To that end, today’s article is a response to a couple of blog posts from God is Not a Republican, a site published by Benjamin Dixon, author of an eponymous book and ordained minister according to the site.  I was directed to these posts by a Facebook friend in a discussion of the topic of our President’s recent endorsement of legalizing gay “marriage”.  This discussion was launched by my posting of an editorial in the Washington Times by Jeffrey Kuhner.  For reference, you can find Dixon’s posts here and here.

The approach of these articles is typical.  Point out the glaring failures of the church – divorce rates, division, infighting, gossip, public disgrace - accuse of hypocrisy, quote or obliquely reference Matthew 7, and then connect the dots to conclude that opposition to gay “marriage” is little more than mean-spirited hypocrisy.  I readily admit that problems, even glaring problems, exist in the church, especially in the areas of marriage, family, and divorce.  No one disputes the statistics, and I am no less saddened by those facts and the poor witness they present to the world than anyone else is.  However, these issues should not dissuade Christians from holding convictions with regard to marriage and homosexuality, nor should they dissuade Christians from standing strongly for those convictions.

The author points out that God hates all sin equally and then asks why Christians aren’t supposedly as bent out of shape over other sins as they are about homosexuality.  While this is a valid and interesting question, it is a diversion, and a typical one. The fact that believers ought to be just as opposed to any abomination as they are to homosexuality and yet, seemingly, are not, is not a logical reason to conclude that believers have no reason to oppose homosexuality at all.  But, in fairness to Mr. Dixon, that really isn’t his point.  He claims that Christians have every right to oppose homosexuality, and they even have the freedom to teach and preach to that effect.  I submit to you that he doesn’t really mean that, and here’s why.

He stipulates that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin: “an abomination even.”  He then talks about the amount of hate and “bigotry” these Biblical teachings foment among Christians, and then concludes that said hatred is a corruption of Christianity.  Now, we can certainly have a lengthy discussion about Christian doctrine as it relates to matters of the heart, specifically, hatred.  However, in the context of this author’s comments, it is clear that he means Christians are “free” to preach and teach their opposition to homosexuality only to the extent that, in doing so, they do not cross the zeal-hate-bigotry line.  And who draws that line?  He doesn’t claim to be the one to draw it, but he does imply that it ought to be patently obvious to just about everyone.  He also implies that he clearly knows where the line ought to be drawn, because he once was blind, but now he sees (referencing his comment about once being a fire-and-brimstone preacher against homosexuality himself, but then he “grew up”).

What is interesting to me is that Mr. Dixon doesn’t seem to have anything to say about the amount of hatred and bigotry the tenants of the homosexual ideal, whatever those may be, foment among homosexuals.  (I haven’t read everything the man has ever written, so if he has addressed that topic, I’d be glad to read it.)  What we keep hearing in the media and from folks of like mind with Mr. Dixon is that hateful words and attitudes relating to homosexuality are a one-way street running from Christians to homosexuals, and if any obviously hateful speech coming from a “gay rights” supporter comes to light (exhibit A – the recent comments of Dan Savage to students at a journalism conference in Seattle), it is excused as just desserts.  If the Christians would just leave homosexuals alone and let them have their “rights”, they wouldn’t have to be so nasty themselves.

And this is where many a supporter of gay “marriage” wants to keep the attention, with Christians saying and doing “hateful” things so that they can portray themselves as victims of the oppression of a religious establishment.  I am not making that up, either.  Dixon says, “If you think our role as Christians in America is to force our religious beliefs on those who don’t wish to abide by them, then you are no better than the Islamic extremists that wish to impose Shari’a law.”  So, any time a Christian insists that the law of the land with regard to marriage ought to be consistent with God’s establishment of that first institution in the beginning, he is forcing his religious beliefs on those who don’t wish to abide them and is no better than an Islamic extremist?  Really?  Does that argument hold up when applied to any of the other abominations Dixon quotes from Proverbs 6:16-19?  I doubt Dixon would agree that laws against murder or perjury are the forcing of one group’s religious beliefs upon another.

