"I was." No, that isn't a misquote of the famous God "I Am" words. I'm talking about me. I'll explain the train of thought that took me to this post . . .
In my reading through the Bible I just finished Jeremiah and began Lamentations. I see so strongly the effect on a nation of turning from God, and the effect when God turns from a nation. I found myself in an internal back and forth that is too familiar to me, "God, have mercy on our nation. But if He does, then everyone will continue in their arrogant and successful life just as they are and will never come to Him. They need to be woken up. But, even 9/11 didn't do that. It only lasted for a bit." On and on that dialogue goes in me, back and forth. If God blesses this nation then everyone continues on just as they are, arrogantly assuming they or a nation are the source of their blessing. But even a true disaster only seems to send people running to God for a short time, until their lives are "blessed" again. I know, in my heart, that what our nation needs is for individuals in it to encounter the Holy Spirit and turn to Jesus. We will only truly change as a nation when the individuals in us change.
As I was thinking about our nation and its current condition I felt the familiar anger rise up. And then, suddenly, it hit me in a very powerful way. I was everything I am angered about in our nation today! I was intellectually proud, and I felt I was the one who could plot my life and make it a success. I was pro people being able to do what they wanted and not having other people tell them what to do—I remember arguing round and round with Mary Ann that prostitution should be legal because it was "their choice." I was pro abortion—not seeing a baby in the womb, but seeing only a women's body and others trying to tell her what to do with it (my perception). I thought I was a moral relativist, believing what was right for some was right for them, but it didn't mean it was right for others—that there was no absolute right and wrong across cultures. (In fact, a professor at West Point confronted me on my stand and it was a wake up moment for me. I write a lot about moral relativism in this blog, but I specifically mention that incident with my professor here, here, and here.) I mocked the Bible, God, and Christians (I flung profanity at a God I claimed I didn't believe in), and I believed in evolution and an old earth. On and on I could go, but I think the point is made. Everything that angers me today . . . I was.
And, as I look back, I realize that no law in the world could have changed me. In fact it would have angered me even more to have someone "shove" their beliefs onto my life in law (I am not arguing that laws shouldn't exist that reflect God's heart, just saying how it wouldn't have changed my heart, even if it forced my compliance). While laws have value—they regulate a society, they protect unborn and other defenseless, they model a moral code to youth—ultimately I don't believe they change a heart, and that is the only thing that changed me. God having mercy on me, an arrogant and blasphemous atheist, put Mary Ann and others into my life and the Holy Spirit drew me to Him and He changed me, from the inside. And that is, I believe, the only hope for our nation in the end—a personal encounter with Jesus by the ones who make up this nation. And then allowing Him to change our hearts into alignment with His. (Even God's Law wasn't an end in itself, it was a tutor or schoolmaster to reveal sin and point us to Jesus.)
I recognize that even among Christians not all agree on everything, but without that at least as a starting point I don't think a change is possible for us. He makes us new creations. He writes His law on our hearts. He teaches us truth. And that brings up then the question, what is my role in drawing people in this nation to Jesus, the ultimate changer of hearts? Because until He came into my heart and changed me, everything that bothers and grieves me today in others in this nation . . . I was.
Showing posts with label moral relativism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moral relativism. Show all posts
Friday, August 5, 2016
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Make No Mistake . . .
This post is long, but I believe it will be of value to you, as a Christian, as you process the course of our nation and seek to understand things through a Biblical perspective. I believe it will help you clarify the true issue at work. —Erick
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage we can not make the mistake of assuming that this is simply about marriage, or even the rights of homosexuals. It is a decision that will affect most Christian institutions, colleges, businesses, etc. It will be a decision that forever alters the fabric of our nation, and Christians in it who stand on Biblical principles and world view.
And, we can't make the mistake of seeing this as anything other than what it truly is—it is our nation's decision on what the very essence of its (our nation's) being will be. This is a decision that defines this nation at the core of what it is, and as such it carries a weight that is larger than we can fathom . . . and, unfortunately, is a battle it seems we've already lost.
As soon as this issue became defined as a civil rights issue it was lost to Christians who actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, written word to us, revealing Himself and His nature and heart. As a civil rights issue, as a fairness issue, I don't see people having a right to deny marriage to homosexuals—just as they wouldn't have a right to deny polygamy, or any other thing or type of marriage or lifestyle in the future that society may not embrace now but will embrace later as it gets more "tolerant" and more "progressive."
The thing is, this is not a civil rights issue, and as Christians we must understand this, as our resolve will fade eventually under the withering bombardment of being called small, hateful, intolerant, old-fashioned, fundamentalist, etc. This is not a civil rights issue, it is an issue at the very core of how we define right and wrong: Is there a God, above all, Who defines right and wrong, Who gives rights, and Whom we choose to submit to . . . or are right and wrong and rights something a majority or a legislative body or a court can decide and confer?
This question defines our nation. Our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This sentence, taken in part, could be used to argue for the right of homosexuals to be happy and marry. But it is not written in part, but in whole. These rights come from a Creator, therefore the Creator must be considered in them . . . and the Creator, the God of the Bible, has very specific things to say about what is right and what is wrong, and homosexuality is absolutely wrong in His eyes, therefore giving it legal blessing in marriage is only further going against our Creator. (Note: He also calls adultery, lying, fornication—sex outside marriage, etc., wrong, and the church is, sadly, inconsistent and much less vocal about these things, even in our own ranks.)
How we stand on this issue—and other values issues the Bible has something to say about—will define us individually and as a nation. The moment we leave the argument that God is God, and God is real, and the Bible is His written revelation, and He says something about the issue, we have entered the moral quicksand of morality being defined by the masses or a despot or a court. We have given morality over to legal briefs and influential people, and we have walked away from God.
Over and over in the Bible it talks about something being evil or good in the sight of the Lord. No matter what man thinks, what matters is how God sees something. That is all that matters. And whether our nation embraces that as the foundational truth of itself, or whether it rejects it, we as Christians can not leave that moral high ground and try and argue morality on "practical" levels or we have left the only rock of truth we have to stand on. And if our nation does go that way (and it seems it already has), we, as Christians, must be firm in why we believe what we believe. And that is why, I believe, God calls the church which is the body of Christ and His bride, a holy nation, His own special people, citizens of Heaven. We live in America, but our citizenship is the Kingdom of God. We are His, and that identity transcends lines on a map. We were His when America embraced Him as their foundation, and we are His when it turns from Him. We are His, and that is eternal, and He knows who are His and who are not, and He holds eternity in His hands.
This issue will write into law the future of our nation. It, like Roe vs. Wade, will absolutely solidify and codify that we, as a nation, have no regard for what God says is right or wrong. It will say, "We, as a nation, have risen above God, knowing right and wrong, and conferring rights on people." Whatever the court decides, we as God's children must know, He loves the lost and desires to draw all men to Him . . . and He will never leave or forsake His children, whether America a few decades from now loves Him, or whether we are living a persecuted minority.
