefer that the National Day of Prayer Task Force be more tolerant of people of other faiths, or, no faith at all, which I presume to mean atheists and perhaps agnostics.  (As an aside, one has to wonder exactly how an atheist would participate in a day of prayer.  From what I know of atheists, they would consider the idea rather absurd.)  This is simply the latest example of the increasing perception and presentation of Christians as being intolerant of anyone who does not believe as they do.

Understanding that people who identify themselves as Christians may or may not behave in a manner that is in keeping with biblical teaching (that is a subject for another article), let us take a step back and ask the question that is truly being asked, "Are Christians intolerant because Christianity is intolerant?  Is Christianity intolerant of other religions?"  The immediate problem we encounter when answering this question is that the definition of the word "tolerate" has been hijacked, of late, as have many other words in our language whose definitions we all basically agreed upon at one time. Since he who defines the terms controls the argument, many Christians may be finding it frustrating, if not impossible, to convince those outside the faith that they really are not intolerant bigots.

The word tolerate simply means "to permit".  It means "to put up with, to allow the existence, practice, or presence of."  However, the more and more common use of this word and its many derivatives, especially in the context of conversations about Christianity, has come to mean "to accept as right, true, or valid; to ascribe equal value to a differing position, belief, or lifestyle."  How we answer the question, "Does Christianity tolerate other faiths, even unbelievers," depends on which definition of tolerate we are talking about.

According to the dictionary definition, the first definition offered above, Christianity is tolerant of all people without dispute.  Jesus made it clear that the kingdom of God was open to whoever wanted to enter it by faith in Him.  In the parable of the wheat and the tares, he made it clear that unbelievers were not to be uprooted, rejected, scorned, or persecuted by believers.  "Let them grow together," Jesus said, "until the day the Father comes to separate them." Paul said in Romans 12:18, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To live at peace with everyone, especially those who do not accept Christ or Christianity, requires tolerance in the purest sense of the word.  To not allow someone to practice Hinduism or Islam or Judaism or Atheism, to forbid it, would hardly foster peace.  The fact is that there is not a single teaching in the New Testament instructing Christians to not put up with or allow the existence, presence, or practice of unbelievers. Indeed, Brian Toon, the vice chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, made it a point to say that all Americans of any faith were welcome to organize their own prayer gathering or attend one organized by the task force.  Unfortunately, he said that some have sought to abolish the National Day of Prayer instead, which brings me to my next thought.

Compare the actual Christian teaching on tolerance to how Christians themselves are being treated in this country.  We are constantly being opposed at every turn in public life, being told we cannot pray, cannot preach, cannot express our values or promote Christian doctrine.  We are told we can be Christians if we wish, but we are not to bring our Christianity to the state house, school house, voting booth, board room, or pretty much any other area of public life upon which government has placed its hand (which, these days, is just about everything). It is becoming increasingly evident in our society that it is Christianity that will not be tolerated, not all these other faiths that imply such persecution at the hands of Christians.

Do not be deceived into thinking that all certain activists want is a seat at the proverbial table. "Just acknowledge that we are welcome to participate in the National Day of Prayer, and we will be satisfied."  If that were true, we would not be having this debate, for that has already been done.  No, what is demanded is "tolerance" under the new-and-improved politically correct definition.  We are to stop praying in Jesus’ name, because that is so exclusive and intolerant of the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists.  Really?  Are the Muslims going to stop invoking the name of Allah or Mohammed when they pray?  Will Hindus drop the universal "Om" from their prayers?  Such suggestions are preposterous for adherents to those faiths, of course, and yet somehow it is perceived as fair and equitable that Christians deny their faith in the name of tolerance. 

How is it tolerant (using the dictionary definition) to demand that a Christian be more tolerant (using the politically correct definition) of Islam by acknowledging that it is "just as true, just as likely to be valid, on equal moral footing as Christianity"?  Will a sincere Muslim do the same for Christianity?  No, of course not. If we will just take a moment to examine this rationally, it will be easy to see that if two faiths make mutually exclusive claims to truth, it is impossible for them both to be correct, at least not in a rational universe.  Christianity teaches that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that "no man can get to the Father [God]" except through Him.  Islam teaches that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.  They both cannot be right.  That’s not bigotry.  That’s LOGIC. 