He goes on to say, “I would rather be associated with people who actually act like Christ rather than people who use religion to oppress.”  How is it, exactly, that opposing gay “marriage” is tantamount to religious oppression?  It is very interesting to me how much many people, even Christians such as Mr. Dixon, have appropriated the supposed character of Christ to justify their support for things clearly identified as sin in the Bible.  What’s truly ironic is Dixon acknowledges the Bible’s teaching that homosexuality is sin!  To be Christlike is to tolerate sin?  Is that the conclusion we are to come to?  No, I suspect that, if asked that question, Mr. Dixon would say that is not his point.  Again, he claims that all Christians have a right to teach and preach that homosexuality is sin.  His point is that it is unchristian to impose one’s beliefs on another or deny another one’s rights, and this is the focus of his second post.

Dixon talks a lot about “rights”.  He says, “Christians have the right to believe, teach, and preach that homosexuality is a sin. Gays and Lesbians have the right to live beyond the disdain of any religious group. They also have the right to pursue every right that other American citizens enjoy.”  I agree.  Homosexuals have the right to pursue every right that every other American citizen enjoys.  So, what rights is Mr. Dixon claiming they don’t have the freedom to pursue?  It is obvious from Dixon’s articles that the answer is marriage, but this is not true.  Every American enjoys the right to marry, regardless of what “sexual orientation” they may declare or assume for themselves.  You are free, as an American, to enter into marriage with anyone of the opposite gender that you choose.  You can even do so while being a practicing homosexual (assuming you can find a potential spouse who is OK with that arrangement).  The claim that homosexuals are being denied rights afforded other citizens is false, at least in regards to marriage, which seems to be the focus of the entire “rights” argument.

What no American has the right to do is alter the definition of marriage.  No American defined marriage.  No person that has ever lived on this planet defined marriage.  Marriage is not the invention of a religion, a nation, a club, a government, or any other social, political, or religious institution.  God, the Creator, established marriage in the beginning.  It is what it is, just as water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.  I can insist that gasoline is water.  I can demand that I have the right to call gasoline water.  I can even convince the government to pass a law declaring that gasoline is water, but it is not, therefore, water.  The part that Dixon and others who share his worldview are either missing or ignoring is that homosexuality and marriage are matters of reality and truth, not religion or tradition.  The limiting of marriage to one man and one women is not a denial of any kind of human right.  It is the acceptance of reality.

I also disagree with Mr. Dixon in one more important point.  We are not “in the middle of a clash of competing freedoms” as he says in the opening of his second post.  We are in the middle of a clash of competing worldviews, princple among them in this discussion are secularism and Christianity.  Dixon writes, “Unless the government finds a legitimate, non religious [sic] reason for not allowing gays and lesbians to marry, one day they will be free to.”  To insist that the government must find a non-religious reason to prohibit gay marriage is to assert that it is morally right for the government to favor secularism over Christianity.  And from where did Dixon get the idea that secularism is the proper lens through which to interpret the Constitution?  To hold that view, one must believe that our country was founded by a group of atheists, agnostics, and deists, an idea popularly taught in today’s public schools, but one that has absolutely no basis in historical fact.

An honest reading of American history makes it abundantly and profoundly clear that the nation and its founding documents were based upon the truth found in the Bible and espoused by Christianity.  If our nation was founded upon those truths, we should expect to find them codified in our laws, and we do, albeit to a lesser extent today than in years past.  The founders intended to rely upon the Bible as the source of truth and justice, knowing that it was written by God and not men, thus making it a reliable source of fairness, equity, and justice.  God is, thankfully, not a Republican, nor the member of any political party.  He is, however, still God, and His truth is the only reliable foundation upon which a nation or government can and should stand.  The founders realized this.  Modern Americans, not so much.

Mr. Dixon would have us believe that the government ought to be secular, because secularism is somehow neutral and will guarantee that no one group’s rights are infringed by another group.  He would have us believe that a government that favors secularism over Christianity will, nonetheless, somehow still find it in its heart to protect the religious liberty of Christians.  Mr. Dixon is wrong.  Secularism is not neutral.  Secularism is hostile to Christianity, and indeed, Christianity is opposed to secularism, and because of that, a government that esteems secularism as its highest ideal will have no reason nor motive to guarantee religious liberty to anyone, least of all Christians.  Indeed, a government based upon secularism, if it protects anyone’s liberty, will protect the liberty of the secularists at the expense of any and all who oppose them.  While our government is not quite completely secularized just yet, we do see secularists and atheists fighting to have any and all vestiges of God and Christianity utterly removed from public life, and in some cases they have been quite successful.  Mr. Dixon seems to think that we need not worry about such things – that the Constitution will perpetually protect us.  But the Constitution is only as strong as those entrusted to enforce it, and when those bearing that trust have abandoned the principals upon which is what founded, who then shall be our protector?