A Side Note—But Important Note—On Genesis and All of This
If you've known me, or read this blog, any length of time you know that defending the first ten chapters or so of Genesis as a literal record of Creation and a global flood is a passion of mine. In these decisions our nation is wrestling with we are seeing one of the strongest evidences for that importance play out before our eyes.
If we discount those chapters as allegory—submitting them to "science" instead of submitting science to the Bible, we have begun down a slippery slope we can't recover from. The church in the early 1800s found this out. They collapsed on the age of the earth (inventing Day Age Theory, or Gap Theory, to try and reconcile "science" and the Bible) and then along comes Darwin and they've already, as the church, climbed into bed with the major requirement of Darwinian evolution—vast periods of time. Suddenly the church is left holding a bag with a hole in it. They've already embraced the unBiblical vast periods of time. They've already said a key component of Genesis is allegory . . . and so they had no leg to stand on arguing the creation of man in God's image from the start was literal.
When we embrace those things, putting "science" (I say that loosely since many brilliant scientists whose voices aren't heard embrace a literal reading of Genesis) above the Bible, we are then hypocrites to defend a virgin birth, a resurrection, angels and demons, a parting of a sea, a feeding of thousands from a few loaves and fish, the turning of water to wine, etc. Each of these are areas "science" has no room for, and we are inconsistent and hypocritical to fight for them as true when we've already let "science" define the Bible for us.
And so, down the slippery slope, the Bible becomes untrustworthy, and subject to man's interpretation and molding to fit man's "wisdom." Does anyone else see a correlation between a nation professing to be Christian but embracing values that the Bible clearly speaks out against? When we start to see the Bible as a childish book, not able to stand against the progressive wisdom and mind of man, then we really shouldn't be surprised when we give it no authority on moral issues as well. It is truly the next logical stage of descent off the high mountain of the Bible (hence God's) authority. Why, oh why, church, are we so surprised. We who've watered down the very book God gave us?
And . . . should it be any surprise to us, and could it underline the argument I am making any better, then to see the very side defending traditional marriage argue before the Supreme Court use evolutionary terms, ". . . the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution." (In fairness, he has made it clear the issue he was arguing is not about the definition of marriage, but if the people or the courts will decide it. Again . . . already lost . . . God is not even in that. He may be the reason the people—the states in court who are standing against homosexual marriage—voted against it, but whether or not their will stands is not about God, but about legality.)
Genesis does matter. Marriage hasn't "evolved," it is a God-ordained institution present in the first chapters of Genesis. It doesn't need to be defended on "practical" basis, it is what God has ordained and for us that is enough. And God has said certain lifestyles are wrong, and that should be enough for us as well. He is the only basis for the argument . . . and He is enough. For those who don't recognize that . . . those who may define much of our lives left here on earth . . . they will recognize it—on one side of the grave or the other.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage we can not make the mistake of assuming that this is simply about marriage, or even the rights of homosexuals. It is a decision that will affect most Christian institutions, colleges, businesses, etc. It will be a decision that forever alters the fabric of our nation, and Christians in it who stand on Biblical principles and world view.
And, we can't make the mistake of seeing this as anything other than what it truly is—it is our nation's decision on what the very essence of its (our nation's) being will be. This is a decision that defines this nation at the core of what it is, and as such it carries a weight that is larger than we can fathom . . . and, unfortunately, is a battle it seems we've already lost.
As soon as this issue became defined as a civil rights issue it was lost to Christians who actually believe the Bible is God's inspired, written word to us, revealing Himself and His nature and heart. As a civil rights issue, as a fairness issue, I don't see people having a right to deny marriage to homosexuals—just as they wouldn't have a right to deny polygamy, or any other thing or type of marriage or lifestyle in the future that society may not embrace now but will embrace later as it gets more "tolerant" and more "progressive."
The thing is, this is not a civil rights issue, and as Christians we must understand this, as our resolve will fade eventually under the withering bombardment of being called small, hateful, intolerant, old-fashioned, fundamentalist, etc. This is not a civil rights issue, it is an issue at the very core of how we define right and wrong: Is there a God, above all, Who defines right and wrong, Who gives rights, and Whom we choose to submit to . . . or are right and wrong and rights something a majority or a legislative body or a court can decide and confer?
This question defines our nation. Our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This sentence, taken in part, could be used to argue for the right of homosexuals to be happy and marry. But it is not written in part, but in whole. These rights come from a Creator, therefore the Creator must be considered in them . . . and the Creator, the God of the Bible, has very specific things to say about what is right and what is wrong, and homosexuality is absolutely wrong in His eyes, therefore giving it legal blessing in marriage is only further going against our Creator. (Note: He also calls adultery, lying, fornication—sex outside marriage, etc., wrong, and the church is, sadly, inconsistent and much less vocal about these things, even in our own ranks.)
How we stand on this issue—and other values issues the Bible has something to say about—will define us individually and as a nation. The moment we leave the argument that God is God, and God is real, and the Bible is His written revelation, and He says something about the issue, we have entered the moral quicksand of morality being defined by the masses or a despot or a court. We have given morality over to legal briefs and influential people, and we have walked away from God.
Over and over in the Bible it talks about something being evil or good in the sight of the Lord. No matter what man thinks, what matters is how God sees something. That is all that matters. And whether our nation embraces that as the foundational truth of itself, or whether it rejects it, we as Christians can not leave that moral high ground and try and argue morality on "practical" levels or we have left the only rock of truth we have to stand on. And if our nation does go that way (and it seems it already has), we, as Christians, must be firm in why we believe what we believe. And that is why, I believe, God calls the church which is the body of Christ and His bride, a holy nation, His own special people, citizens of Heaven. We live in America, but our citizenship is the Kingdom of God. We are His, and that identity transcends lines on a map. We were His when America embraced Him as their foundation, and we are His when it turns from Him. We are His, and that is eternal, and He knows who are His and who are not, and He holds eternity in His hands.
This issue will write into law the future of our nation. It, like Roe vs. Wade, will absolutely solidify and codify that we, as a nation, have no regard for what God says is right or wrong. It will say, "We, as a nation, have risen above God, knowing right and wrong, and conferring rights on people." Whatever the court decides, we as God's children must know, He loves the lost and desires to draw all men to Him . . . and He will never leave or forsake His children, whether America a few decades from now loves Him, or whether we are living a persecuted minority.
A Side Note—But Important Note—On Genesis and All of This
If you've known me, or read this blog, any length of time you know that defending the first ten chapters or so of Genesis as a literal record of Creation and a global flood is a passion of mine. In these decisions our nation is wrestling with we are seeing one of the strongest evidences for that importance play out before our eyes.
