What is a thin, flat world? It’s a world offered by atheists, where humans are simply evolved animals, but animals none the less. A thin, flat world is a world without intrinsic beauty, beauty in music, in art, in Creation itself. Why would that be so? Because when we reject God from Creation we reject any objective standard for judging anything, not only morals, but simple things like beauty too.

In this thin, flat world, we reject the complexity of the human soul, because humans have no “souls.” All we are is chemicals in motion. We are determined by a series of causes (unexplained) that move our chemically responsive emotions. Will? No, there is no free will. We are determined by some unguided, purposeless “thing” called natural selection. A thin, flat world. Inexplicably, my chemicals are being moved to cause me to write this piece on this thin, flat world. Interesting.

This description of this thin flat world is not a reason to disbelieve it is true; that it is actual. (True, is too colorful a concept and indicates a different world than this thin, flat one.) If this thin, flat world, which is presented as actual is in fact reality, I have a couple of questions.

The first is: Why do I know this? Where did my ability to reason come from? I don’t mean my ability to discern whether I prefer meat or vegetables, but whether something is good or evil. Where did this reasoning ability come from? Why do I know that Hitler was evil and Mother Theresa was good? Why do I know that killing babies is wrong and feeding the poor and dispossessed is good? Although some might find my first example questionable, anyone who denies the second would be considered wrong. Why? Why am I considered wrong as a Christian? Where did the ability to judge that come from?

Intelligence is no better answer, because it just moves us back one step. Where did intelligence come from? I’m pressing on a concept of science that states every effect must have a cause and in that effect is some part of that cause. Something cannot give something else what it does not have. Every effect has a piece of its cause in it.

This leads me to the atheistic proposition that denies a Creator. Honest atheists will state they don’t know how the Universe began. Whether they are scientists or philosophers, the honest ones will stand behind an agnostic answer. However, when pushed, they will deny a Creator, certainly the God of the Bible.

However, cause and effect is a worthy pursuit in discovering the beginning of the Universe and life itself. Matter cannot produce intelligence, certainly not morals. Rocks don’t think. So this ability to reason gives us a premise, a first thought. Is my mind an evolved mixture of chemicals in motion, accidentally formed by an unguided force? Or is it designed as a means of expressing my true self? The question arises from this: Can matter make mind? Or, does mind make matter? The latter seems to be the more plausible answer.

The simple ability to argue this question appears to be proof of the latter. If the former is true there is no basis for the argument. What is gained? If there is no Creator, no purpose and this truly is a thin, flat world then nothing really matters. There’s no one to answer to. This thin, flat world cannot state it would be “better” for everyone if we all believed there is no Creator, no God. Says who?

My point would be that the very idea that one is better than the other requires us to recognize a standard somewhere out there that wants me to adhere to it. The very ability to discern a better way requires a judgment based on evidence located somewhere. In a thin, flat world, that doesn’t exist. We’re not special as humans, simply evolved animals seeking to survive. Wait a minute . . . Why do we want to survive? Is survival better than extinction? How do we know that? Does it mean that “to be” is better than “to not be?”

The thin, flat world denies any specialness for humanity. Personhood is a construct based on the ability to function in life as “normal.” We could ask once again, “What is normal and how is it determined?” In a thin, flat world this is arbitrary reasoning based on darwinian ethics which ultimately seeks to eradicate the weakest. The thin, flat world is boring, yet destructive. 

In the biblical worldview, person is equivalent to human. All humans a persons, not because of their function or ability to function, but by their nature. The Godhead is three persons as are angels - but that’s for another blog. We share personhood with God who caused us to be. Because of that, we are special in Creation. We are his image bearers, we bear his likeness too.

The world is not thin, nor flat. It is full and round. Full of color, beauty, wisdom, and knowledge. It is a world where humans can seek to experience all of these and grow in stature. Most importantly, it is a place where humans can find their Creator and see their need for a savior. 

[In the strange way my mind works, I believe the “thin, flat world” thing came from J.P. Moreland’s, Kingdom Triangle.]

I couldn’t wait for April 3rd and 4th to arrive.  I knew that the Understanding the Times Apologetic Conference would be an incredible opportunity to have both Ray Ciervo and Dr. Norman Geisler speak on this weekend right here at my church! All of my expectations were fulfilled at the conference, as Ray and Dr. Geisler opened their lives up to us, provided us with practical information from a biblical perspective, and shared wisdom and insight that was truly a gift from the Lord. 

I am so grateful that I know Ray personally and have the pleasure of hearing him teach regularly.  Ray has a heart and a mission to unveil the truth, particularly to young people and future generations.  For many years, I have found great comfort in Ray’s confidence in the Lord.  I have heard him say more than once that there is is no argument that will stand against the truth of the gospel and if challenged , people will eventually “paint themselves into a corner”.    His love for truth has personally challenged me over the past few years to seek the truth for myself and make it a priority.  This has motivated me to not be a lazy Christian and to seek the answers that exist to the world’s many questions about God and about faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Although I have only read one of Dr. Geisler’s books and bits and pieces from others, I anticipated him to be wise and advanced in knowledge.  I expected his teachings to be filled with the ultimate defense for the faith.   What I did not expect is the warmth that Dr. Geisler brought into the conference.  Dr. Geisler was humble, patient and his love for God’s people was clearly evident.  

Dr. Geisler’s lectures were enticing, motivating and thought provoking.  He helped me to be more equipped to defend my faith and gave me the confidence that I needed in my beliefs.  His terrific sense of humor added comic relief while teaching deep topics, like when he said that everyone believes in absolute truth when it comes to banking and medicine.  Dr. Geisler called us to think critically and he said something that I have heard Ray say before, which is, if we don’t take our thoughts captive, our thoughts will take us captive and prevent us from exercising our faith.  Dr. Geisler’s perspectives were sound, persuasive, and understandable.   

Some of the topics that were discussed over the weekend were the need for apologetics in our day, what the growing religions are and what philosophies people are clinging to in our day.  The teachers also defined truth and told us how we can distinguish it and what the scriptures say about it.  The conference helped to uncover falsities in other religions and gave evidence for Jesus’ sinless and righteous life, his death and resurrection, and proof for why Jesus is the only way to God.   

Later in the conference, there was a  question and answer period that was a very enjoyable session.  This  was a great time for us to ask questions of all sorts, particularly questions that we have struggled with.  Ray and Dr. Geisler were not taken back by any question.  All questions were answered boldly and compassionately and   many were answered with their own personal  experiences to validate their points.  

Each of Dr. Geisler’s and Ray Ciervo’s  lives has allowed me the certainty I need to know about the existence of the truth and the fact that it is knowable.   During the conference, Dr. Geisler said that we have to know God relationally and theologically before we can refute arguments against Him.  It is very evident that Dr. Geisler and Ray Ciervo know God in this way.   This conference stressed a call that God has put on my heart to know him and to keep seeking the truth.   It provided me with many valuable tools that I need to prepare me for the spiritual battles ahead.   I look forward to the conference in future years!

Cd's and Dvd's are available - here

For the third time in two weeks I watched a debate where Christopher Hitchens was one of the debaters. As the author of God is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he makes an interesting case. As an apologist I want to learn the enemies tactics in confronting the message of Jesus’ uniqueness. So I watch with eagerness.

The first two debates were between Dr. Frank Turek, an author and speaker, and Hitchens. The last debate was with William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher The first two debates were markedly different than this last one and rightly so. Craig is a philosopher and one of the best debater’s out there today. Hitchens is informed, witty and aggressive in his style. As he says, he believes he’s on mission to awaken people to the poison of religion, no matter what religion it is.

Both Turek and Craig presented classical arguments for the existence of God. Although Craig is an “evidentialist” he began with classical arguments. Craig presented the cosmological (cause) argument, the teleological (design) argument, the moral argument, the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and a personal subjective witness to Jesus. As far as debates go Hitchens never countered any of these arguments with good reasonable arguments. What he did in all three arguments was present how religion has failed, even attacking Mother Theresa’s character.

It was watching this last debate, which our College and Career group sponsored, that I began to understand Hitchens’ argument better and why it has such appeal. In saying that, I don’t think Hitchens won any of the debates if we judge the topic of the debate. In two cases the topic was, “Does God Exist?” The other topic was, “Which Worldview Best Describes Reality.” In none of the arguments did Hitchens present a moving case. This is what he did - he appealed to people’s pragmatic nature.

Pragmatism decides truth by what works. In actuality, it is not a good test for truth. However, Americans love pragmatism. We like when something works. What we are really saying is we like results. So Christopher Hitchens’ appeal is not to a deep philosophical idea, but to the failings of religion, or where religious people have acted out in some barbaric fashion thus denying the faith they proclaim.

Hitchens likes to conflate all religions together - this is his “straw man,” and then he attacks that idea. So he’ll point to circumcising young girls in Africa as a religious rite, the destruction of the Amalekites, suicide bombers, and other practices and point out how dangerous religion can be when adherents believe they are hearing God’s voice. He tries to claim Hitler and Mussolini were Catholics because they had political relations with the Vatican. He’s very quick to point out any corrupt religious system or leader.

There’s a point where Hitchen’s always offers a challenge for anyone to tell him some moral action which is prescribed by religion which he cannot do. Then he solemnly turns to the audience and asks what horrible thing someone who believes God is on his side is capable of! In other words, Hitchens is morally capable of any good thing, but religious people are the real danger.

As I mentioned Hitchens likes pragmatism. As a practiced journalist he knows how to turn a crowd, evoke a response, and get under your skin. He’s very apt at what he does. However, Hitchens is not a philosopher or trained as an apologist though he does understand the categories. He continually plays on the ignorance of the crowd as well when he plays bait and switch.

For instance, his challenge of naming a moral action that he cannot do is a ruse. He refuses to see the moral law as something everyone can do. The Bible even tells us this in Romans 2:13-15. And yes someone who believes God speaks to him but doesn’t understand judgment and the message of the Bible is capable of horrible things. Certainly, someone who believes god has chosen him to commit suicide by blowing himself up in a crowded market is dangerous. However, so is anyone who doesn’t think they are answerable to anyone!