Now, some may seek to rectify this impasse by suggesting that God has chosen to reveal himself to different people in different ways. However, to accept that explanation, one must accept that God is a dissembler of sorts, if not an outright liar.  Neither a Christian nor a Muslim could ever accept this and be what he claims to be.  Others might argue that, somehow, we "know" that God doesn’t really exist.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter what religion you are.  It’s just a social construct, anyway.  If that is the case, then why persecute Christianity?  On what basis is the value judgment being made amongst religions?  While it may have happened somewhere once, I have yet to hear of an atheist taking a Muslim to court over some public display of religion.  However, there seem to be daily examples of legal proceedings of atheists versus Christians. (I am speaking in terms of my own perception, of course.  I do not have first-hand knowledge of every legal proceeding in my country.  All I know is that when atheist sues Christian, it makes the news.  When or if atheist sues Muslim, not so much.)

It is frequently argued that the real objection those who are not Christians have to Christianity is the aggressive nature with which Christians attempt to "push their beliefs on everyone else".  This is a disingenuous argument, however, for a couple of reasons.  First, there is the underlying assumption that it is wrong for Christians to try to persuade people to become Christians.  The only logical foundation for such a moral judgment ("Christian evangelism is wrong") would be the belief that Christianity is not true.  If it is true, how can anyone be harmed by being invited to join?  In non-cultic, authentic Christianity, no one is, or indeed can be, forced to convert.  Sharing one’s beliefs and trying to convince another that they are true is not the same as forcing another to accept those beliefs and live by them.  Second, the demand that Christians keep their Christianity out of public life is, in itself, the very intolerance of which they are accused.  Whose beliefs are being forced upon whom?  Who is not tolerating whom?

It seems neither illogical nor unfair that a nation in which more than 80% of the population still calls itself Christian, notwithstanding the actual practice of that 80%, that a National Day of Prayer would be predominantly Christian.  The cries of exclusion and intolerance are simply the result of contradictory worldviews.  In the end, the true measure of tolerance will lie in who is permitted to exist, practice, and be present in everyday public life.  If current trends continue, it may not be the Christians.

25 Years Later, 1984 Seems Closer Than Ever

It was 1984.  I was in the eighth grade and had made a rather peculiar new year’s resolution.  I was going to read George Orwell’s 1984 in 1984.  Understand that as the sun rose on the “me” decade of the 80′s, the year 1984 had an almost Y2K mystique about it for those familiar with Orwell’s work.  In 1948, Orwell envisioned a dystopian future in which a minority ruling class of elitists runs the world, controlling the citizenry not by dictating what it may or may not do, but rather by dictating what it may or may not think.  For all you younger folks who think Big Brother is just a reality show on TV, you may find it interesting that it was Orwell who introduced us to Big Brother, the ever-watchful, god-like eye of the state who never missed a thing.  The Thought Police were always on duty.

Today, 25 years later, some of the ideologies upon which Orwell’s nightmarish regime were based seem frighteningly prescient.  Many parallels can be drawn between Orwell’s vision and modern society, some more evident than others, but I want to focus on one of the prevalent themes of 1984 that seems to keep coming up in the news of late – thoughtcrime.  Orwell described thoughtcrime as “the essential crime that contained all others in itself.”  The totalitarian regime of 1984, called simply the Party, had gone so far as to not only legislate appropriate, legal speech (Newspeak, Orwell called it – eerily reminiscent of political correctness), but to also dictate legal and illegal thought.  The Party maintained that if they could control the thoughts of the citizens, they could remain in power indefinitely.  By the Party’s own confession, power was their ultimate and only goal.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”

It would be difficult to argue that remaining in power is not the goal of a great number, if not the vast majority, of political insiders small and great in America.  The recent switching of party affiliation of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter had little or nothing to do with a change in his ideology.  Rather, he saw a significant challenge facing him in the upcoming Republican primary, and so to increase his chances of remaining in office, he switched parties.  The elevation of political expedience over principle is hardly limited to government at the federal level, however.  In the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Vermont, the first state to do so as a legislative act rather than as a response to a court order, the outcome came down to a single vote in the Vermont House needed to override the governor’s veto.  The final voting house member, Jeff Young, was a first-term representative who switched his vote, having voted no for the bill to become law, but then voting yes to override the veto.  Published reports say that Young is still philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but that he decided voting with his party would help him be a more effective lawmaker.

“You realize that, you know, it’s a poker game in some ways.  Chips on the table.  I’m a freshman.  I have no chips.  If I…had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want.  I don’t have that option.  It’s the way the political game is played.” – Jeff Young

From his own mouth, Mr. Young declared that it is more important to remain in a position of power than to defend a principle in which he supposedly believes.  Jesus said that our “yes” ought to be “yes”, and our “no”, “no”.  American politicians want us to allow them to say “yes” and “no” at the same time so that they can please enough of the people enough of the time to stay in office.