If we discount those chapters as allegory—submitting them to "science" instead of submitting science to the Bible, we have begun down a slippery slope we can't recover from. The church in the early 1800s found this out. They collapsed on the age of the earth (inventing Day Age Theory, or Gap Theory, to try and reconcile "science" and the Bible) and then along comes Darwin and they've already, as the church, climbed into bed with the major requirement of Darwinian evolution—vast periods of time. Suddenly the church is left holding a bag with a hole in it. They've already embraced the unBiblical vast periods of time. They've already said a key component of Genesis is allegory . . . and so they had no leg to stand on arguing the creation of man in God's image from the start was literal.
When we embrace those things, putting "science" (I say that loosely since many brilliant scientists whose voices aren't heard embrace a literal reading of Genesis) above the Bible, we are then hypocrites to defend a virgin birth, a resurrection, angels and demons, a parting of a sea, a feeding of thousands from a few loaves and fish, the turning of water to wine, etc. Each of these are areas "science" has no room for, and we are inconsistent and hypocritical to fight for them as true when we've already let "science" define the Bible for us.
And so, down the slippery slope, the Bible becomes untrustworthy, and subject to man's interpretation and molding to fit man's "wisdom." Does anyone else see a correlation between a nation professing to be Christian but embracing values that the Bible clearly speaks out against? When we start to see the Bible as a childish book, not able to stand against the progressive wisdom and mind of man, then we really shouldn't be surprised when we give it no authority on moral issues as well. It is truly the next logical stage of descent off the high mountain of the Bible (hence God's) authority. Why, oh why, church, are we so surprised. We who've watered down the very book God gave us?
And . . . should it be any surprise to us, and could it underline the argument I am making any better, then to see the very side defending traditional marriage argue before the Supreme Court use evolutionary terms, ". . . the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology. Now, imagine a world today where we had no marriage at all. Men and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn’t be attached to each other in any social institution." (In fairness, he has made it clear the issue he was arguing is not about the definition of marriage, but if the people or the courts will decide it. Again . . . already lost . . . God is not even in that. He may be the reason the people—the states in court who are standing against homosexual marriage—voted against it, but whether or not their will stands is not about God, but about legality.)
Genesis does matter. Marriage hasn't "evolved," it is a God-ordained institution present in the first chapters of Genesis. It doesn't need to be defended on "practical" basis, it is what God has ordained and for us that is enough. And God has said certain lifestyles are wrong, and that should be enough for us as well. He is the only basis for the argument . . . and He is enough. For those who don't recognize that . . . those who may define much of our lives left here on earth . . . they will recognize it—on one side of the grave or the other.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
"In the Sight of the Lord . . ."
I have been teaching in recent Sundays on ways we can evaluate who our audience is—whether we are living in the big picture (and in individual moments) for an Audience of One, or for an audience of someone(s) else. Maybe that is why this morning in my reading through the Bible it jumped out to me so much when I came to Judges 13:1 which says, "And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years" (ESV).
I thought, "in the sight of the Lord—that says it all. That is what (and all) that matters." I did a quick search in the ESV for that exact expression and found it occurs 71 times. My guess is that if you looked for slight variations you'd find that concept expressed many, many more times. Of the 71 it included many instance of doing what was wicked or evil in the sight of the Lord, as well as examples of things being "precious" in the sight of the Lord (a very appropriate one for today's news is Psalm 116:15 which says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints"), and multiple verses similar to Deuteronomy 6:18–19 which says:
I was struck that it didn't matter if the people of Israel thought what they were doing was fine. What mattered is how it was received in the sight of the Lord.
Evil in the sight of the Lord. Precious in the sight of the Lord. Good and right in the sight of the Lord. It should be very encouraging to us on many levels:
May we live this week secure in the love of our Father in Heaven, deeply aware of the Holy Spirit's presence with us, and living for an Audience of One. Blessings to all of you. Thanks for sharing in my life. —Erick
I thought, "in the sight of the Lord—that says it all. That is what (and all) that matters." I did a quick search in the ESV for that exact expression and found it occurs 71 times. My guess is that if you looked for slight variations you'd find that concept expressed many, many more times. Of the 71 it included many instance of doing what was wicked or evil in the sight of the Lord, as well as examples of things being "precious" in the sight of the Lord (a very appropriate one for today's news is Psalm 116:15 which says, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints"), and multiple verses similar to Deuteronomy 6:18–19 which says:
And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may go well with you, and that you may go in and take possession of the good land that the Lord swore to give to your fathers by thrusting out all your enemies from before you, as the Lord has promised.The common theme of all these is, ". . . in the sight of the Lord" and it takes me back to a theme I have blogged on repeatedly. If there is not some uniform absolute for right and wrong (or true or false) we will live in a moral quagmire of relativism in which "truth" has no meaning, in which what is right for some is not for others, in which values and good and bad change with the times. Absent of some absolute standard for right and wrong there is no moral basis that carries any weight for saying one person's actions are right and another's wrong.
I was struck that it didn't matter if the people of Israel thought what they were doing was fine. What mattered is how it was received in the sight of the Lord.
Evil in the sight of the Lord. Precious in the sight of the Lord. Good and right in the sight of the Lord. It should be very encouraging to us on many levels:
- It must mean God is watching us! He is present with us. He sees and knows our life! He is not a distant, deistic God who set it in motion then sits back uninvolved. He is active and involved in our lives. Praise Him for that! "I will never leave you or forsake you."
- When we realize only one audience matters it helps us realize the futility and foolishness of living for other audiences.
- Here is a huge one for Christians in this culture today: When we declare something right or wrong (or true or false) we are not the ones judging it, we are declaring what something is in the sight of the Lord. We can be encouraged when we start to feel beat up and doubt ourselves. We are not putting ourselves in the place of judge, we are witnesses to our holy and mighty God and what He declares. What we personally believe is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Your opinion is as valid as mine. But what HE believes . . . that is everything, and by declaring it and standing for it we are being the most loving we can to others. Because whether or not they realize it, only One audience matters in the end, and only One definition of right and wrong and true and false is actually right and wrong, true and false. The rest will fall away, but He alone will stand.
May we live this week secure in the love of our Father in Heaven, deeply aware of the Holy Spirit's presence with us, and living for an Audience of One. Blessings to all of you. Thanks for sharing in my life. —Erick
Friday, August 1, 2014
Oh My . . .