The problem isn’t that religious people will do something horrific. It’s when religious people do not have the truth of Scripture and or not know that God would not violate his nature. Hitchens continually brings us the Amalekites because he doesn’t understand a couple of things from the Old Testament. God told Israel to wipe out the Amalekites because the time of their judgment had come. This was also in reference to the land and Israel’s possession of it. As an atheist Hitchens wouldn’t understand nor believe in the judgment of God. As an atheist he is ignorant of the God of the Bible. His understanding of God is skewed awfully. The mood of America today is complicit with an “anti-judgment” mentality. Hitchens’ construction of God should he construct him would be a “nice god” who would do his bidding.

Chrhistopher Hitchens is on a book tour where he sells his books and speaks about the content. He’s sold a lot of books and debated many people. It all draws attention to him and the unsuspecting admire his pragmatic assertions. Of the five arguments Craig presented, Hitchens didn’t address any of them with a counter argument. Neither did he as Craig said, give good reasons to not believe in God. The fact that religious people Christian or not, do not represent their beliefs correctly does not prove that religion is not true. It certainly doesn’t prove God does not exist. 

Christians especially have acted out of concert with traditional orthodox Christian beliefs. Hitchens is so resolved in his position that he willingly forfeits his closing statements. He did this in all three debates. In one debate Turek made him give a closing statement. One can only question why he wouldn’t sum up of his case against God. I won’t venture here why I think he does it. I have no proof.

The problem with the new atheists is that they are filled with rhetoric but no substance. They cannot explain away intelligent design, the moral argument, nor the cosmological argument with any force. All they can do is point out failings of religious people. Nothing  new there. What the new atheism does do is get people riled up with their rhetoric. They believe they must silence anyone who presents a religious belief.

My review on The Shack, by Wm. Paul Young, some months ago, posted here on this site, was subsequently reposted on two other sites. Both garnered some comments and discussion. Most of the discussion was positive, although some whimpered at my mistreating this blockbuster novel. Today, I still have strong feelings and would make some adjustments to my recommendations.

Reading back through my assessment of Shack, I believe I should have been more direct and not so forgiving. I even made the comment to “read with caution.” Knowing what I know now about the author, I would write, “Do not read,” and if you have a copy - “Go straight to trash and dispose.” If you think this is harsh, you may want to read on.

Since my review of the book, (I read it twice and listened to it in an audio format,) I’ve been amused to read some of the other comments and reviews. After a while I began to think maybe I ought to make some adjustments. 

Just recently, I came across a couple of insightful, if not, telling reviews. One was written by a friend of William P. Young, author of The Shack. James De Young wrote an extensive review of which I will just mention a few quotes. His review is telling and confirming. Although I gave Paul Young a pass, that he was not a “universalist,” De Young asserts that he most assuredly is. [That’s what I get for being a nice guy. I should have gone with my gut.]

Someone who is a “universalist” believes in universal reconciliation. That is, there is no final judgment, no hell, which obviously affects the destiny of humanity. Everyone is reconciled to God in the end according to this view.

De Young describes Young’s portrayal here, “ 

“Paul has written a creative, provocative novel.  Unfortunately, it is creative 

theologically in the sense of reinforcing universal reconciliation that distorts the 

evangelical understanding of God, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the meaning of the death 

of Christ, the necessity of belief in Christ, the final judgment, and the destiny of all 

humanity.  In the sixth century the church called universal reconciliation heresy, and it 

has treated this belief as such ever since.”

And, 

“While he frequently disavows general universalism, the idea that 

many roads lead to God, he carefully affirms that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, 

and that all will be reconciled to God either this side of death or afterward. 

Yet a careful reading uncovers universal reconciliation remains as a strategic focus of the book.  And this is not unexpected when the author (in his “Acknowledgments”) attests to having  been influenced by many writers that include several universalists.  He cites one at the beginning of chap. 14.  His own earlier claims were that Christian universalism changed his life and his theology. “  ( I quote this as is from De Young’s review, “At The Back Of The Shack A Torrent Of Universalism: A Review” (Revised ed., May, 2008. http://theshackreview.com/content/ReviewofTheShack.pdf)

Most of De Young’s comments are similar to what I wrote in my review. Creative writing is to be welcomed and encouraged. Creative theology is another story. The popularity of  The Shack, is indicative of the church’s overall theological demise. The church has become theologically ignorant - stupid, in plain speech. Abandoning theology is not the answer for an anemic church. It is misunderstanding theology and its purpose that has led to this powerless, self-centered, purposeless church. Not knowing what it is we believe and why we believe it is the sound of death to any movement.

Today, evangelical theology has been abandoned for a “mystery” theology that is feeling and experientially based. If we are not emotionally moved, it can’t be God. If our ears are not pleased - it’s boring. The idea of “studying” is repelled because that is “modern.” We are more esoteric in our approach to Bible study than we care to admit. Most people do not know what the Bible is for, misread it, and misinterpret its meaning. Some of the worst statements I’ve heard are things like, “I don’t want a God I can explain.” Huh? I think the person who says that means they don’t want a God they can fully explain, but that’s not what is said. No evangelical theologian has even attempted to say that they fully understand all that there is to understand about God. However in response, any attempt to explain anything about God is rejected. To say I don’t know everything about God is not saying I don’t know anything about God. 

 Somehow the idea of studying the thought and ideas of past theologian/churchmen is “putting God in a box.” We don’t want a God restrained in a box; we want a God cloaked in mystery - why? So, we can worship what we don’t know? We do not read to understand today. We read to be “surprised” by a zinger of a statement that moves us emotionally. We don’t read to reason through someone’s arguments.

Admittedly, I’m conflicted over the attention Shack receives. Conflicted because I think it is rife with heresy and garners great approval. No doubt it is a moving story - but it is also the biggest pile of popular theological rubbish written. I’m also conflicted that so many cannot perceive the biblical and theological corruption. It is worse when people say they don’t mind the corruption - it’s a good story. That’s like excusing Hitler’s atrocities because he was a good speaker and leader. Where are the moral and ethical components necessary to make decisions?

Another example of a good reviewcomes from Paul Grimmond in We Need More Shack Time. This reviewer made a tremendous insight. 

“Just like Adam and Eve in the garden, we have thrown God away. As we have done so, it has become necessary to make our own decisions about right and wrong. What is the only basis that we have for making such decisions? It is the presence or absence of pain. So the existence of pain has become the problem that God must solve in order to be credible in the eyes of judgmental humanity. A key to The Shack's Christian appeal is that many of us now think this way too.” (http://matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5395/)

C.S. Lewis compiled a group of essays in God in the Dock. Way before his time in assessing culture, Lewis pointed out that before the 20th century the idea of questioning God would have been unheard of. I don’t mean asking God questions, but the idea of God being “in the dock,” basically means putting God on trial. That is what is happening in our culture and in the church. We have begun to prosecute God and the Scripture.  

I agree with Grimmond, The Shack is Young’s attempt to make God account for pain and evil in the world. Why do the righteous suffer? Why do bad things happen to good people? Or, as in Shack,  how can these atrocities happen to innocent children? The setting for this story is brilliant in that it grabs you by the emotions right from the start. This gives one reason to not be observant of other considerations like “Is it biblical,” or “Is it theologically or doctrinally sound?” Those questions are eclipsed by the grief stricken Mac as he reluctantly responds to Papa’s note. One might say those questions aren’t even on the radar.

I just have one question: “What about Job?” Does this biblical account of pain, evil and suffering not matter? Did Job suffer the loss of everything dear to him - his riches ransacked, his family massacred in an unbelievable accident? After Job’s interactions with his “friends” and then a brief rebuttal by a younger man, God spoke to Job . . . 

Then the LORD said to Job, 

“Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?

Let him who reproves God answer it.” 

Then Job answered the LORD and said, 

“Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?

I lay my hand on my mouth.”  (Job 40:1-4)

The next passage is really telling . . .

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said, 

“Now gird up your loins like a man;

I will ask you, and you instruct Me. 

“Will you really annul My judgment?

Will you condemn Me that you may be justified? (Job 40:6-8)

“Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?” that is the question to ask Mac. Do we really believe we must make God account for His actions? In a world of “down-sizing” have we down-sized God to a manageable deity? Our rejection of the ancient paths has led us up a dead end creek to a human size God, one without wonder and mystery.

I reject the unbiblical view of God crafted in a heretical imagination.This is “every lofty thing raised against the knowledge of God.” This is no real surprise as the mood in the church is welcoming to something like this book. Biblical illiteracy has led to this embrace of non-biblical stories in place of an authentic biblical worldview.

People are so starved for a relationship with God they will feed on anything. The problem is they have rejected God’s means of feeding His people. So, they think The Shack, is great! [I shudder to write it.] We can approach God as if he were a warm-hearted woman. 

When we fail to recognize the centrality of God’s sacrifice in Jesus - the price he paid, we lose redemption and the very nature of the redeeming God. God is not so brokenhearted over man’s sin that He will excuse anyone’s behavior. To say “God is love” and forget “God is holy” is a huge mistake. Al Mohler says in effect that we live in a world today where holiness is not popular. Where we once sang, “Holy, Holy, Holy” we now sing “Jesus is my buddy; he’s a good ol’ boy.”

The idea that God has somehow changed to accommodate our modern or postmodern mood is ridiculous. Job gives the answer to our suffering and grief when God puts things in the correct biblical theological perspective. The rest of Scripture answers the question on the character and attributes of God. We don’t need novels to make us feel good about ourselves or to help us get a grip on God. We need to receive the transmitted revelation from God’s “word.” 

Finally, what Shack demonstrates is the church’s inability to know the truth. Jesus said it simply, “. . . If you continue in my word, then you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. That ought to be enough for us. However, because we don’t “continue” in his word (s) we go sniffing for something “new” and “fresh.” The result is something like Shack  which is so far off of Biblical revelation that it appears like a newly discovered or uncovered view of reality. Please, don’t tell me it’s just a novel. Oh, but wait . . .