What does any of that discussion have to do with thoughtcrime?  I am glad you asked.  At the top of the latest newsfeeds is the latest incarnation of the federal hate crimes bill, or I should say, the latest update to the federal hate crimes law.  Indeed, such a law has existed at the federal level since 1969, allowing for greater penalties for crimes motivated by hatred toward a person or group based on their race, ethnicity, or religion.  Without doubt, the statue was motivated by the racial turmoil of the 1960′s as African Americans struggled to be free from societal prejudice.  Yesterday, the U.S. House voted to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.  So-called social conservatives and people of faith, primarily Christians, vehemently oppose this legislation, fearing that it will limit the rights of believers to speak freely about what the Bible teaches with respect to homosexuality.  Supporters of the bill poo poo those objections, claiming that “the only language that would be criminalized is language that would meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement.  Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, cannot be criminalized,” said Frederick Lawrence, law professor at George Washington University.

Mr. Lawrence will have to pardon my skepticism.  What happens when those holding the power to prosecute and punish redefine the terms, as our highest courts have done with reckless abandon of late?  If it is easy for me to conceive of an argument whereby the teaching of a religious doctrine can constitute a conspiracy, evangelism can constitute solicitation, and a church service can constitute direct incitement, how much more are those who oppose the moral code of Christianity going to be able to put together very clever, and very convincing arguments to that effect?  Yes, I am speculating, but the writing is on the proverbial wall.  Once our government ventures into the realm of punishing people’s thoughts and emotions, and not solely their actions, it takes on the role of God and religion, defining not only what is appropriate behavior, but also what is appropriate belief.

Do not misunderstand me.  A biblical worldview absolutely has established bounds of right and wrong thinking.  The difference is that it is God, who knows everything and has always been there, who establishes the rules of moral thinking and conduct, and not a popularly-elected oligarchy concerned primarily with the preservation of power above all other goals.  Do not be deceived.  This legislation has nothing to do with protecting anyone.  Actual crimes are already punishable under the existing law, from slander, to assault, to murder.  Ultimately this legislation will prove to be about controlling not only what people may say, but what they may believe as well.

If you think I’m way over the edge of reason here, consider for a moment the much-publicized remarks of Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean in response to a question posed by Perez Hilton.  Mr. Hilton is quoted as asking, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage.  Do you think every state should follow suit?  Why or why not?”  It is abundantly obvious that the question is asking for a statement of opinion, a statement of belief.  What do you think, Miss Prejean, that other states should do in response to the issue of same-sex marriage?  The answer Carrie gave was like the shot heard round the world given the amount of media attention it has received.

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage…And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.  No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”

The response infuriated Hilton, who went on his own blog and hurled profanity-laced insults at Prejean, accusing her of being stupid, among other things.  The media has reported that, when pressed for a reason why he was so dissatisfied with her answer, Hilton said that she needed to be more inclusive with her answer, a uniter and inspirer, not a divider.  I find it interesting that Hilton considered her answer to be so divisive and so politically incorrect.  Prejean said later that she was trying to be biblically correct and not politically correct, and for that, she is to be commended.  However, if we examine her answer, it is clear that she was being a lot more inclusive, uniting, inspiring, and compassionate than she could have been while presenting a biblical worldview.  She started off by lauding the concept of liberty, the ultimate American ideal.  Others in her position might have said that there ought to be laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, but she did no such thing.  She said, “In America, you can choose, and I think that’s great.”  She went on to truthfully answer the question she was given, i.e., what do you think?  What do you believe?  For that, Perez Hilton made it abundantly clear that she didn’t pass the test of one worthy of representing the beliefs of her nation.  She ran afoul of the thought police.  She committed a thoughtcrime, the essential crime that contains all others in itself.

I find Perez Hilton’s assessment particularly odd since, by any and all practical and verifiable statistical measures, Miss Prejean does represent the position of the majority of Americans.  It was implied by her detractors that she did not represent the people of California well with her answer, but if memory serves, the people of California were asked in the last election what they thought about same-sex marriage, and the majority agreed with Prejean.  In every state where the issue has been put to a vote of the people, 30 so far, the people have agreed with Prejean.  To say that Prejean’s answer was divisive is a dubious assertion given the facts.  Perez claimed that Miss California did not lose the competition because of her beliefs, but because of her answer to the question, but this is disingenuous on his part.  He knows as well as the rest of us that you cannot separate the answer from the belief.  Did he want her to lie?  Is dishonesty a quality the judges are looking for in Miss USA?  No, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Hilton, and those like him, do not want the Carrie Prejean’s of the world to lie.  They want her to give the answer they are looking for and be sincere about it.   Her thinking must be in line with the desired orthodoxy.