“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
it is he who will save us.” – Isaiah 33:22 (NIV)

It’s Deja Vu All Over Again

We’ve heard this story before.  We know how it ends.  In 1999, a young Britney Spears burst on the scene in a tantalizing school girl outfit and a few flirtatious dance moves.  Up until that point she was the star of the reinvented Mickey Mouse Club, which at the time was shown on an incarnation of The Disney Channel that was only offered as a premium cable channel and, thus, not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today.  I remember that summer of 1999 very distinctly, because I was a young and inexperienced preacher desperately trying to sound the alarm to my small charge of teens and parents.  “Mark my words,” I said to a small but growing congregation on the south side of Indianapolis.  “If Britney continues on this path, in five years her life will be a disaster.”

I did not have to be a prophet to make such a pronouncement.  As I said, we have all seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.  Sure enough, before that five years had passed, Britney Spears had rocketed to the top of the entertainment pantheon with a relentless stream of songs and videos in ever-increasing doses of unbridled sexuality.  Then, in 2004, almost exactly five years after the warning I issued to that gathering of teens and parents, the Circus de Britney began.  The next four years would see Britney going from pop princess to public pariah.  K-Fed, kids, divorce, drugs, indecent exposure, brushes with the law, rehab, and the infamous shaving of the head were daily tabloid fodder.  Like many before her, and sadly, many after, Britney crashed and burned before our very eyes.

Well, move over, Britney.  There’s a new sheriff in town, and thanks to two unstoppable cultural juggernauts known as The Disney Channel and the World Wide Web, this tween queen is poised for a level of superstardom previously unimagined by mortal man.  With a producer mom and an entertainer dad whose mullet was nearly as famous as his voice, Miley Cyrus has the pedigree, the ambition, the resources, and the talent to make it all happen.  The question is, what all is about to happen?  Mark down this date, May 4, 2010.  Having just watched the world premier of Miley’s newest music video, I Can’t Be Tamed, I am convinced that Miss Cyrus just had her Britney moment.  Hannah Montana just grew up.

The Evolution of Miley

The video was dubbed by the E! network as “The Evolution of Miley Cyrus”.  Evolution, indeed.  It featured Miley as a strange bird-like creature, Aves Cyrusis (yes, that taxonomic classification is actually included in the video), replete with impressive, albeit computer-generated, wings.  She is seen crawling from her nest and breaking free of her cage, all the while surrounded by other dancing creatures in similar bird-like getup.  The video is at once bizarre, dark, tribal, animalistic, sensual, adolescent, and silly.  The beat, vocals, and choreography are strongly reminiscent of Spears, while the costumes and “storyline” are sort of a mix between a broadway production of Cats and a Duran Duran video.  While tame (pun absolutely intended) by modern standards (more on that in a minute), Miley’s wardrobe and provocative dance maneuvers leave no doubt in the viewer’s mind that Miley does not want to be regarded as a kid anymore. I think we get the point.

By now you may be thinking, “Ok, so what?”  I don’t blame you.  As I said, we’ve seen this movie before, and we all know how it ends.  I’m sure Miley and Billy Ray are counting on a happy ending, but neither history nor biblical teaching leave much hope for that.  This is the road that seems right to a man but ends in destruction (Proverbs 14:12), and the list of celebrity examples is a veritable who’s who of young starlets: Whitney Houston, the aforementioned Britney Spears, and Lindsey Lohan top the list.  One has to wonder just how much influence Miley has over the army of girls who have grown up with Hannah Montana, and to what extent Miley’s choices will impact theirs.  That, however, is another discussion for another day.