Well, the distinction between the atheist and Christian world views has taken on even more clarity. Check out this article:
IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches
Churches aren't supposed to endorse candidates . . . but now we can't talk about abortion or gay marriage? There are a lot of articles out there on this agreement, and I've only read this one, but even if it doesn't cover the whole story what it does cover is scary enough. Here's a quote from the article:
This is at the core of it all. Again, it is world view. The issue transcends politics. It is not political. It is an issue of supreme truth. If God is real then we are fools to ignore Him or what He says. If we put ourselves or politics above allegiance and submission to God we have become fools. When we speak against something God speaks against, or stand for something God stands for (providing we are Spirit-led), we are not being "political," we are putting God forth as supreme. But to someone who doesn't recognize then we are, inherently, being political. It comes down to who we recognize and who we are serving in the action and words.
That is the ultimate question our nation faces. We can say nobody can be discriminated against for their religious or non-religious views, and that is fine (see next paragraph for caveat), but if we don't submit to some higher standard of right and wrong we will crumble in the decay of society as we inherently seek our own selfish good. The only other alternatives to determining right or wrong are things like a dictatorship, or majority rule, or simply saying that the strongest/biggest/baddest will prevail. All of these have been tried and are scary.
At some point we must decide, "What is discrimination?" This is a huge question, far bigger then we might realize. The reality is we all—even atheists—advocate discrimination at some level. We discriminate against people who want to murder and rape. We discriminate against people who want to steal. The issue isn't discrimination, it is what is right and wrong. Then, in the realm of right we don't discriminate, but in the realm of wrong we all do by forbidding that action. Where those realms divide is the question of the ages, but all the "tolerance" people are being hypocrites. They all have things they don't tolerate, they just have a different line then others do. The key question is who, or what, draws the line? That is at the heart of it all. For those who see homosexuality as OK then it is discrimination against them to forbid marriage. To those who see it as sin in God's eyes, it is legislation against a wrong (and everyone legislates against wrongs—the real issue is, "What is wrong?"). The same for abortion causing contraceptives. If you see the baby as simply a fetus then you see it as discriminating against women and their choices. If you see the baby as a life then you see it as legislating against wrong and sin and protecting the defenseless.
Atheists are ticked because churches have tax exempt status and can then talk about, in their eyes, politics. Well, can you imagine the pressure the government could bring on churches if they could tax them? Especially this government in this era? They could drive them out of existence as recognized organizations. But are we, as they see it, talking about politics when we talk about a candidate or issue in terms of God's laws and heart? Or are we, as we see it, talking about God and bringing His views into the issues we face? It is a key, pivotal question that there is no way to come together on with such divergent world views. No way. Period.
What kind of pastor could truly lead and equip a fellowship if he didn't talk about the issues that we face and how God sees them? If our faith is simply for stained glass windows and seminaries and funerals then we've missed the faith Jesus brought. He came into this world, into its pain and brokenness, into its people, and He brought the Father's heart and words and life into it. Our faith can—and it must—impact every area of our lives or we are not being true to it and our world view. If we compartmentalize God into the "proper" boxes then we've missed the God who breathes out stars and speaks life. My God can't be boxed, and He is interested in and involved in every issue of my life.
Who is right, or who is wrong, in this issue? It is a question that will define our nation and our future.
IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches
Churches aren't supposed to endorse candidates . . . but now we can't talk about abortion or gay marriage? There are a lot of articles out there on this agreement, and I've only read this one, but even if it doesn't cover the whole story what it does cover is scary enough. Here's a quote from the article:
A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit. The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.Here's the thing. This is about something far bigger than politics. It is about the moral fabric of our nation. If there is no God then there are not absolutes. Nobody has any right to say anyone else is right or wrong. And everything about any issue is simply "politics." But . . . if there is a God, then there are absolutes. We can choose to ignore them, but it doesn't make us right. God defines right and wrong, good and bad, truth and lies.
This is at the core of it all. Again, it is world view. The issue transcends politics. It is not political. It is an issue of supreme truth. If God is real then we are fools to ignore Him or what He says. If we put ourselves or politics above allegiance and submission to God we have become fools. When we speak against something God speaks against, or stand for something God stands for (providing we are Spirit-led), we are not being "political," we are putting God forth as supreme. But to someone who doesn't recognize then we are, inherently, being political. It comes down to who we recognize and who we are serving in the action and words.
That is the ultimate question our nation faces. We can say nobody can be discriminated against for their religious or non-religious views, and that is fine (see next paragraph for caveat), but if we don't submit to some higher standard of right and wrong we will crumble in the decay of society as we inherently seek our own selfish good. The only other alternatives to determining right or wrong are things like a dictatorship, or majority rule, or simply saying that the strongest/biggest/baddest will prevail. All of these have been tried and are scary.
At some point we must decide, "What is discrimination?" This is a huge question, far bigger then we might realize. The reality is we all—even atheists—advocate discrimination at some level. We discriminate against people who want to murder and rape. We discriminate against people who want to steal. The issue isn't discrimination, it is what is right and wrong. Then, in the realm of right we don't discriminate, but in the realm of wrong we all do by forbidding that action. Where those realms divide is the question of the ages, but all the "tolerance" people are being hypocrites. They all have things they don't tolerate, they just have a different line then others do. The key question is who, or what, draws the line? That is at the heart of it all. For those who see homosexuality as OK then it is discrimination against them to forbid marriage. To those who see it as sin in God's eyes, it is legislation against a wrong (and everyone legislates against wrongs—the real issue is, "What is wrong?"). The same for abortion causing contraceptives. If you see the baby as simply a fetus then you see it as discriminating against women and their choices. If you see the baby as a life then you see it as legislating against wrong and sin and protecting the defenseless.
Atheists are ticked because churches have tax exempt status and can then talk about, in their eyes, politics. Well, can you imagine the pressure the government could bring on churches if they could tax them? Especially this government in this era? They could drive them out of existence as recognized organizations. But are we, as they see it, talking about politics when we talk about a candidate or issue in terms of God's laws and heart? Or are we, as we see it, talking about God and bringing His views into the issues we face? It is a key, pivotal question that there is no way to come together on with such divergent world views. No way. Period.
What kind of pastor could truly lead and equip a fellowship if he didn't talk about the issues that we face and how God sees them? If our faith is simply for stained glass windows and seminaries and funerals then we've missed the faith Jesus brought. He came into this world, into its pain and brokenness, into its people, and He brought the Father's heart and words and life into it. Our faith can—and it must—impact every area of our lives or we are not being true to it and our world view. If we compartmentalize God into the "proper" boxes then we've missed the God who breathes out stars and speaks life. My God can't be boxed, and He is interested in and involved in every issue of my life.
Who is right, or who is wrong, in this issue? It is a question that will define our nation and our future.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Where Do Rights Come From?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . (Declaration of Independence)
All the arguments about whether our founding fathers were true Christians or just Bible readers, etc., aside, please don't tell me they didn't recognize and found this nation on the principle that we have certain rights which originate from God, our Creator. Therefore the whole concept of moral relativism, of rights being determined by majority vote, of each culture being right for itself, etc. is incompatible with our foundation.