By this time you may think that this article was all about homosexuality, but it is not.  That is simply the hot-button issue around which the deeper issue I am trying to address is currently centered.  There is a discernible push from powerful forces in our society and our government to make the desired orthodoxy become the established orthodoxy.  The question is not simply, “Is homosexuality or same-sex marriage right or wrong?”  Rather, the question is, “Is it right or wrong for an American to believethat homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong?”  The same question could be asked of a host of other moral issues from abortion to pornography.  When the government passes laws that punish motives, thoughts, and beliefs, it is saying to its citizens that they should look to government and not God for what they ought to believe.  If that is not a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, I do not know what is.  We may not be living in the Orwellian dystopia yet, but the legality of holding a biblical worldview is very much in jeopardy. 

I will leave you with one final quote from 1984 as food for thought.

“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

“Acquire The Fire” Under Fire

FOXNews.com – Acquire the Fire: Its Not Just a Concert, Its a Lifestyle – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News.

If you thought the recent labeling of tax protestors, Christian “fundamentalists”, and war veterans as dangerous, right-wing extremists by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano was frightening, buckle your seatbelt.  Napolitano’s worldview is not unique, and we can expect more of the same in the not-too-distant future as our nation and its leadership continue on a path further and further away from biblical, Judeo-Christian principle.

Take for example a recent article from FOXNews.com (linked above) about a Battle Cry event in East Rutherford, NJ.  Battle Cry is the latest incarnation of Acquire The Fire, the big arena, big band, big lights, big sound, big media, big bang ministry experience for teens originated by Teen Mania Ministries founder Ron Luce.  The article begins with the usual semi-objective description of the event, although you can almost sense the smirk on the author’s (Courtney Crowder) face as she describes Acquire The Fire as “a kind of Lollapalooza of the Christian world”.  In fairness to Ms. Crowder, she at least gives a hint of sincerity as she describes Luce’s passion for ministry to young people.  The intent of the article becomes apparent about halfway into it, however, when Crowder declares, “…not everyone is on board with Acquire the Fire’s medium and message.”  She goes on to say that Luce’s “sermons preach total separation from mainstream American culture, and his vehement nature has been known to get a little out of hand.”

A little out of hand?  Really?  What does that mean?  I find such a statement ironic given that the article opens with the assertion that, even though the IZOD Center was packed with teens who seemed to be enjoying themselves just as they would at a rock concert, there’s “also no alcohol-nobody has even tried to sneak any in.”  So how, exactly, does Acquire the Fire get out of hand?  Are there riots?  Injuries?  Arrests?  Nope.  Where Ron Luce gets out of hand, apparently, is with his message, a message which, according to Crowder, “others say isn’t a message of peace and love.”

“What Luce preaches, with his emphasis on conflict, anger, and contempt, is a far cry from most of Christendom,” Crowder quotes New York University’s Center for Religion and Media scholar Jeff Sharlet.  Crowder then uses Mr. Sharlet’s analysis to paint Ron Luce as a sort of Christian militant, a terrorist recruiter in a clever disguise.  For example, Sharlet is quoted as saying that Luce’s followers are drawn to ATF because of their “dissatisfaction with the moral vacuum of consumer culture and a desire to be part of something bigger than themselves.”  I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a good thing to me.  Apparently, it is not so good in Mr. Sharlet’s view, for he says, “I think that those good intentions are twisted by one of the most militant fundamentalist youth movements in U.S. history.  It’s something, by Luce’s own boast, potentially dangerous.”

Wow!  “The most militant fundamentalist youth movement in U.S. history”??!!!  Does Ron Luce know how much of a threat he is to modern America?  Run for your lives, folks.  The Christian-T-Shirt-Wearing teens are coming, and they are not happy.  While I am being facetious, rest assured, Jeff Sharlet is absolutely serious, and Crowder gives his worldview a good deal of credence.  Here’s another quote from the article.

“Besides being loud, the event is overtly militaristic.  According to the vocabulary of the event, attendees are engaged in a spiritual ‘battle,’ and anyone who doesn’t believe in their values is the ‘enemy’.”  Sharlet goes on to say, “What Luce is bringing to the table is militance, an emphasis on ‘holy war,’ the most violent reading of the scripture possible, open emulation of terrorist recruitment methods, and, perhaps most disturbing of all, an emphasis on what he’s called ‘infiltration’ of non-fundamentalist institutions.”