Instead, I would like to turn our attention to the lyrics of the latest product of the evolution of Miley Cyrus.  In an interview with Ryan Seacrest after the video’s premier, Miley explained that the song and the video were not just about “the sex” (although she admitted the video was sexy).  Rather, she said the video ought to be appreciated for its creativity, the central message being, “I don’t want to spend my life trying to please other people.  I just want to make the music and the art that I want to make and be happy.”  To Miley Cyrus, then, I Can’t Be Tamed is a song about freedom of individual expression. 

Are We Getting The Message?

Now, I do not know if Miley wrote this song or if someone else did, and beyond what Miley said in the interview, I do not know what messages were intended by the lyrics.  However, I do know that a person’s worldview necessarily manifests itself in every aspect of ones life, and for an artist, this certainly includes ones art.  When I look at the lyrics of this song, I see a surprisingly accurate presentation of the postmodern worldview, and I am about to explain why. Before I do, I wanted to clearly state that I am well aware that the songwriter may or may not have included these ideas with the intention of specifically promoting a particular philosophy such as postmodernism.  Rather, I think it is a testimony to just how great of an extent postmodern thinking has permeated our culture.

The chorus is a rhythmic repetition of four declarations:

• I can’t be tamed.
• I can’t be blamed.
• I can’t be saved.
• I can’t be changed.

If there were such a thing as a postmodern creed or anthem, I cannot think of a better way to state it succinctly.  Allow me to elaborate briefly on each point.

I can’t be tamed – If we are, after all, just cosmic accidents, then we are no better or worse than the other animals that inhabit our planet.  Moral imperatives are a meaningless and useless restriction, and the greatest “evil” (if postmoderns accept the existence of such a thing) is to cage the beast.  Domestication via religion or any other means by which individual expression is suppressed only hinders a person’s ability to reach the ultimate goal, which is self-actualization and self-expression.  Miley said it herself.  The song is about breaking free of the cage and being who she wants to be, and while she reports that her mother is a bit of a disciplinarian (“I’m always getting grounded,” says Miley), I Can’t Be Tamed sends clear visual and aural signals that to be wild and free is far better than to submit to some rule that one did not make up for oneself.

I can’t be blamed – When moral relativism rules the day, not only is there a rejection of any limitations on ones behavior, but there is also a rejection of any classification of ones behavior as wrong.  “Don’t judge me,” is the mantra of the postmodern generation.  There is no room for blame in the postmodern worldview.  Without a universal truth, there can be no real right or wrong, and without any universal meaning or purpose in life, there is no ideal to which a person ought to attain.  I am who I am.  I do what I do.  I cannot be blamed for being who I am.  It is neither right nor wrong.  It just is.  You can almost hear this line of thinking in the opening lines of the song when Miley sings, “I’m hot like that” and “I’m built like that”.  Why shouldn’t I have men pining for me all the time?  I am attractive.  Attractive people attract people.  You cannot blame me for that.

I can’t be saved – Following logically from the first two, the idea of salvation is anathema to the postmodern, for there is nothing from which to be saved.  There is no eternal reward awaiting a life of sacrifice, and no eternal punishment awaiting a life of excess.  The best and only response to life is to experience it to the full, as the scripture says, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”  (Isa. 22:13)

I can’t be changed – Taken to the extreme, this is the final conclusion of postmodernism, naturalistic atheism, and moral relativism in their various forms.  There is no reason that I am what I am.  I just am.  I am chemicals and genes and electrical impulses assembled at random with only the appearance of design as the result of the irresistible forces of natural selection.  In a strange paradox for a worldview that accepts the slow changes over time of Darwinian Evolution as the explanation for all things, the postmodern could be the ultimate fatalist, asserting not only that changing oneself is unnecessary, but that it is also impossible. 

The Brave New Postmodern World

This worldview sets me free from all moral and behavioral restrictions, releases me from all guilt and personal responsibility, renders meaningless any fear of lasting consequences for my actions, and relieves me from any inner compulsion to improve based on external expectations.

I can’t be tamed.
I can’t be blamed.
I can’t be saved.
I can’t be changed.

All of these declarations are in direct conflict with the truth as revealed in the Bible.  The Scripture teaches that we can and should submit to authority and the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Rom. 13:1, James 4:7); that we bear personal responsibility for our actions (Gal. 6:7-8; Rom. 3:23); that there is an eternal punishment from which we can and must be saved (John 3:16-18); and that we can improve by becoming more and more like Christ, ultimately resulting in a complete transformation when He returns (Rom. 12:1, 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Cor. 5:17).