It is simple, basic common sense that if we are given rights by our Creator then the only place to determine what those rights are is that same Creator. He defines them and, inherently and necessarily following from that, defines right and wrong as well. It is, truly, simple. Our nation can change that (and is in the process of doing so) as the majority walk away from that recognition of God as the source of both rights and of right and wrong. They can move into the wishy washy realm of men instead of God deciding right and wrong based on their own opinions, but they should at least have the courage to stand up and state that they are rejecting the concept of a Creator (and that He is the source of rights) instead of trying to pretend they are doing it and staying true to who we are as a nation.
If our rights came from our Creator then there is only one place and way to determine them. Go to the Creator. Simple. Foundational. Logical. Reject it if you will, but recognize you are rejecting God in the process, and have the courage to state it. Quite trying, Christian, to pretend any form of deciding right and wrong by your opinion in opposition to God's Word is compatible with God. Either He is real and hence the source of all rights and standards and morals and ethics or He's not, and if He's not then anyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's—be it slavery, Nazism, eugenics, abortion, gay marriage, euthanizing the elderly, or any other subject that falls into the category of right or wrong. There is NO legitimate basis for declaring something to be absolutely right or wrong unless you appeal to something above all the parties involved that is absolute and removed. If it is not God then there is no thing that is universal that works, and we descend into moral relativism and an anything goes society and world where each person determines what they think is right and lives by it, even at the expense of anyone else who doesn't agree. Simply look through history . . . you truly don't want to live in a society where right and wrong is determined by the majority opinion or by the leaders independent of God as the higher, absolute source!
Option 1: Creator. Therefore created. Therefore we are His and He determines our rights and what is right or wrong.
Option 2: Evolutionary accident descended from animals and cellular blobs in some accidental cesspool of chemicals on our accidental planet in our accidental universe with no spiritual real or afterlife. Therefore no absolute right or wrong, no meaning or value to life above anything else or beyond the grave, and no basis for declaring anything morally wrong because there is no absolute to define morals by (unless you adopt survival of the fittest as your causative absolute and I doubt anyone in their right mind truly wants to live in a society that is logical in the implications of that! Of course, how do we even define "right mind" in that foundation?).
I understand the non-Christian who vacillates on moral decisions and tries to determine individually in their opinion what he or she thinks is right or wrong. But, I can not understand the Christian who does—who professes to believe in God and the Bible and yet continually makes moral assessments independent of Him and it. The world may not agree with our stand, but at least it should see us have the courage to take it, no matter the cost.
Just some thoughts.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Friday at Noon
In a recent post I mentioned a film Mary Ann and I had just gotten on DVD that we were looking forward to watching. It is called Friday at Noon. Last night I got home from our fire department drill earlier than I expected and we curled up to watch it. I wanted to share my thoughts about it and the issues it brings up. (I am not profiting in any way from recommending it, other than maybe playing a small part in encouraging the family that produced it and in strengthening the faith and defense of anyone who might watch it on account of my recommendation.)
As I mentioned in my previous post, the movie explores the issue of how we define or determine right or wrong in the absence of a God. While this is an issue I have enjoyed discussing, and one that played a strong part in my conversion, it is one I have rarely seen handled in a fictional format. This movie does a wonderful job of it, taking a man grieving over the murder of his son by young men who were acting out the evolutionary implications of life and having him kidnap the daughter of the professor who taught them the theories they lived out and telling the dad he can save his daughter only by answering one question, "Why shouldn't I do evil to her?"
As the professor struggles to give answers beyond the shallow and not thought through surface answers most people would give he realizes how inadequate the canned answers are, and how few people actually think through the implications of what they claim they believe. I don't want to spoil the ending or the conclusion, but suffice to say that it would be a very strengthening film for older youth and for adults to watch to either strengthen their conviction in God and how we can defend his existence, or to challenge non-believers to see the horrible, logical, moral extensions of their atheism. The movie does a great job of systematically demolishing the intellectual arguments for morals that sound so good in the "hallowed" halls of academia, but, when carried to their logical conclusions, end in horrifying places.
Made by a homeschooling family and the church the father pastors, the film is surprisingly well done considering what I can only imagine was resources at their disposal that were nothing like what a feature film can throw at a production. Do you laugh at a few scenes and see a few places the "Hollywood" experts would pick apart and criticize? Yes. Of course. But I can tell you that if my family, or our fellowship, produced anything remotely close to this I would be very proud. I'd recommend you get a copy of this to show your friends, to initiate discussions, to strengthen yourself, and to encourage a family and church who are seeking to glorify God in all that they are and do. I would not let Bethany and Abigail watch it yet as we have shielded them from more violent or stark scenes and a little of the imagery might scare them right now, but it won't be long until I do and I would certainly encourage it for high school and above.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the movie explores the issue of how we define or determine right or wrong in the absence of a God. While this is an issue I have enjoyed discussing, and one that played a strong part in my conversion, it is one I have rarely seen handled in a fictional format. This movie does a wonderful job of it, taking a man grieving over the murder of his son by young men who were acting out the evolutionary implications of life and having him kidnap the daughter of the professor who taught them the theories they lived out and telling the dad he can save his daughter only by answering one question, "Why shouldn't I do evil to her?"
As the professor struggles to give answers beyond the shallow and not thought through surface answers most people would give he realizes how inadequate the canned answers are, and how few people actually think through the implications of what they claim they believe. I don't want to spoil the ending or the conclusion, but suffice to say that it would be a very strengthening film for older youth and for adults to watch to either strengthen their conviction in God and how we can defend his existence, or to challenge non-believers to see the horrible, logical, moral extensions of their atheism. The movie does a great job of systematically demolishing the intellectual arguments for morals that sound so good in the "hallowed" halls of academia, but, when carried to their logical conclusions, end in horrifying places.
Made by a homeschooling family and the church the father pastors, the film is surprisingly well done considering what I can only imagine was resources at their disposal that were nothing like what a feature film can throw at a production. Do you laugh at a few scenes and see a few places the "Hollywood" experts would pick apart and criticize? Yes. Of course. But I can tell you that if my family, or our fellowship, produced anything remotely close to this I would be very proud. I'd recommend you get a copy of this to show your friends, to initiate discussions, to strengthen yourself, and to encourage a family and church who are seeking to glorify God in all that they are and do. I would not let Bethany and Abigail watch it yet as we have shielded them from more violent or stark scenes and a little of the imagery might scare them right now, but it won't be long until I do and I would certainly encourage it for high school and above.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Who Decides?
I just received a DVD I am looking forward to watching with Mary Ann when we have an evening where we can sit and do so. As best as I understand it, it is produced by a homeschool family and the church the father pastors. It is called Friday at Noon and one of the quotes associated with the movie's promotions is from Fyodor Dostoyevski, and it says, "If there is no God, everything is permissible." My understanding is that the movie will use a fictional story to explore if atheists can call anything wrong.