It is novel in that its approach to conveying ideas is new. In a generation that lives by its emotions it grabs your insensible emotional reactions first. Once you’re emoting for Mac’s daughter and Mac himself you are already had. You’ readily inhale the rest of this misinformed misleading repertoire of conjured theology and doctrine. It is a “gotcha” moment.

Shack has garnered way too much attention. Again, it ireveals the shallow understanding of God and His word in the church today. A compelling story ought not be the criteria for good literature when it conveys heresy. For those who would like to move the boundaries of heretical thought and doctrine I would only say go back to the Scripture and see what it says about such actions. I believe you will find the results are devastating.

I almost called the ministry, No Pat Answers, because through it I wanted not only to give well thought out answers, but to help Christians learn how to give reasoned responses to objections offered against the gospel.

I find that most people want to learn how to give an answer, but not learn why the answer is correct. This becomes evident when someone asks a question about a complicated topic such as human depravity but is not interested in the reasoning behind the answer. They may have no idea about what "depravity" truly means, whether it is intensive and extensive. Whether it is only extensive, etc. But still, they want that simple answer. We don't have time or space to go into "depravity here, but I find this really frustrating.

At times I want to ask, "What will learning this answer really do for you? What will you do with the answer? Will it become a ‘silver bullet' to fire at the werewolves of atheism, Darwinism, or some other challenging position? I don't think so. There's rarely a one liner that can shoot down an argument without knowing what lays beneath it -unless, of course, the question being asked is a self-stultifying one. Even then, there's a learning curve to knowing why these statements are self-defeating.

Pat answers are not only ineffective, they also present an inaccurate view of the Christian argument, cheapening its intelligence and power. Pat answers seem to make those who wield them secure, but it is a brief and false security.

Okay, so now it's time for a "for instance." For instance, consider the argument that atheism is a philosophical position as well as a theological position. Some would argue that it is an "a-theological" position. However, the atheistic position is one that centers around God (theos) and the idea that "He" or "it" doesn't exist-- it is clearly a theological position. It is also a philosophical position in that it makes people ask the major moral, ethical, and purposeful questions of life. Already, this discussion has gotten more involved than it once was, and has taken on a different attitude, especially by the "new atheists."

So, what's my remedy? What is it I'd like to see Christians do? There are several steps to learning how to give well thought out arguments, as there are in most acquisitions of knowing anything. The first is to learn the "what" of any body of knowledge. What are the facts about this particular view or issue? Whether it be abortion or evolution, you must learn exactly what the issue is and what its proponents . actually believe. For instance: on the topic of evolution, it is worth knowing that there are natural evolutionists as well as theistic evolutionists, and there's a difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. These are but a few examples. The point is that when we get into a conversation with someone, they can tell within a couple of minutes whether we know their position or not.

The second step is to learn how to reason through an idea. Here's where the real work lays. Reasoning through an idea involves following statements to their logical conclusions, and in doing so recognizing the logical fallacies and, inconsistent and incongruent statements within them. The last step is to understand how and why the uniqueness of Christ can answer an argument.

Engaging in a conversation with someone who has divergent views is always a challenge. They challenge your beliefs as they promote their own. This is especially true with today's new breed of atheists. In them I find an emboldened opposition that wants to convert you to their cause as well as show you how yours is fallacious. I see also that proponents of diverse religions are emboldened as Christianity is marginalized as a prominent worldview.

Now more than ever Christians need to know why what they believe is not only credible but the only worldview that contains the message of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved.  That ought to be reason enough to lay aside the desire for pat answers and pursue real truth and knowledge.

“I am reality: There is the way it ought to be, there is the way it is.”  - SSgt Bob Barnes, -Platoon

Our culture has forgotten how to make moral judgments. You may remember Dr. Berlinski from the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Berlinski, who is not a Christian philosopher, is convinced if the Church doesn’t make moral judgements others will make immoral judgments for us. We’ve seen this over and over again.   

When it comes to this I am both pessimistic and optimistic. I am pessimistic knowing that we’re not just way behind in this game. We don’t know which game is being played. It’s as if we’re showing up to the ball diamond in shoulder pads and helmets. We have no idea what is going on. Issues of abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, infanticide, all the way to prayer in schools is fought on the wrong grounds, if you follow the analogy, the wrong field.

Christians engage in heated debates about a variety of subjects, but don’t truly understand the grounds to argue on. Most resort to the Scripture and call offenders to pay heed to warnings. Christians have also, at times, delivered the “judgment clause.” Wrong field, wrong game.

Although the Scripture is the most historically reliable ancient document and therefor can be fully trusted, most Christians don’t know that fact nor the supporting evidence. If the Church doesn’t know the evidence the world certainly doesn’t either. It becomes a non-usable point. Another point that should be made is that most of the time the person we’re speaking to doesn’t understand the argument either. This can be used to our advantage.

The path the Church ought to use is the “moral argument.” This argument calls on people to consult with their conscience and ask the question, “What ought to be?” No one should have to explain why it is wrong to torture babies. We “ought” to know that that is wrong. No one wants to be robbed or  murdered. We ought to know it is wrong to steal another’s possessions or take the life of an innocent human being. These are “oughts” we should understand. 

What social scientists recognize is that these “oughts” are universal. They are found in both developed and primitive societies. From the most developed to primitive tribes the “ought” is present. Although some tribes may prescribe robbing their enemies, they know it is wrong to rob your friends. They know stealing is wrong in general, but may have specific exceptions.

The moral argument can be made from Scripture, but until Scripture is accepted as a bona fide authority it should be laid aside. Although there are several paths to take to establish the moral argument the one accepted is that of conscience. This is where I'm optimistic. 

C.S. Lewis reflected on his sense of “fairness” and followed it to a transcendent law of right and wrong. Lewis questioned why he could judge something as right or wrong, why something was unfair. It led him to a transcendent God who stood behind His transcendent standard - the moral law. Lewis eventually saw his need for a savior and found Jesus Christ. Although millions today love Lewis’ writings few know his foundation for truth. Lewis understood. 

Thomas Aquinas was a major proponent of the moral law argument. However, for most non-catholics Aquinas is not viewed correctly. In fact, some major theologians and philosophers in the Protestant camp dismiss Aquinas’ contributions. This is a major problem in the Church today. Aquinas has had a significant influence on Western culture beyond any other. Aquinas’ promotion of natural law was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of the US Constitution also rests on Aquinas’ view of natural law. His view of transcendency, law apart from experience, human ideas, and feelings stabilized the practice of law for the first hundred years. 

In essence, this is the issue over which culture wars are fought. On the one side you have people who support the notion of natural law. On the other side you have the progressives who believe there is no transcendent objective standard. The root of this argument goes even deeper than moral standard to the concept of essences, natures. For our purposes we’ll leave this for now. Metaphysics is the subject this leads to, but our culture is too far away from that topic to begin to address it here. Natural law is enough to  tackle.

For the general public and the church to be educated on this issue is a huge task. However, it is one that is doable. The one reason it is  doable is that people still know what ought to be. Although this is in contrast to what is - people still know what ought to be. What has happened in our culture is we have accepted the propensity to go against what ought to be and conform to what is.

This issue is so pervasive it is found in politics, law, government, social issues and water cooler conversations. However, most people don’t know the issue they’re talking about.  This is the issue of Romans 1 & 2 concerning the Gentiles with the law written on their hearts. What happens most of the time, if not all the time, is that people settle for what is experience and propensity instead of looking to the transcendental standard.

This affects us most is in our political system and the Supreme Court. In the Court, we have justices who say they believe in “constitutional law.” By this I am referring to a strict interpretation of the Constitution as it was meant by its writers. Opposition to the appointment of these justices has been telling. Robert Bork was opposed because he believed in Natural Law, so was Clarence Thomas. The treatment of these justices is telling. Bork suffered so much at the hands of investigators he has gained the “honor” of having his name used when appointees are “borked.” Any jurist who is a “natural law” theorist is confronted and their appointment is usually stalled.

We are living in the suppression of truth where that which is known about God is evident, but the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness. This goes beyond “constitutionalists.” The reality is that natural law theorists are the target of much oppression. This is the area the church must learn to argue for.

Simply put - we have natural law because there are such things as “natures.” The fact that we can speak about God’s nature is contingent on this. If there are no such thing as a “nature” then God has no nature. There is no intrinsic good, just, mercy, grace. These then become “choices” that God simply chooses. The fact that God is good, just, and merciful. The fact that natural law is written on our hearts we know instinctively right and wrong. The fact that few people recognize its existence is not proof it doesn’t exist. It has been eclipsed by sensuality, feelings and licentious environment. When pushed, people confess what lays beneath the sensuality. They know right and wrong and have to justify actions that offend what’s written.

This is the first argument the church must “bone up” on. It is the most relevant argument the church can employ for the existence of God. It is the one that leads directly to the need for a savior. This is done by seeing what “ought” to be and what is. 

Although this writing is not exhaustive, it is enough to get us started. In the coming weeks I’m going to address the other apologetic arguments. I’ll also establish a page on the site to refer to all the apologetic arguments for Jesus. I’ll also attempt to show how these arguments apply.

Americans continue to fall prey to the hungry sharks. I’m talking about the ones in Congress. Since the 700 billion dollar bail out bill was proposed and then passed, more bills have been proposed to add more billions to the “solution.” Seems like the 700 hundred billion didn’t satisfy them and they’re smelling more blood in the water. 

The question remains: Where is the church? This crisis is of global proportions and will reach future generations. Historians will record this financial mess and look back and ask that question, at least some will.

Several people have asked for some practical steps to help guide the church. Before I offer some reply I need to make some other statements. The fact that the church leaders are silent about this says a lot. In fact, the silence is deafening. It indicts the church as complicit with the actions of the government. It suggests how the church is policiticized - neutralized, because of its political loyalties.

Some steps the church can take, aside from the repentance mentioned in previous articles, is to take a stand against all those who voted for this bill. Vote against them. Let them know why you’re voting against them. This bill could have been reduced to as much as a tenth of what it was. There was a lot of “pork” in this bill which tells you that these congressman were not acting on our behalf, but their own. My suggestion for steps are radical - drastic and admittedly, I’m not good at “how-to’s.” If you want pat answers you may have to go somewhere else. I believe what we, the church need most is some basic changes in our philosophy of life.