Note to Miley: I can be tamed.  I can be blamed.  I can be saved.  I can be changed.  So can you.

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.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:20 (NIV)

A curious thing has been happening for a century or two.  The prevailing sentiment among the educators and the educated seems to be that the more knowledge we obtain through scientific study, the more apparent it becomes that religion of any stripe is but mythology.  This is not to say that everyone who holds this view sees no value in religion whatsoever, but its value is relegated to emotional well-being or personal “wholeness”, at best.  While religion might help us cope with the intangible aspects of human life, it has no relevance in the explanation of either the origins or the workings of the cosmos.  The more we study, the more we know.  The more we know, the less we do not understand.  The less we do not understand, the less we need to rely on an unseen god or supernatural explanation for our everyday experiences.

The Bible actually prophesied this explosion of knowledge would take place as the end of history approached.

⁴ “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
(Daniel 12:4, New King James Version)

Have you ever wondered why this explosion of knowledge has taken place so rapidly relative to the whole of human history?  The Biblical worldview teaches that mankind has existed from the beginning, and that the history of the world, man, and the cosmos spans approximately six thousand years.  While there have certainly been technological and engineering marvels throughout history – inventions that changed the world in dramatic ways (gunpowder and the printing press, just to name a few) – the industrial revolution of the 19th century and the ensuing technological revolution of the 20th century have changed the world in the last 150 years in ways unparalleled and unimagined for the previous 5,850 (give or take a few, of course).  Why would God, the sovereign Author of history, ordain such a dramatic increase of knowledge in such a short period of time?  Furthermore, does it not seem counterproductive from God’s perspective if His goal is for all people to know Him and be saved?  If ever-increasing scientific knowledge drives mankind away from God, why would God seemingly wake up at the last historical minute and open the floodgates?

There is a great irony at work here.  While we are being told that scientific research increasingly explains the idea of God away, the truth is that this is not the case.  Those who use science to promote a naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic worldview do so precisely because they have a worldview to promote.  Remember, a person will always interpret the world in which he lives through the lens of his worldview, i.e., his set of presuppositions.  They that have already decided that there is no God, or that if He exists, He is not the transcendent Creator of all things as revealed in the Bible, are naturally going to interpret every piece of scientific knowledge as “evidence” supporting that worldview.  The question is, does the evidence actually support that worldview, or is it more compelling evidence for the Biblical worldview?

I do not have time or room in a short blog article to enumerate the many, many facets of modern scientific discovery that refute Darwinian Evolution and support the Biblical history of origins.  I have discussed these topics at length with my students in our worldview classes.  Additional resources are available from Answers In Genesis.  Focus On The Family’s The Truth Project is also an excellent resource.  Suffice it to say that the more we actually know about everything from microbiology to cosmology – knowledge made possible by mind-blowing technological advances – the more obvious it becomes that the cosmos is the work of an Almighty Creator God.  As the Scripture says in Romans 1:19,

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (NIV)

I submit to you that this explosion of knowledge in the last days is in perfect accordance with God’s divine will.  Why?  So that men will be without excuse.  For precedent we need look no further than the early chapters of the book of Exodus and their account of God’s deliverance of the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt.  If God wanted to set His people free, why not just beam them out of there at night?  Why not just kill Pharaoh and his army right at the outset?  Why go to all the trouble of the ten plagues, especially since those plagues also brought terrible persecution upon the very people God had promised to deliver?  The answer is so that men – in this case, Pharaoh and the people of Egypt – would be without excuse.  Though God has no need to explain Himself or His perfectly righteous judgments to any of His created people, still He seems interested in leaving absolutely no doubt whatsoever that when He judges, He is perfectly justified in doing so.  Without doubt this is an aspect of God’s mercy and longsuffering, not being willing for any to perish.  God, who stands ready to forgive, who wants to forgive, goes out of His way to make absolutely certain beyond any shadow of doubt that those who reject Him do so utterly.  God will not be accused of injustice.  In the final seconds of Pharaoh’s life, as the waters of the Red Sea crashed down upon him, he knew that he had been warned ten times over.  I do not believe that Pharaoh was surprised by his ultimate defeat.  He hated it.  He loathed it.  He despised the God who required repentance of him.  He did not, however, doubt His existence or authority.  It had been made plain to him.