I think it intrigues me so because at West Point, in my pre-Christian days, I concentrated in philosophy and once considered myself a moral relativist (I believed that what was right for some was right for some, and what was right for others was right for them). My enjoyment of academic intellectual arguments was rocked when a professor there (who I many years later found out to be a Christian) told me that if he really believed I was he would do all he could to have me kicked out of the academy. It was too dangerous to him to have someone preparing for an officer's position of leadership and authority who didn't recognize there are absolute rights and wrongs.
I think that my encounter with that professor (which I have written about that encounter and moral relativism before in this blog) rattled me so much because up until that time things like philosophy, religion, etc., were just intellectual things to have fun arguing. But his intensity and passion was new to me. He really believed it mattered and had consequence and wasn't just fun and games.
Later in my journey toward Christ the argument for absolute right and wrong was a strong factor in my conversion. I came to realize that at my core I had a strong sense of right and wrong—it was one of the things that led me to West Point and the military—and if I was honest I couldn't explain that, or defend it, without an appeal to authority in it . . . God.
Tonight I had fun with our girls at dinner. I asked them to explain to me why some things are right or wrong without appealing to God. Needless to say it was quite a conversation! Each time something was brought up as right or wrong I could simply ask, "Why?" and then not let them use God in their argument. As we talked back and forth they came to see that, without an absolute authority, there is no true right or wrong. Some might say it is defined by popular vote, or majority opinion, or the strongest, or ??? But the reality is that there is no way to say one person is more right than another, or one thing is more right or wrong than another, without some appeal to authority that is higher than them all. Even a country that decides right and wrong by votes on moral issues or laws can be overrun by a country with a stronger army that decides right or wrong on its own moral compass—and the invaded country has no basis to say that they are right and the invaders are wrong.
It is truly a scary thought when someone denies there is a God by Whom absolute right and wrong is defined. If they are consistent in their logic from that point on then they have entered a realm where anything goes, and they have no basis or standing or appeal to say someone is wrong, even if that someone intrudes on their rights or safety. It is, I believe, a powerful approach to witnessing because it is a very rare person who will not acknowledge that inside them they have a sense of right or wrong. To pursue where that comes from and if it is absolute or relative is a powerful door to begin to talk about God, being made in His image, and His transcendence over all.
So, sit back, pour yourself a good cup of coffee, gather some friends, and try and define absolute right and wrong without including God. It should be an eye opening time! I'd love to hear about it! Blessings, and thanks for reading. —Erick
I think it intrigues me so because at West Point, in my pre-Christian days, I concentrated in philosophy and once considered myself a moral relativist (I believed that what was right for some was right for some, and what was right for others was right for them). My enjoyment of academic intellectual arguments was rocked when a professor there (who I many years later found out to be a Christian) told me that if he really believed I was he would do all he could to have me kicked out of the academy. It was too dangerous to him to have someone preparing for an officer's position of leadership and authority who didn't recognize there are absolute rights and wrongs.
I think that my encounter with that professor (which I have written about that encounter and moral relativism before in this blog) rattled me so much because up until that time things like philosophy, religion, etc., were just intellectual things to have fun arguing. But his intensity and passion was new to me. He really believed it mattered and had consequence and wasn't just fun and games.
Later in my journey toward Christ the argument for absolute right and wrong was a strong factor in my conversion. I came to realize that at my core I had a strong sense of right and wrong—it was one of the things that led me to West Point and the military—and if I was honest I couldn't explain that, or defend it, without an appeal to authority in it . . . God.
Tonight I had fun with our girls at dinner. I asked them to explain to me why some things are right or wrong without appealing to God. Needless to say it was quite a conversation! Each time something was brought up as right or wrong I could simply ask, "Why?" and then not let them use God in their argument. As we talked back and forth they came to see that, without an absolute authority, there is no true right or wrong. Some might say it is defined by popular vote, or majority opinion, or the strongest, or ??? But the reality is that there is no way to say one person is more right than another, or one thing is more right or wrong than another, without some appeal to authority that is higher than them all. Even a country that decides right and wrong by votes on moral issues or laws can be overrun by a country with a stronger army that decides right or wrong on its own moral compass—and the invaded country has no basis to say that they are right and the invaders are wrong.
It is truly a scary thought when someone denies there is a God by Whom absolute right and wrong is defined. If they are consistent in their logic from that point on then they have entered a realm where anything goes, and they have no basis or standing or appeal to say someone is wrong, even if that someone intrudes on their rights or safety. It is, I believe, a powerful approach to witnessing because it is a very rare person who will not acknowledge that inside them they have a sense of right or wrong. To pursue where that comes from and if it is absolute or relative is a powerful door to begin to talk about God, being made in His image, and His transcendence over all.
So, sit back, pour yourself a good cup of coffee, gather some friends, and try and define absolute right and wrong without including God. It should be an eye opening time! I'd love to hear about it! Blessings, and thanks for reading. —Erick
Monday, August 6, 2012
Monotheism and Gore Vidal
I have either written about, or alluded to, the arguments about moral relativism multiple times. Basically, either there are absolute truths and absolute rights and wrongs, or it is all relative and what is right for some is right for some, but not necessarily for others. This morning Albert Mohler published a very good blog on Gore Vidal and his war on monotheism called Gore Vidal and the Sky God. I would recommend reading it. You can see it by clicking here.
In his blog Mohler captures what Vidal realized—that the absolute of truth and right and wrong lies in monotheism. Apart from one god (I leave it lowercase because he is talking about multiple monotheistic religions) there is no case for absolute truth that says something is absolutely right and other things are absolutely wrong. I'll quote a few parts of the article below, but I recommend reading it and reflecting on it. I think this whole argument is also, probably, one of the reasons evolution is so appealing. If we take God out of the picture and deny His existence then we don't have to make our lives accountable to Him or to face the fact that what may seem right to us may, in fact, not be right to He who defines right and wrong.
In the blog Mohler writes:
It is a truth we must realize to fully understand why the enemy attacks our faith so much—a faith that unashamedly declares itself to be the only way to truth. Because, if we are right, then everyone in the world is accountable to it, whether or not they like it or believe it. With that said, may you spend this week deeply aware of God's great love for you, and how mighty and powerful He is and how completely worthy He is of our standing for Him against all that comes our way. Thanks for reading! —Erick
In his blog Mohler captures what Vidal realized—that the absolute of truth and right and wrong lies in monotheism. Apart from one god (I leave it lowercase because he is talking about multiple monotheistic religions) there is no case for absolute truth that says something is absolutely right and other things are absolutely wrong. I'll quote a few parts of the article below, but I recommend reading it and reflecting on it. I think this whole argument is also, probably, one of the reasons evolution is so appealing. If we take God out of the picture and deny His existence then we don't have to make our lives accountable to Him or to face the fact that what may seem right to us may, in fact, not be right to He who defines right and wrong.