I believe that when you understand what is laying beneath, the process and methods come naturally. That is, when you understand the “what” and “why” of a situation you will get the “how-to.” Most people want to know what to do. “Tell me what to do! I’m not interested in the what and why’s.” This belies a basic worldview, a pragmatic one. The philosophy of life is called pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only philosophy born on American soil and it is rooted in the way America has developed. Truth is verified by what works. Accomplishment and completion determines what is valuable. If something works, then it is good. Worse, if something works . . . then it is true.

Pragmatism is not a test for truth or righteousness. Especially, in the short term. However, this is one of the planks in America’s cultural worldview. Our quest for technology is linked to our pragmatic bent. We like what works and we won’t waste time on something that doesn’t produce results immediately. We’re skeptical of wasting time to see something produce and we lose our patience quickly with things that don’t work. This becomes problematic for the Christian who may be asked to sacrifice his/her life for something that won’t bring results in his/her lifetime. Maybe never. Our thought is that if we’re going to give our life for something we want to see the results of it.

What the church must do is move away from a pragmatic worldview to a biblical worldview. That means we don’t do things because they’ll produce but because they’re right. I know this calls on a moral compass or a bibilcal revelation. This was once very different here when a man’s character dictated his actions.

Somewhere in the late 19th Century there was a shift in the fundamental philosophy in America. America is a “can-do” kind of country. We’re activists influenced by the “Protestant Work Ethic.” Americans are not afraid to work when they see it produces for them and work is good when it brings the rewards I want. When the fundamental question is changed from “What is right?” to “What is good?” the actions follow accordingly. The “good life” has come to mean my happiness produced by an abundance of material things, perfect health, strength, and appearance. As none of these things are problems in themselves, they are shipwrecks when the underlying philosophy has no sense of moral right and wrong. Remember the question is not what is right?, but what is good?

As Americans we’re taken captive by pragmatism - it’s one of those worldviews that is so much a part of our culture we know longer see it. It is that definition of worldliness offered by David Wells that tells us the ungodly has become the norm. No one can see it any more. We are so accustomed to it. For us to discover pragmatism would be like the fish who discovers he’s wet.

Admittedly, I’m drawn back to what underlies actions - beliefs and worldviews. Also, I believe that understanding what lays beneath is more important than learning “how to’s.” If you grasp the underlying principles it is easier for God to guide you. In fact, you must grasp what lays beneath in order to have real life change. You must move beyond “what’s good for me?” to “What is the right thing to do?” In order to do that you must know what is right. In order to do that you must cling to biblical revelation to righteousness and moral law

This is a fundamental problem in American culture. We have stopped asking what is right, moral, or ethical? And begun to ask what is good for me? 

Consider this: we won’t speak up if we think that the situation may go against us, like getting fired or not getting that raise or promotion. Or, we won’t speak up because we’re afraid what people may think. This is a sly pragmatism. Righteousness would have us take a stand, pragmatism asks, what will this accomplish? What will you get out of this? Or, what won’t you get?

For me to list a set of “how-to’s” for the church to do would be counter productive right now. We need to get back to a biblical worldview and stop interpreting life from our pragmatic American worldview. We need repentance and faith in God’s plan  - His Kingdom. When I exhort, “Be the Church!” I mean,  be the biblical church, the church built on NT principles, not American values. We’re not the rotary club, a corporation, or any business. We’re Christ’s body, here to represent Jesus in our actions. We’re not meant to be a political force, but a spiritual force. When we participate in the political process we are to represent Jesus’ view of life as it is revealed in the Scripture. We’re not to side up with politicians we think will represent us. We’re to call politicians to stand for truth and righteousness. We should be calling them to come against the lies we continually are bombarded with.

The church is the “pillar and support for the truth.” Our mission ought to be to stand for truth, fight for truth, and speak the truth. No matter who says they’re right, we ought to be checking to see if they are representing the truth.

So, what we are to do is distance ourselves from a pragmatic worldview and develop a biblical one. Our question ought not be, what is good?, but what is right? Our nation is mired in layers of decaying corruption. The church has become corrupt with it, because it has failed to walk with her Lord. It has fallen prey to ideas that assault the knowledge of God and is imbibed the “spirit of the age.” Our road is not an easy one, but a necessary one. We must have the confidence that God will meet us, replenish our strength and faith and give us the grace to do His bidding.

The US Senate has just passed a major “bail out” piece of legislature. What amazes me is the “ear marks” attached to this bill. Why are there any ear marks at all? One senator was quoted as saying this is a bitter pill wrapped in a marshmallow. Excuse me? Are we children that we must mix sugar in with our medicine to disguise the taste? When it’s time to “man-up” our senators are holding their noses and cringing until they can sweeten the pot to their own taste. Personally, I’m embarrassed and dismayed.

Our problems are not social or financial but spiritual. This is seen readily when our politicians lie and we call it “misspeaking.” We dole out dollars in the millions to CEO’s while workers struggle to make house payments and then we justify it under “capitalism.” Heck, we pay men and women millions to play games, elevate it to a “sport” and justify the entertainment value. Who is being stupid here? It’s not those who receive the money. Capitalism isn’t wrong in itself - greed is. Manifestations may be social or financial, but the problems are spiritual.

Here’s how I see it . . . America is in the tank. We’re facing financial ruin because our well-being has been in the hands of godless men and women. We have an energy crisis because we’ve been greedy and stupid. (Greed is stupid in the long run.) In a country where the technology supersedes most of the world we have not developed different energy sources and produced more efficient transportation because we’re bound by greed. Our problem is spiritual, we’ve lost our way.

We’ve lost our moral compass; our true north heading is not registering. We haven’t known which way to go and we have given in to accommodating a pluralistic worldview that negates the God of the Bible and the virtue he represents. Ideas have consequences and the ideas we’ve embraced have given us drastic consequences. We believe the wrong things and hold ideologies and belief systems that have no anchor in the transcendent God of the universe. In many ways, they oppose him. We are reaping what we have sown.

Let me illustrate how I see our condition. Several years ago I had one of those “travel experiences” that could only be understood by going through it. Flights were delayed, canceled, and rerouted. Baggage was sent to parts unknown. Confusion reigned. I don’t mean it was confusing; I mean no one knew what was going on nor did anyone know what to do. There was a sense of helplessness in the passengers. The staff and crew were no better off. The look on their faces revealed problems way beyond their control as confusion reigned. 

It was at that time I realized, whether through revelation or simple common sense, that America’s infrastructure was imploding. It was evident that air travel wasn’t what it once was nor what it was supposed to be. Surrounded by this confusion I thought about how far this was really affecting the rest of life. Was the government in this kind of disarray? I wasn’t thinking of energy then, but could see how this would fit now.

The church in the America has not been any better. In fact, we have to own some fault. We’ve mistaken America for the kingdom of God. We think God uses America or cares for America the way he cares for His people. The church hasn’t separated itself from American values and politics when they are clearly not biblical. We “christianize” elements of our lives in an attempt to ease our own consciences. Our faith is politicized and our strength gutted. 

Some have tried to resurrect the “liberal” agenda of the early 20th Century. That movement gutted the gospel of its saving power then and it became a political movement, not a spiritual one. We see the same thing in parts of the Emergent Movement today. There is no call to holiness or removing ourselves from the essence of our culture. There is no “in the world, but not of the world” in its theology. It is politically flavored with leftist ideology. But as far as the left has gone one way so has the church on the “right” gone the other way. It’s arrogant triumphalism is embarrassing and repulsive. It politicizes the issues dear to God in a way that makes them unrecognizable. It too guts the gospel message and leaves it powerless. In my father’s words, “Same meat, different gravy.” What the church doesn’t seem to understand is that if the problem is spiritual so must the solution be. Instead of being caught in the undertow of politics it should fall on its knees and seek the Lord through repentance.

Here’s my perspective: Americans only have one choice - to yell for help. But to whom do we turn? Who will really bail us out? The financial mess is just one piece and it’s the one piece that really gets our attention. But what does it signal? Do we get passed this crisis and go back to business as usual? Do we keep allowing godless unscrupulous men to continue to make decisions for us that will benefit them but hold us hostage? If you think regulation and legislation will stay their hand you’re sadly mistaken.

It is not in the hands of politicians to do good. As I began Part 1 of this blog commenting on Thomas Aquinas’ view of democracy, I’ll return to it. Democracy is a poor form of government for getting things done, especially with 535 members who have to have their ego’s stroked and have an insatiable appetite for pork. America needs a single voice, a clear call. I don’t believe it will or should come from Washington. Wall street has no voice for direction either, but responds to the call for greed. Madison Avenue has no voice but that of the harlot: “Come lay with me.” No the voice must come from God; it must come through the church.

If Jesus is clearly the light that lights every man, then the church is in the best position to show the way. It will take more than being devoted; it will take a resolute heart to be biblical, merciful, holy, and resilient. It will take being outspoken, yet compassionate, firm but understanding. And, it must begin with our own repentance and humility. Our arrogance must be abandoned for the power of humility. We must rise above our pet doctrines and cling to the essentials of being Christ-like, born from above, recipients of His grace and forgiveness. We must demonstrate what salvation in Christ looks like.

It is time for the church to own up to our part in a quest for a secure homeland here on earth by buying into worldly issues. We must repent of thinking the kingdom of God would come through Washington, Wall Street, or Madison Avenue and not from the King himself. We’ve traded His power for political power, His riches for man’s and we’ve traded looking good for His goodness. The list could go on and on.

We must embrace His kingdom and His righteousness. Once we have identified our alliance with the world we can humble ourselves and ask God to restore to us a sound mind, one not tarnished by Adam’s sin of independence, but one complicit with God’s mind and will.

The church is the only entity that can truly stand outside of politics and draw on God’s wisdom, not to make life easy for the rest of the world, but to right wrongs and take a stand for righteousness. The church can lead the way back to godly character and virtue, but it must do so by example, not “christian-speak.”