Why is God allowing such rapid advances in technology and expoential growth in scientific knowledge, especially when it seems that these advances are bringing ever-increasing persecution to the followers of Christ?  Remember Pharaoh. 

Fast forward to the end of the Book, to Revelation where we see a time of Great Tribulation coming upon the earth.  The judgments God will send at that time will make Pharaoh’s plagues pale in comparison.  Still Revelation tells us that in spite of all the great judgments God will send upon the earth, mankind will not repent.  He will harden his heart, just as Pharaoh did.  When God ultimately destroys the heavens and the earth with fire, and casts all the unbelieving into everlasting punishment, will any of them have an excuse?  No, they will not.  Years of scientific research revealing the incredible majesty of God in His creation will testify against them.  God went out of his way to make it plain to them, not just in preaching from the pulpits, but in the vastness of the galaxies and the incomprehensible complexity of the design and workings of a single living cell.  The heavens declare the glory of God, so that men are without excuse.

A common complaint among unbelievers is that it would be unjust for God to condemn to hell those who grow up with religious or cultural traditions and ideologies that are not Christian.  How can one be held accountable for not believing in Jesus if Jesus is neither a name nor a concept to which they have ever been exposed?  To be sure, we Christians are charged with the preaching of the gospel for this very reason.  After all, how can they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?  But the same Apostle who asked that rhetorical question in Romans 10, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, anticipated the accompanying excuse in Romans 1.  God has made it plain to them through His creation, so that no one has an excuse.  Never has this Biblical fact been more apparent and easier to defend than in the information age.

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?

“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.

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?

As I was listening to Dr. Andrew Snelling talk about the importance of Noah’s Flood to modern apologetics, or Dr. Jason Lisle, a brilliant astronomer, talk about how the heavens declare the glory of God, it occurred to me what sets these men apart from their colleagues on the other side of the evolution-creation debate.  It is not their intelligence.  For roughly 200 years the secular scientific community has been working feverishly to paint all followers of Christ with a broad brush, namely, that we are foolish simpletons who would rather believe in superstitious fairy tales rather than accept the “facts” clearly proven by observational science.  This characterization is dead wrong not only in regard to the folks I have been hearing from this week, but also historically when considering the greatest scientific minds of human history.  The list is long of those who have made the most profound contributions to observational science and technological advances who also acknowledged a firm belief in the total authority of Scripture, including Genesis 1-11 as an actual account of the history of the world.  Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Edison are on that list, just to name a few.  It was not until relatively modern times, the aforementioned 200 years, that the idea of an ancient universe and the subsequent introduction of macro evolution (molecules to man) led to the secularization of scientific pursuit, thus casting God out of the picture nearly altogether. 

Nevertheless, intelligence is not what separates the scientists of the opposing camps, to be certain.  Each worldview has proponents of great intellect and ability that are clearly evident to all (though certainly scientists of both persuasions consider the positions of the opposing viewpoint to be foolish).  No, what occurred to me as I desperately tried to keep up with the depth of knowledge and insight these men presented is that they all made a choice to staunchly defend a worldview that, for the most part, makes them objects of ridicule among their peers.  One presenter said, and I paraphrase, that he would rather suffer 70 years of ridicule from human opponents who consider him a fool than an eternity of regret for rejecting the truth.  What these men and women have sacrificed in terms of wealth, recognition, acceptance, and career advancement perhaps no one but the Lord knows.  They have taken their gifts and their passions and put them to work in advancing the kingdom of God.  What sets these men and women apart is their humility.

You see, in the field of scientific endeavor, whatever form it may take, the problem is never intelligence.  The word science simply means knowledge, and the Bible itself declares that seeking knowledge and wisdom are worthy pursuits (Proverbs 4:5).  I have heard it said by Christians in reference to unbelieving scientist, academics, or others perceived as “smart” by the general public that, “they are too smart for their own good.”  The implication is that, somehow, their intelligence has directly caused their unbelief.  I take issue with that statement, quite honestly, as I am not sure it is possible to be too smart.  No matter how smart I become, I will never come close to the wisdom and knowledge of God.  God is in no way threatened by my level of learning and understanding.  Why should He desire for me to remain ignorant of anything that I have the capability of understanding?  If God is real, and His word is true, is it not clearly obvious that the more I learn about the world in which I live, the more convinced I will become of His surpassing greatness?  This is, of course, provided that I begin with a biblical worldview! 