These are extremely serious accusations.  Sharlet and Crowder have un-apologetically characterized Ron Luce as some kind of militant, extremist whack job who uses fear, intimidation, anger, and contempt to recruit “followers”.  They use words like “terrorist,” “holy war,” and “violent” in ways that they wouldn’t dare apply to a religion such as Islam for fear of very real reprisal.  Ironically, it is exactly because Christians-authentic Christians, anyway-are not violent in the physical sense that Sharlet can make such accusations without fear of violent reprisals against himself.  Think about it.  How many death threats is Sharlet going to receive for making derogatory remarks about a Christian leader such as Ron Luce.  How many would he receive if it were an Islamic fundamentalist?  Exactly. 

How many of these students, after being exposed to a weekend full of the event’s “dangerous” teaching, were so instigated by the message of anger and violence that they trashed the place, beat someone up, or otherwise committed some criminal offense?  I don’t know the answer for certain, but I suspect Ms. Crowder even would say, “Probably, none,” since she concludes the article with the observation that “it was refreshing to be able to leave your purse behind on your seat while taking a bathroom break.”  If the message is so dangerous, why is this seething mob of adolescent angst so well-behaved?

The problem is that neither Mr. Sharlet nor Ms. Crowder seem to have a clear understanding of Biblical Christianity and its allusions to warfare.  By their own admission, Ron Luce speaks of spiritual warfare, not actual physical violence.  This is in keeping with Jesus’ words to Pilate just before He was crucified.

John 18:36 (NIV) Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place.”

All the battles, all the fighting, the “militant” imagery used by Jesus and the remainder of the New Testament writers is referring to another kingdom, another world, another place, where the enemies are real but do not have flesh and blood.  Likewise, the Bible clearly teaches us that the weapons we use in such warfare are not physical – swords, spears, knives, guns, or bombs.  Rather, they are spiritual – prayer, worship, truth, love, and the power of the gospel message.  Anyone who attends Aquire the Fire and thinks that Ron Luce, or any other speaker, is advocating the advancement of Christianity through physical, or even political or psychological, force is either not paying attention or does not understand the meaning of the message.  Indeed, many in Jesus’ own day didn’t get it, either.  That is why He told Pilate, “Listen, if I were who you think I am, a dangerous leader of political rebels, then they would do exactly what you would expect them to do – take up arms, storm the place, and break me out of here.”  But they did not do that, because Jesus was not who Pilate thought He was.  Oh, He was a dangerous leader, alright – dangerous to the religious establishment; dangerous to the enslaving power of sin; dangerous to Satan and his kingdom.  Jesus did not come to defeat political, social, or economic enemies and establish a kingdom on earth.  He came to defeat spiritual enemies enslaving the lives of people, and to establish a kingdom in their hearts. 

Nowhere is Mr. Starlet’s or Ms. Crowder’s lack of understanding of this basic biblical teaching more apparent then in the assertion that Ron Luce and all of his teen “followers” consider anyone who does not believe in their values as the “enemy”.  This statement contains two fundamental errors that, if believed, will only increase the perception among secular America that Christians are angry, spiteful, intolerant bigots. 

The first error is that the values espoused by Christians are their values, as if they somehow came up with them on their own.  This is not true nor in keeping with a biblical worldview.  The values of a true follower of Christ do not come from the follower, but from Christ.  A Christian’s values are defined by God Himself, in His word.  These are not our values that we are teaching and defending in the sense that we invented them.  They are God’s.  For certain, they are our values in the sense that we embrace them, identify with them, and take ownership of them.  But we received them from God.  We did not invent them.

The second error is that a follower of Christ considers anyone who does believe in God’s values to be his or her enemy.  Again, this is not the case.  The Bible does describe such people as enemies of the Cross of Christ, and therefore, enemies of God, but the point of the entire gospel message is that God has made a way for anyone who wishes to do so to switch sides in this spiritual war.  The soldiers in God’s army that Ron Luce speaks of are called upon not to fight against people, to keep them out of the kingdom of God, but rather to fight against the dark forces of the true enemy, Satan’s kingdom, so that people can enter the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 6:12 (NLT) For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.

Those with a secular worldview would like to neuter the Christian message into insignificance.  The implication in this particular article is that the “Christian” thing to do is to keep quiet, keep your personal beliefs personal, and do not speak out against anyone or anything.  This is the message of peace and love that Mr. Sharlet seems to think is more in line with most of Christendom, and more appropriate for our youth.  Nothing could be more opposite of the truth.  The gospel, the true Christian message, is confrontational.  It confronts each person with their guilt before God, and then challenges them to choose whether or not to accept the means of rescue God has offered them, which is submission to the loving Lordship of Jesus Christ.  In retrospect, I suppose it is a dangerous message to those whose worldview does not tolerate the preeminence of Jesus Christ.