Character, virtue and the transcendent values of Christ are what’s needed today. This is our Christian witness that is on the line. History will ask, “Where were the Christians?” If we don’t act our legacy will be undone. Listen, even the world recognizes the financial problems are the result of greed. We ought not be hesitant to establish that greed is the problem and provide the resolution for greed. Greed and its accompanying power have brought us to this place. We ought to promote and argue for the transcendent values of the King of kings. One thing is certain: it is not the time for the church to be silent.

This financial crisis may be the undoing of America. Who knows? The ramifications of the crisis may reach to hitherto parts unknown. It will take months to see the effects of any legislation. God only knows where this all goes. The question is: Where is the church? Where are its leaders? Why isn’t the church crying out against the greed on Wall Street, the mismanagement of Washington, and the seductive lure of Madison Avenue? Is it because it too has lost the transcendental values of godly character and virtue?

On the other hand, this financial crisis may pass and America will regain its stride in world economy. Will the church stay asleep? Will it continue to embrace a worldly mindset on finances and legislation? Or, will it rise to God’s leading and embrace the kingdom its been born into? This, remains to be seen.

No Place for Truth in Politics

America tuned in to the “Vice-Presidential” debates with differing interests. Some wanted to see Sarah Palin blunder. Others are enamored with her “down-home” communication style. She seems like a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stuffy presidential race. Palin’s “Say-it-ain’t-so-Joe” repose connected with many people.

Joe Biden came across relaxed and factual. The camera caught him a few times looking admiringly at Palin. At least, that’s how I saw it. Both candidates seemed to respect each other which seemed to set a different tone.

What is concerning about debates is the lack of truth in the arguments presented. And this is represented by both sides. If a person doesn’t do his/her homework you wouldn’t know what or who to believe as there is no place for truth in these debates. What you do find is misrepresentation, misquotes, and characterizations that are less than honest and outright lies. Many may not like it, but both sides employ all of these.

There are several web sites you can visit to ascertain whether what is being said is accurate or not. www.factcheck.org is one such site. Another is http://www.politifact.com. Both sites check out campaign ads and comments by politicians. This is worth your time if you want to vote intelligently.

What is further concerning here is the loss of true debate skills and honest presentation of truth. Once again, this is all about image. Unfortunately, it is not just making yourself look good, but making the other guy look bad. This is not uncovering truth, but in many ways creating illusions. Well maybe worse - it is lying.

Ironically after this debate, both sides were happy their candidate didn’t commit any “gaffes.” Is it just me or is something really out of whack here? The candidates purposely misrepresent the facts, i.e., they lie, but we’re happy they didn’t say anything stupid. This is one of the reasons why I really don’t like politics - too much lying. Then again, any lying is too much.

There is no place for truth in politics and I struggle to come up with a vote for someone I think is right. It is really more that I don’t want to vote for the one who is worse, in my opinion. My prophetic edge gets restless with this process. I’m put off by people who speak about their candidates as if they are pure and going to get things done for the good of the people. One side is always claiming how right they are and how the others are “stealing” the election, as if one side is holy and the other is not.

The church is called the “pillar and support of truth.” That ought to mean something to us who are the church. We ought to oppose anyone who shows disdain for the truth and call them to cling to truth. I know, you think I’m naive. Politicians have been doing this forever. However, that doesn’t mean we ought to capitulate to their lack of commitment to the truth or their outright dismissal of facts. Be the church - stand for truth.

Thomas Aquinas proposed that democracy is not a good way to govern. He suggested that although it wouldn’t intentionally legislate evil, it would have difficult time doing good. Few know that Thomas is responsible for many things we today take for granted. His view of “natural law” upon which Jefferson relied when he penned the Declaration, is substantial. The Catholic view of birth control is also based on Thomas, and not what people generally attribute to it.

Presently, we see Congress wrestling with how to bail out the struggling economy. One of the things it wants to do is put in place more checks and balances. This means more laws which means more bureaucracy. This, by the way, is another of Thomas’ points about democracy. He didn’t believe it gets much done. 

Putting Thomas aside for now, we are seeing the devolution of our society. The financial crisis America finds itself in has been coming at us for quite some time. No, I’m not going to point to the time when the Bible was allowed in public schools, although I could make some strong arguments correlating the two. Neither am I going to mention when prayer was taken out of schools, ditto. The argument I’ll make is the loss of character.

Virtue would be a better way of expressing it, but that too has gone by the way. In colloquial language, virtue has been hi-jacked. Actually, language has been hi-jacked, but that’s another blog. Virtue isn’t even a word we could consider today because we don’t know what it means. So we use the word “character” and hope we connect with its similarities. 

Everyone is afraid to speak about character because we know that as soon as we bring it up our character will come under scrutiny. It’s sort of like junior high school where we were reduced to the lowest common denominator because no one had the nerve to take a stand on something, anything. You know, something was going down wrong but you knew if you said something about it someone else would jump on you. Maybe it was just me.

Put together a system of government where things move slower than snails across sandpaper and the lack of virtue, you have a perfect place for legislation ad nauseam. Congress says they want debate on issues and not to rubber stamp anything just for results. They make it sound like they really care about doing the right thing. What they’re really worried about is doing something wrong and costing them an election. Sorry, my cynicism is showing.

Today we need more external laws to govern because there is no internal compass. In the mind of keen thinkers, this is the loss of transcendent values. It is the loss of an absolute being who makes absolute laws that are written on our hearts. Losing the transcendental means we become the final architect of beliefs and values. By some, this is called “progressive.” The idea is that we have progressed from the traditional values, as if they were arbitrarily agreed upon! This is ignorance of natural law and transcendental reality. Or, it’s the suppressing truth in unrighteousness.

When we lose the transcendent we lose the objective voice, the guiding eye, the wisdom from above. We look to the “natural” to speak to us. Not the natural law, but nature itself and that’s a huge difference. Our feelings become the most important thing about us. We begin to judge based on our feelings that are disguised in “I think.” What we really mean is, “This feels good to me.”

The loss of character began to happen around the same time words were lost to images. The turn of the 20th Century saw the advent of some of the first images in advertising. Wit gave way to image. “Turning a phrase” gave way to “posing for pictures.” The mind began to leap frog over thought loosing the imagination to processes that supplied images instead. Shadow overcame substance. How something appeared took the place of how good something actually is. Images move us emotionally not mentally. The mind doesn’t process images rationally; it accepts them without stopping to take a look at the message they convey. The impact of images is instant; they immediately evoke feelings.

And so, the 20th Century began its descent into the world of image and feelings rather than character and content. Principles lost to preferences. The major event was the assassination of character, no one’s in particular, but character in general. Slowly we saw the imposition of images, so much so that today it is estimated that over all the airwaves, in all the print media, and the internet the average American could be exposed to 60,000 images a day. No wonder our minds are soft and our feelings are exacerbated. This is the frog being boiled in the frying pan. You know the anecdote, don’t you?

If you throw a frog into boiling water - he jumps out. However, if you put him in cold water and slowly heat the water until it boils . . . You’ve got boiled frog! So it has happened with the loss of character to image. 

The measure of a man’s worth is not in his character, what virtues he possesses, but how he comes across. Can we imagine him in a position? Of course the loss of character is the loss of honesty, a basic virtue. Once, fiduciaries were supposed to be among the most honest men around. The crisis we face today in our financial industry is because character has been laid aside, virtue dishonored. There is no moral compass to point the way, instead we legislate. And, we legislate because men are not honest. Our problem is that we deny the One who could guide us with his eternal law.

Our country begins to question the wisdom of our past decisions and like a pot on a low flame the contents begin to bubble up. We see the mistakes, but don’t know how the decisions were made. Common sense tells us better - but common sense was disregarded for new aspirations. Greed drove the markets, banks, and corporations. Once character didn’t matter, anything goes. We’re now living in the cumulative result of greed and the lack of character.

What we need is a return to the transcendentals. Better, we need to turn to the transcendental One. Is there a way back? Can we regain the ground and transform our culture. Well, yes. There is hope in the God of hope. However, it is not solved in committee meetings, board rooms, or elections. It is winning one person at a time to a worldview that is seen through the lens of Scripture and of course, to Jesus.

The recapturing of character is not expressed in mega-churches, pithy sayings, good rhetoric, or any of these ploys. It begins with us as individuals by living out the truth we know. It is by making a stand for righteousness where we see unrighteousness prevailing. It is finding the issues that are important to God, like the protection of the innocent, the plight of the poor among us and worldwide, and the inequities of our systems. And, then it is doing something about it. Get involved, help out for Jesus’ sake.

Young people today believe the church is hypocritical because we say this but do that. They’ve got a good case. Their indictment is that we’ve dropped the ball concerning the poor, war, and economics. We’ve got to listen to their accusations. They’re tempted to abandon Christianity and either go completely off the track or politicize their faith because they don’t see it working out in our context. They’re just one group that has found fault.

Finding fault doesn’t mean they’re right or spiritual. Finding fault doesn’t take any great gift. Solutions are what we need - Godly solutions. For now, I’ll leave it there.

Can We Be Truly Objective?:  Or is everything we say nuanced?

“Ray, isn’t what you are saying nuanced by your prejudice?” I fired back, “Is your question nuanced by your prejudice?” The question posed to me challenged whether I could be objective about the issue we discussed. In fact, it insinuated I could not be objective because of my history, education, experience, emotions, etc. And, it also insinuated that if it was nuanced, I couldn’t be right.

First, the idea that just because I’m nuanced doesn’t mean I’m wrong. This is one of the extreme leanings of postmodernism’s effects on language. Sure everyone speaks out of their lifes’ makeup. It doesn’t follow that if that is the case, it means they’re wrong. If it were the case, then no one could ever say anything. Anytime you didn’t like what someone said, all you had to do is say, “Isn’t that nuanced?” (Okay, I’ll stop italicizing “nuanced.”) That would be the trump card in every discussion. I also know, the postmodern isn’t concerned about being right, but the “conversation.” This is an ideal never accomplished, at least not in my conversations. Postmoderns, at least some,  I’ve conversed with have gone to tears trying to justify their position.