No, intelligence is not the problem.  Learning is not the problem.  In fact, if there is one thing I have learned this week, it is that ignorance is a gigantic problem, especially among professing believers in Jesus Christ.  Where intelligence becomes problematic is when it is coupled with the real problem, and that is pride.  When the serpent tempted Eve in the garden, it was not so much knowledge that he tempted her with, but rather pride.  “You will be like God,” he told her.  (Genesis 3:5)  Yes, knowledge was involved in the temptation, but intelligence was not at the heart of the matter.  Humility was.  Satan tempted Eve with the proud thought that she could be like God, not needing to submit to His revealed will.  In the same way, the modern scientist with a naturalistic worldview is not separated from God because of his brilliance, but rather because of his pride in believing that his brilliance is sufficient to explain all things apart from Creator God.  Find one example in the Bible where God rejected a person because he knew too much.  No, a person is rejected from God’s presence, God’s blessing, God’s family, and God’s salvation because of unbelief.  Unbelief manifests itself in an unbiblical worldview, and that worldview stems from a proud heart that transforms one’s wisdom into foolishness (Romans 1:21-22).

This should come as no surprise, for the Bible tells us that it is pride that was the original undoing of Satan himself. 

Ezekiel 28:17 – Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Notice that God said that Satan’s wisdom was corrupted by pride.  Now, certainly it can be said that knowledge can lead to pride (1 Corinthians 8:1), but I do not believe the Bible presents this as a direct cause and effect.  Solomon’s wisdom was a gift from God; thus, it cannot logically be viewed as the source of his later departure from faithfully serving the Lord.  No, Solomon’s heart was lead astray not by his wisdom or knowledge, but rather by disobedience to the commandments of God, namely, by accumulating more power, wealth, and women than God said he should acquire.  These things, all linked with a proud heart, certainly, led Solomon’s heart astray, not his wisdom.  Over and over again in Scripture God demonstrates that He will give grace without limit to those who are humble in their hearts.  God has no problem bestowing wealth, power, or knowledge in ever increasing measure to those who will remain humble in their state of blessing.  As the Scripture says:

James 4:6,10 – …God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble…Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will lift you up.

I thank God for Answers In Genesis.  I thank God for the incredibly gifted and intelligent men and women who have given their lives not just to the study of some aspect of our universe, but to the application of that study in the defense of the authority of the Word of God.  Most of all, I thank God for the humility they have demonstrated in refusing to accept the foolishness of this world’s wisdom over the wisdom of God’s revealed truth.  Their efforts to equip the saints are worthy of your time.  While there may be some level of misguided bliss in ignorance, it is not a state that glorifies God or advances His kingdom.  I encourage you to pursue the knowledge that will strengthen your faith.  The resources available at Answers In Genesis are a great place to start.

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.

Ever since Jack Bauer first started doing whatever it takes to take out the bad guys seven years ago, a common theme has been the ongoing war on terror between the United States and its many enemies.  The seventh season dealt with this theme by portraying a domestic terrorist organization as attempting to frame an innocent muslim of the attack it was planning. The false evidence leads Jack to an Imam whom he accuses of hiding the suspected terrorist, and Jack vows to get the location of said terrorist out of the Imam like only Jack Bauer can.

In what I am sure the show’s writers intended to be an ironic twist, in the waning moments of the final episode, Jack meets again with this Imam, this time, at Jack’s request.  It turns out Jack is dying due to the effects of a biological weapon to which he was exposed, and we are led to believe that Jack’s conscience, typically seared to the point of non-existence, has finally gotten the best of him.  In an apparent attempt to make peace with himself, peace with God, or both, Jack tearfully confesses to the Islamic Imam that he had done so many horrible things, and that he always thought he would have more time to make things right.  The Imam gives a response that sounds a lot more like morally relativistic, pluralist, politically correct psychobabble than something an actual Islamic religious leader might say.  In fact, I would be interested to know what actual Imams would say, or if they have made any comment whatsoever about Fox’s representation in this particular show. Jack’s new-found spiritual guide offers a short speech about how the world is "complicated", followed by a short prayer in which he addresses absolutely no one by name, saying, "Let us both forgive ourselves for all the wrongs that we have done."  This seems to miraculously provide Jack with the peace is seeking, for he opens his eyes, lets out a sigh, and says, "It’s time."

