Great Big Stupid World – Reaping What We Have Sown

On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, and then massacred 20 students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, before taking his own life.

The staggering loss of innocent lives has left many asking, “Why?”

People blame everything from lack of gun control, to CIA conspiracies, to lack of treatment for the mentally ill, to video games and rap music, to media coverage and copycat murderers.

I believe our culture is simply reaping what it has sown.

⁷ Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. ⁸ For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. ⁹ And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

American society has learned to mock God. We have largely thrown God out of our schools, our media, our government, and our lives. God has been relegated to a few church pews, a couple of days a week, for a few hours, for a handful of people who are considered by most as relics of the past.

Most children are taught in school that they are accidents of nature and nothing more than animals, albeit somewhat more evolved than most, rather than being created in the image of God, Who loves them. Then we wonder why they act like animals.

Much of our modern music and many video games glorify killing, drugs, sex, and death. Then we wonder why teen pregnancy and abortion rates are so high, and why someone would walk into a school or mall and start shooting people.

Television portrays God as a myth, Christians as intolerant bigots, fathers as idiots, and the traditional family as irrelevant. Then, we wonder why Godly values are ignored, and why our kids are out of control.

As our culture has sown, so has it reaped.

The problem is not gun violence, drug abuse, rap music, abortion, greed, suicide, the education system, the Democrats, or the Republicans. These are just symptoms of a deeper problem. The real problem is that our culture mocks God. We have lost our foundation; we have rejected our Creator.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

The United States was once blessed, because we were built on a Biblical foundation. That foundation is gone, and has been replaced by a humanistic foundation that says mankind can choose whatever he wants about right or wrong. When human beings decide what is right and wrong, we invariably choose wrong, and call it right. And in the process, we mock God.

Why do people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Seung-Hui Cho kill people? Psychologists will debate the causes, but from a Biblical perspective, I believe they simply act in a manner consistent with what society teaches them. Our culture taught them that human life is basically meaningless, that we are animals, and death and killing are glorious – a lesson they learned well.

Our culture is reaping what it has sown; the culture mocks God, then wonders why God doesn’t intervene.

How do we fix the problem? Not through politics, or social programs, or public education:

⁸ For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. ⁹ And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

God help us.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 6

Valerie Tarico

A while back, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

While I personally find most of the articles on this site either tasteless or just plain nonsense, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

It’s important to recognize that people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #6: Science Denial

One of my former youth group friends had his faith done in by a conversation with a Bible study leader who explained that dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible. Uh huh. Christians have come up with dozens of squishier, less falsifiable ways to explain the geological record: The “days” in Genesis 1 were really “ages.” Or God created the world with the fossils already in place to test our faith. Or the biblical creation story is really sacred metaphor. But young-earth creationists who believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago are stuck. And since almost half of the American public believes some version of this young-earth story, there are ample opportunities for inquiring minds to trip across proto-scientific nonsense.

Like other factors I’ve mentioned, science denial doesn’t just move believers to nonbelief; it also rallies opposition ranging from cantankerous bloggers to legal advocates. It provides fodder for comedians and critics: “If the world was created 6,000 years ago, what’s fueling your car?” It may produce some of the most far-reaching opposition to religious belief, because science advocates argue that faith, even socially benign faith, is a fundamentally flawed way of knowing. The Catholic church, perhaps still licking wounds about Galileo (it apologized finally in the 20th century), has managed to avoid embarrassing and easily disproven positions on evolutionary biology. But one could argue that its atheism-fostering positions on conception and contraception similarly rely on ignorance about or denial of biological science — in this case embryology and the basic fact that most embryos never become persons.