I'll let you in on a secret: I sometimes feel like I’m listening or reading a script out of “Through the Looking Glass” when I eavesdrop on postmodern discussions, whether spoken or blogged. “Nonsense!” I want to cry out. However, I’d be accused of nuancing. 

Think about it, how could anyone write anything? Or, say anything? Everything is nuanced by a person’s life. However, that doesn’t mean nothing is objective. Where postmodernism fails miserably is understanding the role of reason. To be fair the postmoderns reaction to reason is not unfounded, just overdone. Postmoderns reject the modernist’s view that reason can discover and define everything exactly as it is. Everyone ought to reject that view. Modernism rejected God and revelation and exalted mankind to the throne of the Universe. “Reason” was determined to be the tool of modernism for finding complete answers to everything. Whether it was mathematics or science, reason is king to the modernist.

However, because reason was/is wrongly used doesn’t mean it can’t be used for it’s correct purpose. Allow me to illustrate. 

Once I drove up to my house to see my wife and another young woman attempting to trim the bushes with a chain saw. I know, men are picturing human limbs flying - not a pretty picture. As calmly as I could I walked up to them and requested the chain saw be turned off. I explained that chain saws were not meant to be used for trimming bushes but for cutting trees down and trimming large branches. They explained that they had cut the cord on the hedge trimmer (by accident) and resorted to the chain saw. That’s another story.

The fact that the chainsaw was shut off doesn’t mean it was never to be used again (except for my wife). It was and has been used for its designed purpose. So it is with reason, logic and rhetoric.

Postmodernism’s reaction to reason has been extreme. It rejects propositions out of hand. What postmodernists don’t realize is that they must use propositions to reject propositions. In order to reject propositions they must say, “Propositions are not right.” Or, “Propositions are not necessary for understanding anything.” Both of those statements are themselves propositions. Postmoderns must rethink their reactions. 

 Also postmoderns use reason, logic and rhetoric to promote their arguments for postmodernism. They logically explain postmodernism reasonably. By the way, this doesn’t mean postmodernism is correct. Facts and truths have to also be proven reasonably.

When these inconsistencies are pointed out, my experience with postmoderns is they contradict themselves. Unfortunately, some postmoderns are happy with the contradiction. That’s when I begin to feel like Alice having gone “through the looking glass.” Conversations are not going to go anywhere.

So, my point for this is, “Can we be objective about anything?” Can we make decisions, observations that are not nuanced by our lives. The postmodern would say, “no.” All truth claims are nuanced! However, I object!

First, let’s separate preferences from convictions. I prefer certain things. I like red tomato sauce on my pasta, not cream sauce. I don’t think one is better than the other and at times have enjoyed a northern Italian cream sauce on pasta. My preference however is tomato sauce (gravy as we call it). Is one better than the other? No, it is a matter of preference. I was raised eating pasta (macaroni) at least twice a week with red tomato sauce. Naturally, I prefer it.

Convictions on the other hand are deep seated beliefs that are commitments to more than a lifestyle of preferences. Convictions are the bedrock of our lives. Convictions ought to be arrived at after careful consideration of facts. After all, they’re going to affect my life’s direction, choices, and future landing place. I make my decisions out of my convictions. One of my convictions is that since God hates divorce, so do I. Divorce is not an option in my marriage. Therefor I’m committed to my conviction about marriage. This is not nuanced, it is a conviction based on revelation from God’s word.

Actually, declaring that everything is nuanced is a non-starter. In fact, it can be irrelevant. Consider Apollos in the Book of Acts, Chapter 18. Apollos was preaching Jesus accurately (vs 25) but only according to the baptism of John. Priscilla and Aquila heard of him and explained to him the Word of God more accurately.” (vs 26) [My emphasis] Could Apollos have said, “Is that nuanced for your life and experience?” Sure he could have but it would have been stupid. Aquila and Priscilla “explained” to him a more accurate way. He saw where he needed correction and received it. I must add, it was based on the facts.

When postmoderns reduce facts to nuance they deconstruct true meaning and therefor end up with a subjective piece of information. The truth be told, we can all change our convictions when confronted with different facts, read “truths.” Reality tells us we move from one conviction to another when we learn our previous set of convictions need adjusting or scrapping altogether.

Was slavery nuanced? The idea that all men are created equal can be dismissed as nuanced according to postmodern thought. My point is that because we are reasonable beings we can stand back from our subjective experience and see truth for what it is. Does that mean we’ll always be 100% right? No. We still run the risk of judging incorrectly for a variety of reasons. However, trying to put another fallible decision making process in place is not right either. In fact, it has the potential of being wrong most of the time.

Popular postmodernism, as compared with philosophical postmodernism, doesn’t know from whence it came. Language, says the philosophical postmodern, is restrictive. Language reflects nothing in reality, but is nominally assigned by us. That is, we give names to things without reference to anything. What is understood by this is that there are no transcendent anythings. We have William of Ocham to thank for this way back in the 14th Century. He introduced the idea of “nominalism” to the philosophical world. Actually, he reintroduced it after it had been trashed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas also trashed nominalism just a century before. Nominalism declares there are no transcendent ideas about anything therefor nothing is objective therefor neither can anything be objectively known.

Postmoderns propose that things can only be known subjectively, through my nuanced view of life and reality. Secular postmoderns actually say we create reality with our words, our language. Any Christian postmodern who ascribes to this rejects the truth of Scripture. Some unwittingly do buy into this. The idea that there are no transcendent truths is contrary to Scripture.

Okay, so we’re getting complicated, well maybe just complexed. It doesn’t follow that because I am nuanced by my experience I cannot know truth objectively. In fact, if I can’t know truth objectively nothing I know is worth anything to anyone but me. If God cannot reach me with transcendent truth I am doomed, so are you. 

Fortunately, this is not the case. Jesus stated, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31b,32) [My emphasis] Jesus gave hope to those had believed in Him saying if they continue in His word, they would be his true disciples and they would know the truth and the truth would make them free. Were Jesus’ words nuanced? I don’t think so. I believe he spoke objectively about the truth and that those Jews who believed in him would rise above their nuanced lives and make decisions based on new convictions they would arrive at. It would change their lives.

Let me go back to the slavery issue. Slavery brought economic prosperity and stability to the South. Southerners were taught and believed Africans to be inferior, not just educationally but in essence - they were not fully human. This is what justified the South’s practice of slavery. If the truth that all men are created equal were not transcendent, objective, slavery could be justified. Let’s go one better - the equality of man is based on the Scripture that we are all created not just equal, but our equality is based on the fact we are made in the image of God. It has taken centuries for some to change their conviction, but freedom for all men is defended on one premise - a transcendent truth and truth triumphs.

Nuancing is another name for relativism. Relativism is not bad when I’m choosing pasta sauces - my preferences. However, when I’m choosing convictions I want to know the truth. According to Jesus, the truth is in His word and knowable if I make my home there.

Let’s sum up: Nuance is not an argument. Basing my convictions on fact and truth are more than possible; they are necessary. Even though I am affected by my life I can still stand outside of it and make objective choices. Especially when Jesus is the light of my life and is the light by which we see our way clear. Seeing Jesus clearly is crucial and that my friend, is another writing.

The idea that we are trapped by words in our own lives is depressing. God gave us reason and logic as tools to decide for Him. Think about the implications of thinking freely and choosing freely. Then think about the restrictions that the idea of nuancing delivers to us. Can you think objectively about it?

Rick Warren has risen to national and international popularity as Pastor of Saddleback church and his “Purpose Driven” books. Last week he interviewed both presidential candidates and that interview was “aired” on national news programs. In reviewing the interview I was troubled, as many were, with Barak Obama’s response to the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Many people focused in on his statement that the answer is “above his pay grade.” That is troubling enough, but his next statement is even more troubling. Wanting to give him a fair shake, I watched the interview several times to get his full answer. The more you review his answers, watch his body language and then summarize them together - it doesn’t look good.

He stated he is “pro-choice, and does believe in Roe Vs Wade,” and didn’t come to that decision lightly. First he stated that this a “moral and ethical issue,” which didn’t really reveal anything. He mentioned he came to his decision, [stated above] not because he is pro-abortion, but because women don’t come to the decision of abortion casually, but come to this decision in profound ways (?!) in consultation with their pastors, spouses, doctors and family members. He then stated that we need to find ways to limit the amount of abortions. My question would be “Why?” If it is okay to have an abortion after you consider it in profound ways, why limit them? Isn’t it ethical to do so after struggling with the choice?

Then when asked has he ever done anything by way of voting in order to limit abortions he stated, “I am in favor of limits of late term abortions if there is a provision for women’s safety.” Dodging the question, equivocating on abortion, this is a planned stepping stone. Not a good one, but a planned response.

What is troubling about Obama’s responses is not only that he was visibly uncomfortable with the questions, but it is clear he doesn’t know how to make an ethical decision. I state this because the question posed to him was “At what point does a baby get human rights?” and he then went on to give an answer that because women struggle with getting an abortion and do so in profound ways, it’s perfectly okay for them to have an abortion. He never suggested how consultation with your pastor, spouse, doctor, and family is profound. He begged the question concerning that. But he did come out and reveal he believes it is more ethical for a woman to have an abortion because they struggle with the decision than to afford an unborn child human rights.

In other words, what Obama said is that it is more ethical to consult profoundly and then  decide to kill your unborn child than to afford that unborn child human rights, the right to life. This is unsound reasoning; in fact it is irrational. Unless of course, he was answering the question that he doesn’t believe the unborn have human rights. 

Let me state plainly, I believe abortion is murder as it is the willful taking (killing) of innocent human life. That is the definition of murder. The unborn are unprotected by the law of our land according to Roe Vs Wade. Obama then tried to sling some mud on President Bush by saying that he (Obama) is for limiting abortion, something that hasn’t happened under a pro-life president. The answer to that is simple: It is still legal to murder unborn children and members of congress have done nothing to change that. Because we have a “pro-life” president doesn’t mean people will choose to have fewer abortions. As I understand the legal process, the president doesn’t propose legislative action, congress does. 