There was a day when a scene such as this would have included a Catholic priest to administer the last rites, or perhaps a Jewish rabbi.  With the subtlety of a hand grenade, Fox has tried to blaze a new trail in post-modern syncretism by having the white male, typically viewed as "Christian", to ease his guilty conscience at the moment of his death, appeal to the Islamic Arab who, curiously, seems to believe in the inherent goodness of man and a generally relativistic approach to morality, and who doesn’t pray in the name of Allah.  This is yet another classic example of the new tolerance in action, as Fox bent over backwards to present Islam in a favorable light while at the same time implying that there might be many ways to heaven, if it exists, and that there is really no such thing as sin, at least not sin that leads to death, so long as we are willing to forgive ourselves.  A religion where I am my own judge – Wow!  Where do I sign up?

If they were trying to favor Islam, they honestly did not do a very good job of it. Islam is a monotheistic religion that teaches that only Muslims have any hope of pleasing Allah (their name for God).  At least, that was the case the last time I checked. An Imam who implies that an infidel like Jack Bauer can be forgiven simply by forgiving himself is an awfully progressive Imam, to say the least.  In fact, the concept of forgiveness is relatively foreign in Islam.  Surah 4:111, for example, says, "Anyone who earns a sin, earns it to the detriment of his own soul.  God is Omniscient, Most Wise."  Likewise, Surah 10:109 states, "Whoever goes astray, he himself bears the whole responsibility of wandering."  Islam teaches that only by keeping the tenants of Islam, called the Five Pillars, can a person hope to sufficiently pay for his or her sins to reach heaven.  (There is always martyrdom, of course, but we shall leave that for another day.)  Put simply, Allah, the god of Islam, is more of a skeptical judge requiring repeated proof of one’s devotion and goodness, not a benevolent father figure who stands ready to forgive you and make you all better if you would just have the courage to forgive yourself.  No, this does not sound much like Islam to me.

Of course, it is not biblical Christianity, either…or Judaism…or Hinduism…or even Mormonism.  It is some mish-mash of basic ideas from each religion all blended together with a dash of humanism thrown in for good measure.  The point of the Imam’s visit was never explicitly stated or even implicitly portrayed to have anything to do with connecting Jack with God.  Instead, it was about helping Jack find the good within himself, so he could feel good about himself before he died.  If anything, this is more along the lines of evolutionary thinking, that this life is all there is, and so the best thing Jack can do is make sure he is at peace with himself.  Jack is the focus of this conversation, not God or Allah or any other deity, real or imagined.  Thus, Hollywood reinforces the already deeply entrenched worldview that each person should choose his own path to his own god so that he can ultimately be his own savior.

This particular show seems to present the worldview that a person can be saved simply by purging his own conscience of unnecessary guilt.  Say you are sorry, accept your humanity (nobody is perfect), and whatever god happens to exist, he will surely understand your good intentions and let you "in" when the day comes.  Islam, on the other hand, teaches that a person is saved by works of penance, devotion, and service to Allah.  Biblical Christianity presents the uniquely hopeful worldview that God Himself did the work that had to be done for me to be saved, a work that I could not have done myself. 

Eph. 4:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The truth is, none of us can save ourselves simply by forgiving ourselves of whatever evils our conscience happens to convict us.  No, the only way to receive forgiveness is from the offended party, and that is God.  God extends His forgiveness not because your sin isn’t such a big deal, or because you’re only human, or because no one is perfect.  God extends His forgiveness because the penalty for everyone’s sin was paid by Jesus Christ.  Those who would receive that forgiveness must humble themselves and acknowledge Jesus as the rightful Lord and necessary Savior.  There is no other way, not even for Jack Bauer.