From my experience, the creation vs. evolution debate is the topic that is most likely to get a skeptic’s dander up. This is because atheism is utterly impossible unless evolution is true. If God or gods don’t exist, there must be a non-supernatural mechanism to explain how life came to be. The only remotely plausible explanation is evolution.

answersingenesis.org

I’ve always found it ironic that when most creationists discuss evolution and creation, they tend to focus on the observable scientific inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and the observable science supporting the Biblical creation model, while most evolutionists simply state evolution as dogma and ridicule the Biblical model – without bringing up actual scientific evidence. Tarico is no different. Granted, two paragraphs isn’t enough space to lay out any real scientific evidence one way or the other. Yet, she does manage to state her dogmatic faith in evolution, and throw out a few question-begging epithets against Biblical creation (“proto-scientific nonsense,” “science denial,” “denial of biological science”). She also throws out a huge straw-man argument: “… young-earth creationists … believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago.” Wrong. The 6,000-10,000 years ago part is correct. The “appeared in its present form” is absolutely wrong. Biblical creationists generally believe the earth was created “very good” (Genesis 1:31), but that it was radically changed because of sin (Genesis 3). It was tremendously altered by the global flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8). Furthermore, natural processes such as erosion, weathering, natural selection, and mutations have continued to change the earth and the organisms live here. But, then again, it’s easier to argue against a straw-man with dogma and name-calling than it is to argue logically against actual Biblical creation.

answersingenesis.org

The fact that some naïve Bible study leader ignorantly thought that “dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible” isn’t an argument against Biblical creationism. It does, however, point out the fact that too many Christians are ignorant of both science and the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Unfortunately, most Christians are not ready, and cannot give a defense of the Biblical account of Creation. The un-Biblical compromise positions Tarico mentions, such as the day-age theory, Genesis as a metaphor, or any number of other theories, cause as much confusion about the Bible as atheistic evolution. All origins theories other than the straight-forward Biblical account of six literal days a few thousand years ago take mankind’s fallible ideas and hold them in higher authority than God’s Word. All of these other theories question the authority of the straight-forward teaching of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christian leaders and teachers, need to educate themselves. We need to understand science and evolutionary theory. In fact, Christians need to understand evolution better than most evolutionists do. We need to understand what evolution teaches, as well as the scientific, logical, and theological problems with evolution. We need to understand how various dating methods arrive at ancient ages for the earth, and the arbitrary assumptions behind these methods. We also need to understand what the Bible actually says – and doesn’t say – about origins and the age of the earth. What we actually observe in the universe solidly confirms the Biblical account of creation, and show the millions-of-years-of-evolution dogma to be utterly impossible.

I would argue that it’s not the young-earth position that drives people away, as Tarico believes; rather, it’s ignorant Christians that are unprepared to explain how science confirms the Bible that cause confusion and doubt. Too many Christians appear ignorant of science, not because they embrace the Biblical creation, but because they actually are ignorant of both science and the Bible. Incidentally, most skeptics are just as ignorant – but that’s no excuse. If we want people to realize the absolute truth of the Bible, and embrace faith in Jesus Christ as the only rational reality, then we need to take 1 Peter 3:15 to heart, and stop being so ignorant and unprepared to defend the authority of Scripture.

---

Numerous resources are available to help the Christian understand Biblical creation. I recommend starting with the Answers Book 1, 2, and 3 available from Answers in Genesis. Ministries such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and many others have thousands of articles, books, DVDs, and other resources available – many for FREE.

Humanist Manifesto III – A Critical Analysis

Humanist Manifesto is the title of three statements outlining a Humanist worldview. The original Humanist Manifesto was published in 1933; the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973; and Humanist Manifetso III in 2003. Each of the three manifestos explains the humanist worldview, which does not include belief in any personal deity or “higher power.”

This analysis will focus entirely on Humanist Manifesto III, although the previous versions have similar issues.  Manifesto III is the shortest of the three documents; it has an introduction, six primary beliefs, and a conclusion.

There are unstated presupposed beliefs behind every statement contained in the Manifesto.  Many of these presuppositions depend on the existence of God in order to make any sense whatsoever.  The basic logical fallacy contained in Humanist Manifesto III is that, while it denies the existence of God, makes claims that are dependent on the existence of God.  In other words, if God does not exist, then the philosophies promoted by Manifesto III are irrational and unfounded.