In making an ethical choice one must choose the higher road and the protection of innocent human life is higher than the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy. In this case, profound consultation ought to consider the unborn human within the womb who cannot defend nor speak for himself.

 If Obama cannot make the simple distinction in this ethical decision, how will he fare in other difficult ethical distinctions?

So, when considering what a president should do in having to make ethical decisions, remember that Mr. Obama failed this one. He attempted to put a new twist on pro-abortion positions, but only landed on the same ground. He supported his parties’ position. This is troubling no matter how you look at it.

I recently read Al Mohler’s blog concerning an article he’d read on politics and extra-marital affairs. He was referring to John Edwards’ adulterous affair with a campaign worker. So, according to proper training, “never use anything but a primary source,” I had to go read the article. Happens it’s from Psychology Today’s blog. It was about how we need to get over sexual sins committed by politicians.

In fact, the article’s author, Prof. Roy F. Baumeister, suggests we’ll “widen the pool” of politicians if we allow them to have “extra-marital affairs.” To be fair to Professor Baumeister, he claims to be an “evolutionary psychologist,” and from his persuasion it is perfectly normal for politicians to look for these “extra-marital affairs.” In fact, (again) he says that men who are attracted to politics have a greater amount of testosterone and that’s what brought them to politics, and the affair.

But take heart, Roy (Prof. Baumeister) really wants to help the American public:

My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office.

And,

The best hope to do this, I believe, is to enlarge the pool of qualified candidates. One good way to do this would be to stop disqualifying people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with governing.

Put simply, there is probably a limited supply of people who are willing to go through all the risk, stress, and hassle required to seek major public office. The ones who will govern well is a subset of those. If we lose some of those good ones because they had extramarital sex, our chances of getting good government are further reduced.

Is it just me or does Roy think that extra-marital sex is okay? Well, as an evolutionary psychologist he, of course, doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with adultery. In fact, he wouldn’t use the term. As evolving human animals having an extra dose of testosterone just means we’ll have more than one sex partner. Part of his proof is to go to the “polls” that tell us half of all married men admit to adultery. Actually, they wouldn’t phrase it that way. They’d say they’d had an affair. Adultery is judgmental and passe. But Roy really exposes the extremity of his ideas when he states this:

Indeed, part of the attraction of a political career, at least for some men, may be the promise of more women to bed. Evolutionary data back this up. Linda Betzig's research on powerful men throughout history found that they often had many sex partners and many children. To an evolutionary psychologist, that is the pudding in which lies the proof, the goal lurking behind all other behavior. To chuck men out of office for having multiple sex partners is thus a quixotic, paradoxical quirk of modern society, for whether they realize it or not, many men are drawn to seek that office in the first place by the sexual dimension of political ambition. It would be a bit like disqualifying swimming champions because they like to get their hair wet. 

The drive for political career, for some men, is more women. News flash! We thought the draw was public service. “The goal lurking behind all other behavior?” I’m sorry; I must be from another planet. Roy then follows this statement with more poor logic skills by stating that powerful men throughout history have had multiple partners and many children. (My apologies for drooling on the keyboard. There’s just too many things to go after here.) This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow. Just because the sun rises after the rooster crows doesn’t mean the rooster made the sun rise. It just might be that the unguarded morals of a man in power make him think he has the right to adultery because of his position.

Roy doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with being unfaithful either. He thinks that this is part of life. I must quote Roy at length because without reading the direct quote you wouldn’t believe I’m being fair to him. 

I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. [What a great refutation!] A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.

So, for Roy a person’s character would be impugned for missing a few of say his gas bills, but not by being unfaithful to his wife. That is, the vows he made to his wife on their wedding day are null and void when his testosterone is pumping; and that's okay. Would it be okay if his wife was aware of his promiscuity? I wonder if it’s okay with Roy for politicians to break their word for anything, or is it just okay for adulterous relationships? Is it okay if they lied about paying their bills on time?

The key word’s Roy used to identify himself were “evolutionary psychologist” and that’s where the differences (absurdities) lay. Baumeister is an evolutionist and has no basis or grounds for morals and believes all morals are social constructs, that is, constructed by society. There are no absolute moral standards according to evolutionists who happen to be naturalists. So, he sees this as perfectly normal and has no qualms about espousing his morality, or lack of it. In fact, he’s trying to impose his morality on the rest of us.

[You may think I’m a bit cheeky by calling Prof. Baumeister, “Roy,” but I’ve read this article so many times I feel we’re on a first name basis.]

So, the point of Roy’s article is that we are hurting ourselves by judging men who commit adultery because they’re wired that way. Therefore we ought not be judging them; it’s only natural for them to have “unsanctioned sex.” The way we’re hurting ourselves is because when we judge these people we’re narrowing the pool from which we can draw our leaders. Look how well Europe is doing.

Baumeister’s logic is pathetic. His one “statistic” doesn’t prove anything and how it is presented makes any true logician roll their eyes. Anyone who understands ethics would grimace at his observations and conclusions. Finally, any moralist would know this “ain’t the way it is.”

An article such as this shows how wide a gap there is between what Christianity purports and where the world is and where it is going. In the gap are the untold numbers of society looking for what is right. Sadly, the “educated” are leading down the slippery slope without any restraints. Heck, they’re wearing skiis down this greased slope.

On the other hand, those that represent the Christian message ought to stand for what is morally and ethically correct. This sort of gap continues to widen as the natural evolutionist determine to call themselves the intelligent voice of reason. We ought to take this seriously as the moral slide in the West affects more and more of our lives.

Become informed. Pay the price of understanding the times from a biblical point of view. Take a stand. Get involved in your church to help present a authentically biblical view of reality. Follow Jesus. Be the salt and light God has made us to be. 

Okay, let’s take a closer look at who Roy is. Well here’s the blurb off the web site:

Roy F. Baumeister is Eppes Eminent Scholar, Professor of Psychology, and head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University.

For those who want to read the article for themselves here’s the url:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200808/sex-and-politicians

The fact that they were women who first found Jesus is important because the testimony of women in First Century Judea, was not acceptable. If the disciples were going to falsify this account they would not have chosen women as the first eyewitnesses. There is mild support for this from the disciples' response. When the women reported to them what they had seen, the disciples considered it as "nonsense."(vs. 11)

There is another important item in this account. When the women saw the angels and bowed their faces to the ground, the angels said, "Why do you seek the Living One among the dead? He is not here, but he has risen." Then they say something startling, "Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (vs 26, 27) This is startling because it infers that these women were privy to information only the disciples are credited with. These women were in on the private teachings of Jesus.

Luke, as in the other gospels attributes the discovery of the empty tomb to women, but goes further. It appears Luke relied on the women to recall their eyewitness testimony. One other supporting fact would be the rememberence of how the women waited for the Sabbath to pass before they went to the tomb. After seeing where the body was laid, they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. (23:55) The it says, "And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment." (vs. 56) This is not an insignificant recollection. It testifies that Luke relied on these women as others probably wouldn't recall this detail.

Ususally, at this time of year there's a flood of articles, programs and films trying to discredit the life of Jesus, especially the Resurrection. (This year seems to be an exception.) What always amazes me is how little time is ever spent looking over the text in the gospels. The assumption is that the Bible, especially the gospels is not reliable as a credible source. However, when you survey the accounts of Scripture, understand the authority of eyewitness testimony, and look at the trajectory of history you come away with a completley different conclusion. The word of the angels at the tomb spoken to the women ought to be heard by those whose attempts continue in vain. "Why do you seek the Living One among the dead. He is not here, but he has risen."

So, let's define what an argument is to help us grasp it:

"An argument is a group of statements (sentences or clauses), either within one larger sentence or within a group of grammatically distinct sentences, such that one or more of the statements are said to ‘support,' ‘prove,' or ‘provide evidence for' one other statement. The statement that is supported, proven, or for which evidence is provided is called the conclusion. There is one and only one conclusion for each argument."

One conclusion per argument means that the issue is declared in a statement or a question. What then makes it an argument is that reasons are given to support the conclusion. Begin to listen to TV debates where an issue is discussed. You will be amazed at how the issue will become blurred, the opponents sidetracked, and supportive reasons totally ignored. This is how TV will make you stupid. Also, watch commercials and decide what the "real" issue is they're trying to sell you. Few commercials support their products and make unsustainable comments about their wares. This is the first step in thinking critically - understanding argument.
So argument has a conclusion and reasons to support it. In logic this is called premises and conclusion, and the argument most used to illustrate this is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.

Two premises support the conclusion Socrates is mortal.
Something that will help to ascertain an argument is understanding the difference between a topic and an issue. A topic becomes an issue when questions arise about it. Abortion is a topic until a question is posed about it: "Should abortion be legal?" Now, it is an issue. "Is abortion murder?" Or, we could ask the opposite about abortion. "Are anti-abortion forces invading the rights of women?"

The issue then becomes an argument when supportive reasons are given for it. For example, let's make the topic an issue by asking the question, Is abortion murder? The declarative sentence might be Abortion is murder, in response to the question. Then reasons must be given to support the statement for the argument to be valid. Abortion is murder because the embryo is an innocent human being. Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder. Therefore abortion is murder.
Logically the argument can be stated this way:

1. Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder.
2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
3. Abortion is murder.

Here you can see the two clear premises in 1 and 2. The conclusion is stated in 3. No one would contest the truth of 1. It is in the second premise that another issue arises, the issue of whether the unborn embryo is in fact a human being. So, the issue becomes Is the unborn embryo a human being?

Listening to a debate on this issue rarely solves anything for anyone. The reason is that the argument gets lost in other issues, and most people are unaware of what has happened. If someone were to ask me whether I am opposed to a woman's right to privacy, I would answer "no" in most cases. However, I would ask some other questions before I could answer honestly. The issue is often presented in the light of abortion. The statement "A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body" is the conclusion usually given in the abortion debate. This is her right to privacy. However, there aren't many supportive arguments for this conclusion - especially when there is an unborn human being within her womb. So, when you listen to an abortion debate, you can listen with enlightened minds to hear what it is that is actually being contested.

Unfortunately, this argument about abortion becomes too emotionally debated, and it seems that no one can make his or her argument make sense.