In the blog Mohler writes:
In his essay, “Monotheism and its Discontents,” based on the lecture at Harvard, Vidal perceptively and blasphemously blamed the existence of a binding sexual morality on monotheism. "The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism,” Vidal asserted, “From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament three anti-human religions have evolved — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These are sky-god religions.”And later he says:
Christians should pay close attention to Gore Vidal’s argument, but the mainstream media have almost uniformly ignored it. The obituaries have celebrated his literary gifts and noted his radical political ideas and rejection of Christianity, but not his call for “all-out war on the monotheists.” We should realize that Vidal’s rejection of monotheism, though blasphemous, was truly perceptive. He was certainly correct that a binding and objective morality requires a monotheistic God who both exists and reveals himself. He was also correct in pointing to the fact that a secularized Europe has largely abandoned a biblical morality when it comes, most specifically, to sexual behavior.
It is a truth we must realize to fully understand why the enemy attacks our faith so much—a faith that unashamedly declares itself to be the only way to truth. Because, if we are right, then everyone in the world is accountable to it, whether or not they like it or believe it. With that said, may you spend this week deeply aware of God's great love for you, and how mighty and powerful He is and how completely worthy He is of our standing for Him against all that comes our way. Thanks for reading! —Erick
Thursday, May 17, 2012
The Sum of it All
It is hard to believe that yesterday marked three years since I started this blog as a place to share thoughts, slices of my life, and things God is showing me. I wanted to keep it personal, not tied into my position as pastor, to give me freedom to share things separate from our fellowship—maybe thoughts on a candidate, etc. I had hoped for a "community" to form with lots of comments and sharing back and forth, but that hasn't happened, and that's OK. Now and then (often when I'm about to quit the blog) someone will tell me it really touched or helped them and I'll get a little fire to continue as I'll realize it is being read, and is doing some good. Well, this post is sort of a "sum of it all" for me. I know it's rather long but, hey, it's only once a year you get to "sum it all up" . . .
Reflecting on these three years and the things that have happened in them in the world, in my life, and on this blog, I think I am noticing something that is at the center of almost every issue we face. It is the absence of absolutes. It is really stunning in its simplicity, but that is the sum of it all, in a way. If you look around at the world and the issues in our nation and the lives of many Christians it can be summed up as revolving around absolutes, or the lack of.
Interestingly (and encouraging to me) is that as it seems the world is heading farther and farther from recognizing absolutes, and farther and farther into a realm of opinion and tolerance and relativism, I have noticed myself becoming even more firmly convinced of the absolute truth of Genesis (Creation and the Flood), and hence the Bible, and hence of God—to borrow an expression on a t-shirt I was given, "God said it. I believe it. That's settles it."
Whether the issue is gay marriage, abortion, adultery, fornication, how we use our time, how we use our resources, what we vote on, what purpose we find in our life, what we think about things like miracles today or spiritual warfare or the origin of life, or whatever, it really comes down to one of two things. Either everyone has a valid opinion, and everyone's opinion is equal, and we can argue into infinity with each other about our opinions . . . or God has something to say about something and what He says matters, and what we say doesn't. That's it, really. If God is real, and if His Word is trustworthy, then what He says defines right and wrong. President Obama (or anyone else) can express his stands on issues and give his opinions on them all he wants. If God is real, and the Bible is real, and the President's opinions don't line up with God's, then he is wrong. Plain and simple.
I hear way too much these days that begins with, "I think . . ." or "I feel . . ." or "In my opinion . . ." Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. (I care about you, so what you think and feel is important to me to help me understand you, but not in affecting my views.) Why? Because Jesus said that God alone is good. Therefore if He is real then He alone can define good and right. So all that really matters is if I am aligned with Him or not. Even our evangelism is so wishy washy and arrogant. We "persuade" people to "try" Jesus. Either He is real, and He is holy, and galaxies are birthed in Him, and He speaks and worlds are created, and if we come into His presence our way and not His we are consumed . . . or He's not. That's it. Period. If those things are true it is sheer arrogance and pride heading to damnation to "decide" if we are going to trust Him, or believe Him, or follow Him, or to decide on moral issues based on our opinion instead of what He says. And if He's not real, and not those things, then party on. Debate ad naseum your opinion against another's and realize in the end it doesn't matter because we'll all die and feed worms and that's the end. Or, as Paul wrote, "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' " (1 Corinthians 15:32)
I was really awakened the other day listening to an audio drama (Jonathan Park) that our family enjoys when they took quotes from Darwin's life chronicling his journey from religion to evolution and total rejection of Jesus. He rejected Genesis, then the Bible, then Jesus. It was a journey, and I see that happening all around us. It is sad, because if the evidence were simply shown, without the bias and tainting of scientists trying to squash and conform it into their millions and billions of years framework, it would clearly point to a literal Creation and flood as described in the Bible. But, we have made bad science our god, and from it rejected the Bible, and from that rejected absolutes. And, it is a rejection of absolutes, stemming from a rejection of the Bible, that has us exactly where we are now—a sea of opinions and a worship of college degrees that we call "enlightenment" but which are really journeys into darkness.
Isn't it funny how many people reject an absolute standard of right and wrong, but are the first to cry out, "It's not fair" or "It's not right" or "this should be allowed and not that" or who profess to be right and that others are wrong? By what standard? Says who? Even more funny (because if I don't laugh, I'll get angry or cry) are the number of professing Christians who claim to believe in a God and absolutes, and then live (and speak) based on their opinions and sense of right and wrong, and not on His. I don't know. Maybe I'm getting cranky, but a person's opinion, including my own, matters less and less to me the older I get. I just want to know, "What does God say?" and then make that my own. His opinion is all that matters. He alone is good. And, I guess, that is the "sum of it all" for me. Life is too short to waste days and years of it chasing vain ideas and opinions. Let God be God, and don't try and be Him for Him. He alone is worthy and our lives are best spent worshipping Him, following Him, sharing Him, and standing for Him, no matter the cost in this world—we have all of eternity to share in the pleasures He has prepared for us.
Reflecting on these three years and the things that have happened in them in the world, in my life, and on this blog, I think I am noticing something that is at the center of almost every issue we face. It is the absence of absolutes. It is really stunning in its simplicity, but that is the sum of it all, in a way. If you look around at the world and the issues in our nation and the lives of many Christians it can be summed up as revolving around absolutes, or the lack of.