What do I mean by this?  Take the first sentence of the Manifesto:  “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”  This sounds like a reasonable statement on the surface. However, in order to have the “ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives,” one must presuppose that such a thing as ethics actually exists.    The problem is, without God, there is no basis for the existence of ethics.  If the universe came into existence through mindless natural processes, then human beings are nothing more than highly complex chemical reactions.  There is no free will; our minds are nothing more than random electrochemical processes.  The very concept of ethics is meaningless – right and wrong do not actually exist.  Yet, right and wrong do exist, and the concept of ethics is not meaningless.  Since these concepts are meaningless if God does not exist, since they do exist, God must therefore exist.  The belief in ethics presupposes the existence of God.  For an atheist to believe in ethics, they must “borrow” from the Biblical worldview.

The first of the six primary beliefs promoted in the Manifesto states, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.”  Although it initially sounds plausible, this statement is actually subtly self-contradictory.  Why?  Because the statement itself cannot be derived from observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  The statement, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis,” cannot be derived from observation; nor can it be derived through experimentation.  It must be pre-supposed, and any attempt to derive it through rational analysis is ultimately irrational circular logic.

Observation, experimentation, and rational analysis are only possible if one presupposes that the universe is uniform, unchanging, and logical.  However, if God does not exist, there is no reason why the universe should be uniform, unchanging, and logical; rather, it should be random.  A universe that was caused by a Big Bang from nothing should be completely random, if it would exist at all.  The laws of nature should not exist, and logic should not exist. Yet, they do exist.  The only reason that universe should be uniform, unchanging, and logical only if it came from a uniform, unchanging, and logical Creator.  Science presupposes an orderly universe, which is only possible because the universe in fact functions in a logical, ordered manner, which in turn is only possible if it was created by a logical, ordered, unchanging God.

Charles Darwin

The second point affirmed in the Manifesto states, “Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”  There are a number of problems with this statement.  First, the “unguided evolutionary change” referred to cannot be “derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis,” because it supposedly happened in the past.  The past cannot be directly observed in the present; only the present can be observed in the present.  Could evolution be established as fact through “rational analysis?”  Humanists and evolutionists would argue it can.  I disagree.  Again, there are several unprovable presuppositions that must be accepted in order to infer evolution in the past from observations in the present.   First, one must assume that the processes in the past are the same as processes in the present.  This belief, called uniformitarianism, cannot be observed or derived through experimentation; it must be assumed.  One must also assume that enough time has existed for these processes to have occurred.  Lastly, one must ignore the fact that mutations and natural selection do not cause new information to arise, as evolutionary processes require, but rather eliminate genetic information.   Actual observational data tells us that we are not evolving, but rather, we are de-evolving.  Every generation of human beings loses several thousand genes due to mutations.  No new genes have ever been observed to have evolved.

Secondly, and “unguided” process should not cause increased complexity, as required by Darwinian evolution.  Evolution postulates that after the first cell came into existence through some sort of abiogenesis, this first lifeform somehow became more complex and eventually turned into a multi-celled organism, that eventually turned into a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then some sort of mammal, then a primitive primate, eventually turning into you and me.  All of these major steps, as well as thousands of smaller, intermediary steps, somehow happened as the result of unguided, random chance.  Evolutionists must believe that each of the millions of new genes that were necessary for new structures, proteins, and biochemical processes arose through mutations – despite the fact that no mutation has ever been observed that has produced information that had not previously existed.  And, this had to happen randomly – without any kind of higher intelligence guiding the process.  This is far more preposterous than believing that the infinite, omnipotent God of the Bible created human beings.

The Manifesto states, “Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.”  The first problem is that, If God does not exist, and human beings are nothing more than highly evolved chemical reactions, as would be required by the Manifesto, then ethical values are not real.  They are nothing but extremely complex electrochemical reactions.

If ethical values are derived from human need, then they must constantly change.  They cannot be absolute.  Many atheists I have talked to have argued, “Atheists are just as ethical and moral as Christians.”  However, from the perspective of atheism, this statement is utter nonsense.  Ethics and morality are relative; what is ethical for you may not be ethical for me.  There is no absolute standard for ethics; morality is whatever a person decides it is.  When an atheist claims, “Atheists are just as ethical and moral as Christians,” my response is, “According to whose definition of ethics and morality?”  Since there is no universal definition, the statement is nonsense.  It may be true that atheists are moral, according to one person’s moral framework, but not according to another’s.  Only if there is an absolute standard does the statement even make sense, and there cannot be an absolute standard unless God exists and has communicated His absolute standard to humankind.