Argument is necessary to weed out the bad ideas or, as the Bible says, "speculations raised up against the knowledge of God." (2 Cor 10:5) Today, there are many ideas, assertions that are against the knowledge of God. Without understanding argument, we will allow these ideas to sneak easily into our thought patterns and take us captive.

The other perhaps more insidious aspect of this is how (and why) the media makes celebrities. The woman in question's first comment was that she didn't want to be known as a "monster." The media gladly obliged and told her poor girl story of being a run-a-way, hook on drugs, and subsequent fall into prostitution where she took advantage of her good looks and old men's stupidity. She made quite a life for herself selling her body and remaining dignity.

The irony of this story is that although she may be Spitzer's last fling, she was by no means the first, not all the ones in between either. She just happened to be the one that was there when the bust came down, and wallah - stardom. What about prosecution?

But wait, this is not what gets you to watch TV or read the rags. Those who direct the media knows what it takes to get you to keep tuning in. The poor girl story and suggestive photos will get you interested to know where she came from and the kind of life she's lived. The information garnered from this will do nothing to help you live your life today. It's not even entertaining. What it reveals is our culture's obsession with gossip in the form of "you have a right to know."

Personally, I believe you have a right to learn, not just facts but how to think. I believe that's the original intent of education. However, the media much more enjoys the "right to know" idea because it plays on people's ignorance as we chase after unusable facts. After all, this is how media survives and makes money. It must stay in control to keep you tuning in so they can continue to charge huge amounts of money for sponsors.

Here's my suggestion: find a source of information that actually helps you make the right choices when you need to make important decisions. You'll be amazed at how life changes.

Because of my inquisitive nature I googled Dengler and tracked down a couple of Youtube shorts. I also found out that Dengler died of ALS recently. What was surprising was that Dengler was flying an Observation Aircraft when he was shot down. What made this somewhat disconcerting is that the movie portrayed him flying a "Skyraider" which is a WW2 vintage fighter/bomber. Why filmakers feel compelled to remake movies according to thier own imagination always amazes me. One would think that portraying the story as close as possible would be true art. However Hollywood sees it differently.

Take the case of Jeremiah Johnson. Johnson was a real mountain man who actually left civilization to live in the far reaches of the Rocky Mountains. However, the filmakers took considerable liberty to make Johnson a likeable character. In reality, Johnson's nick name was "Liver Eating Johnson" because after he killed his hated foe, he ate their liver. This would not make for an appetizing film, so Hollywood distorts, creates, or twists the facts to suit its end.

I believe the real issue is that everything that comes across the screen is an illusion, not reality. Video creates an unreal environment. Not even "Reality TV" is real. It is anything but real as it is altered and modified to fit what the directors and producers want to portray.

Although, I enjoy films and some TV shows as entertainment, I've learned how to watch it. Even the way I watch the news is through personal censorship. I'm aware that what I am viewing is selected material presented in a way to makes me keep watching. After all, TV is about ratings. Live TV will talk about "teasers" that may or may not deliver what they promise. It is, after all, just an advertisement to keep you watching.

I'm not against TV. I still believe it can a useful tool. However, it is used to sell . . . anything and everything. It's used to sell goods, ideas, and people. Media is the most promininent influence on our culture. What's a person to do? Well, for one, stop believing everything you see on TV or in the movies. In every case it has been altered to fit someones idea of what will sell. Using the idea of "creativiity" directors, producers and writers take license to push their agenda.

What about Dengler? The man was a model of persistence and determination. For the most part the film, "Rescue Dawn" got it right. What it didn't get right was the type of plane he was flying and "Gene" on of the prisoners who escaped with Dengler. In the film, Gene is made out to be somewhat of an obstacle to escaping. Others would say that's not at all the case. The point is that reality was distorted to make "better" film making. That's the illusion.

I’ve not always believedwhat I now believe about transforming culture. There was a time I believed thechurch would make such a great impact on the culture it would turn to Christ.By “it” I mean the masses that participate in our western culture. I now havecome to the place of believing only God decides when a transformation occurslike the effect the Great Awakening caused. Transforming culture is notsomething God asks of the church unless it is under the umbrella of “love thyneighbor.” God’s plan is not pacifism, nor is it an aggressive military posturelike manifest destiny. I do believe in the “just war” approach to militaryconflict, but that’s a topic for another blog. Back to transforming culture . ..

It is in God’s plan for thechurch to love the people in the world not the stuff in the world. Love youneighbor is the way the church should proceed evangelistically.

Since studying apologeticsI’ve embrace new “tools” for evangelism. I still believe in the greatcommission, the mission of the church to reach the unsaved of the world andmaking disciples. As my years go by I become more astute of my time andresources so I focus more diligently on what I think needs to be done. So here’smy plan for really affecting culture, really.

I believe we need a newkind of missionary, one that will see the high school and college campuses asthe main US mission field. Here’s where Jesus is most needed and will have thegreatest affect. I still believe in confronting those who manufacture ideasthat are raised up against the knowledge of God. The university campus is thelaboratory and factory of such thoughts. And, there’s need to bring the battleto them.

But, what is needed morethan that, in my humble opinion, are those who will go among the collegestudents and share the message of Jesus. I know this is not popular, but it’swhat is needed. Students go to college to get their degree, which now onlyqualifies them for further degrees needed to make a decent living – anotherblog. College is the place where not only are ideas manufactured, but it’swhere these students are forming their plan for life. They’re looking for lifeto make sense and what they’re being told is that it doesn’t make sense. Bothpostmodernism and scientific naturalism give no hope for the future of mankind.Both have a “flat” view of morals and meaning. Another blog?!

What the church ought to bedoing is putting its resources into strengthening their young people to bemissionaries in this field. We ought to focus on the tools needed to equipthese young people for the war they’ll experience in measures they’ve neverdreamed of.

They need to be taught torely on the power of God to resist the plethora of temptations they’ll face andbe equipped to confront the arguments against the existence of God, thereliability of the Bible, moral relativism and militant Darwinism.

We must also move away fromthe “hip-shot” apologetics and teach the core of our beliefs. We must resistthe “pat answers” so often heard from popular pseudo apologists. We must firstunderstand the mind set of the secular world, investigate their gripes and formour answers from an enlightened intellect. Although space doesn’t afford us acomplete answer here – the point is we must focus on the students of ourculture and reach them with the message of Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

The new atheism has come from the world of scientific naturalism headed by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a prominent scientist from Oxford University and perhaps is best known for his book, The God Delusion. Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are the others who propound this new atheism. I call it new because it is not of the old style of atheism. This atheism is militant and purports to know it is right and anything to do with God or gods is wrong. Some go as far to say Americans ought to be embarrassed because we still believe in God. Dennett tells us that at one time it may have been necessary to believe in God in our evolution. However, where it would have once been beneficial to believe in God, it has now become dangerous to believe in God.

This and other statements make this form of evolution a concern for the church. Look for more articles and blogs on this as the days pass. 

First, let’s lay things out in a more apparent way.Mormonism began as a cult and has grown into a “folk-religion.” It may well bethat Mormonism is America’s folk-religion. When Joseph Smith received his“revelation” it was to announce that the church had altered the Scriptures, hadleft the religion of the apostles and prophets and that he was chosen torestore it. He was the undisputed leader of the new cult that broke away fromtraditional Christianity. Smith was an authoritarian leader that bandedtogether his followers who sought a place to carry out their new revelation.Mormonism refined its beliefs through the years, at least the ones that wereclearly offensive, like bigamy.

Some Christians were impressed that Romney declared that hebelieved Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior of mankind. This is veryChristian-like. However, Mormons have said that for a while. Jehovah witnesseswill say similar statements. What Mormons will not say is that Jesus Christ isGod’s unique Son. Nor will they say He is God, the Son. Mormons have alwaysasserted that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, but they do not believe that hedied for you personally. His redemption is kind of a corporate redemption thatis only available to those who walk the Mormon path. They also believe that Jesuswas pre-existent as a “spirit baby” and the brother of Lucifer. We don’t havespace to go into the “special under garments” nor the need to get married inthe Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Mormons do have some different beliefsthan orthodox Christians.

It’s amazing what some Christians will accept. To many thestatements Romney made sounded authentic. But, this is where the confusion lay.Because someone is a Mormon doesn’t make him a bad candidate for president.Nor, should it be the test whether he will be a good president. Mormons aremoral, for the most part. However, I can’t categorically say that any Christiancandidate will be moral either. If morality is the issue, we ought to make thatthe issue. There was a muddying of the waters in Romney’s speech that may pavethe way for him to become the Republican candidate. The problem will be if he’saccepted because of his allusion to Christian beliefs.

Romney’s hurdle is to garner support from the Christianvoters – he’s looking for the conservative right’s Christian voting block.Pundits like Pat Buchanan have given Romney’s speech high marks. But PatBuchanan is the poster child for Libertarian Christianity, not exactly thecenter of the stream. Buchanan aside, the other apologists have not have notsounded off. They’ll be others who criticize what he said, more than I have.

Here’s what Romney did in his speech. He alluded to apseudo-Christian faith in his statements about Jesus. He then picked up theargument of fighting the secular left. This was a smart move, very smart. Theknee-jerk Christians, whose faith has been politicized, will rally right behindhim. Not a bad political move, not at all.

Here’s the downside of it for Christianity: Romney becomes president and people look at Mormonism in a new light. Mormons can’t be thatbad, look at Mitt. Romney will secure Mormonism as America’s folk-religion.Mormonism is spiritual enough to satisfy many.

I know people will misunderstand my next statement. However,I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I don’t have a problem with Romneyrunning for president. Nor do I have a problem with him becoming president. Butplease, leave my Christianity alone. It’s muddy enough with all the press itgets. It’s muddy enough with the politicized mumbo jumbo of pundits who don’tunderstand the Scripture and use it for their own political prowess.

Aside from my own consternation about my faith, this oughtto be interesting to watch as it plays out. Romney’s ploy to talk about hisfaith will prompt a response from Mike Huckabee.  This ought to make things interesting, really interesting inthe coming months.