Interestingly (and encouraging to me) is that as it seems the world is heading farther and farther from recognizing absolutes, and farther and farther into a realm of opinion and tolerance and relativism, I have noticed myself becoming even more firmly convinced of the absolute truth of Genesis (Creation and the Flood), and hence the Bible, and hence of God—to borrow an expression on a t-shirt I was given, "God said it. I believe it. That's settles it."
Whether the issue is gay marriage, abortion, adultery, fornication, how we use our time, how we use our resources, what we vote on, what purpose we find in our life, what we think about things like miracles today or spiritual warfare or the origin of life, or whatever, it really comes down to one of two things. Either everyone has a valid opinion, and everyone's opinion is equal, and we can argue into infinity with each other about our opinions . . . or God has something to say about something and what He says matters, and what we say doesn't. That's it, really. If God is real, and if His Word is trustworthy, then what He says defines right and wrong. President Obama (or anyone else) can express his stands on issues and give his opinions on them all he wants. If God is real, and the Bible is real, and the President's opinions don't line up with God's, then he is wrong. Plain and simple.
I hear way too much these days that begins with, "I think . . ." or "I feel . . ." or "In my opinion . . ." Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. (I care about you, so what you think and feel is important to me to help me understand you, but not in affecting my views.) Why? Because Jesus said that God alone is good. Therefore if He is real then He alone can define good and right. So all that really matters is if I am aligned with Him or not. Even our evangelism is so wishy washy and arrogant. We "persuade" people to "try" Jesus. Either He is real, and He is holy, and galaxies are birthed in Him, and He speaks and worlds are created, and if we come into His presence our way and not His we are consumed . . . or He's not. That's it. Period. If those things are true it is sheer arrogance and pride heading to damnation to "decide" if we are going to trust Him, or believe Him, or follow Him, or to decide on moral issues based on our opinion instead of what He says. And if He's not real, and not those things, then party on. Debate ad naseum your opinion against another's and realize in the end it doesn't matter because we'll all die and feed worms and that's the end. Or, as Paul wrote, "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' " (1 Corinthians 15:32)
I was really awakened the other day listening to an audio drama (Jonathan Park) that our family enjoys when they took quotes from Darwin's life chronicling his journey from religion to evolution and total rejection of Jesus. He rejected Genesis, then the Bible, then Jesus. It was a journey, and I see that happening all around us. It is sad, because if the evidence were simply shown, without the bias and tainting of scientists trying to squash and conform it into their millions and billions of years framework, it would clearly point to a literal Creation and flood as described in the Bible. But, we have made bad science our god, and from it rejected the Bible, and from that rejected absolutes. And, it is a rejection of absolutes, stemming from a rejection of the Bible, that has us exactly where we are now—a sea of opinions and a worship of college degrees that we call "enlightenment" but which are really journeys into darkness.
Isn't it funny how many people reject an absolute standard of right and wrong, but are the first to cry out, "It's not fair" or "It's not right" or "this should be allowed and not that" or who profess to be right and that others are wrong? By what standard? Says who? Even more funny (because if I don't laugh, I'll get angry or cry) are the number of professing Christians who claim to believe in a God and absolutes, and then live (and speak) based on their opinions and sense of right and wrong, and not on His. I don't know. Maybe I'm getting cranky, but a person's opinion, including my own, matters less and less to me the older I get. I just want to know, "What does God say?" and then make that my own. His opinion is all that matters. He alone is good. And, I guess, that is the "sum of it all" for me. Life is too short to waste days and years of it chasing vain ideas and opinions. Let God be God, and don't try and be Him for Him. He alone is worthy and our lives are best spent worshipping Him, following Him, sharing Him, and standing for Him, no matter the cost in this world—we have all of eternity to share in the pleasures He has prepared for us.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
On What Authority?
"On what authority?" It is a very powerful question that cuts straight to the heart of most of the values issues relating to us today. If a person says that something is OK (or not OK), it is the simple question that cuts through everything else and gets straight to the heart of the matter. For me, on the issues the Bible addresses, the answer to the question is clear, "Because God says so in His written Word." But, for someone who rejects the Bible as God's written Word and as inerrant, we must simply ask them what makes the things right they say are right, or wrong that they say are wrong . . . "On what authority?"
When I was at West Point I was not a Christian, and I concentrated in philosophy. I remember thinking, for a season, that I was a moral relativist after hearing about that line of thought. I found myself saying, "Why not? What is right for some is right for them, and what is right for others is right for them." An officer there, who I many years later found to be a Christian, talked to me in private and told me that if he truly thought I was a moral relativist he'd do his best to have me removed from the academy. He said it was a very dangerous position to hold, especially for people who will be in positions of influence. I was stunned. I was rocked to my core. To me it was as simple issue of debating philosophy and playing with different belief systems, and he saw it as deeply serious.
Today, I couldn't agree with him more. Moral relativism—the idea that people come up with what is right for them and their culture—is incredibly dangerous and can lead to societies that euthanize the elderly, abort babies, selectively eliminate races, enslave certain classes, etc. And it comes from determining what is right for them. But, moral relativism is a philosophy predicated on error. It ignores that there is one God who is Lord of all, and who defines right and wrong. It ignores that there are absolute rights and wrongs. It ignores that we are accountable to our Creator, and that there is someone bigger than us. It ignores the fact that, in the end, it will not matter if we think something is right or wrong, but only what He thinks is right or wrong.
The quickest way that I know to cut to the chase and find out the core philosophy or foundation of someone and their arguments is to ask the most basic of questions . . . "On what authority do you base your opinion?"
When I was at West Point I was not a Christian, and I concentrated in philosophy. I remember thinking, for a season, that I was a moral relativist after hearing about that line of thought. I found myself saying, "Why not? What is right for some is right for them, and what is right for others is right for them." An officer there, who I many years later found to be a Christian, talked to me in private and told me that if he truly thought I was a moral relativist he'd do his best to have me removed from the academy. He said it was a very dangerous position to hold, especially for people who will be in positions of influence. I was stunned. I was rocked to my core. To me it was as simple issue of debating philosophy and playing with different belief systems, and he saw it as deeply serious.
Today, I couldn't agree with him more. Moral relativism—the idea that people come up with what is right for them and their culture—is incredibly dangerous and can lead to societies that euthanize the elderly, abort babies, selectively eliminate races, enslave certain classes, etc. And it comes from determining what is right for them. But, moral relativism is a philosophy predicated on error. It ignores that there is one God who is Lord of all, and who defines right and wrong. It ignores that there are absolute rights and wrongs. It ignores that we are accountable to our Creator, and that there is someone bigger than us. It ignores the fact that, in the end, it will not matter if we think something is right or wrong, but only what He thinks is right or wrong.
The quickest way that I know to cut to the chase and find out the core philosophy or foundation of someone and their arguments is to ask the most basic of questions . . . "On what authority do you base your opinion?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