The Manifesto’s next major point:  “Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.”  My response is, why?  On what basis can such a claim be made?  If we are the mere “result of unguided evolutionary change,” then why do “humane ideals” even exist?  Again, if God does not exist, and we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum, then “humane ideals” cannot actually exist.  The Manifesto continues: “We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence…”  “Unguided evolutionary change” is purposeless, by definition.  How can purposeless change create purpose?  If God does not exist, the human mind is a purposeless collection of meaningless chemical reactions – how can purpose, wonder, awe, joy, or beauty actually exist?  Yet, these things do actually exist; therefore, God must exist.  Again, the Humanist must “borrow” truth from the Biblical worldview in order to build the foundation for Humanism.  Humanism must presuppose foundational truths that are inconsistent with its core values in order to be coherent, but this makes Humanism inconsistent, irrational, and fallacious.

The last two major beliefs proposed by the manifesto read, “Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships,” and “Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.”  I would largely agree; people are social in nature, because we were created in the Image of God for the purpose of having a loving relationship with Him, and with others.  Working to benefit society does produce happiness.  These beliefs are completely consistent with Biblical teaching and presuppositions.  However, for the Humanist, they are again inconsistent.  Once again, if humanity is the result of meaningless evolutionary change, then why does meaning exist?  How can meaninglessness produce meaning?  How can purposelessness give rise to purpose?  How can unguided processes cause happiness?

The Humanist Manifesto III is utter nonsense, because it must rely on values and conditions that cannot exist if the Manifesto is true, and God does not exist.  Ultimately, any philosophy, religion, or worldview that denies the Biblical God is illogical for the same reason; without God, the universe, the laws of nature, the mind, purpose, and meaning should not exist; yet, they do exist.  Therefore, the Biblical God must exist, and Christianity must be true.  What we observe in the universe around us is completely consistent with and absolutely confirms the truth of the Bible.  And, without Biblical presuppositions, the universe would be completely unintelligible and meaningless.

---

The full text of Humanist Manifesto III can be viewed at http://redbankhumanists.org/PDF/HumanistManifesto_III.pdf

Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church Part 3

The Barna Group, a leading Christian research and resource company that focuses on the intersection of faith and culture, published the article last September entitled, “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church.” This is the third in a series of articles in which I give my take on Barna’s conclusions.

Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

The creation / evolution battle has been front and center in the culture war that rages in America.  Those opposed to the Bible and Biblical Creationism have been very successful in redefining the conflict between evolution and the Bible’s teaching on creation as “science vs. religion.” This fallacious concept has infiltrated the thinking of much of the church.  Evolution is not science; it is an anti-Christian religious philosophy disguised as science.  Unfortunately, most Christian leaders do not understand this distinction.  Many recognize that atheistic evolution is incompatible with the Bible, but because they lump evolution and science together, many Christian leaders and pastors are also suspicious of science.  Then, this misinformed, anti-science attitude is preached from the pulpit and taught in the Sunday School classroom.  There should be no tension between Christianity and science; the conflict is between Christianity and evolution.

How should the church address the concerns expressed in the Barna study?  Over a third of those surveyed stated that, “Christians are too confident they know all the answers.”  Perhaps many in the church have a problem with pride?  I know I do not have all the answers.  But, I know where all of the answers can be found – in the Bible.  This is the message that the church must communicate:  the church does not have all the answers; pastors do not have all the answers; ministries like Answers in Genesis, the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, and Focus on the Family do not have all the answers; only the Bible ultimately has the answers to all of the important questions of life.

The other issue with the perception that “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” is the post-modern, relativistic belief that truth is ultimately unknowable.  Many young people have been indoctrinated with the idea that truth is relative, that whatever one believes is truth for them.  This illogical, fallacious belief has also infiltrated the thinking of many church leaders.  Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6 NKJV), and “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32 NKJV).  Absolute truth exists; Jesus Christ is absolute Truth; and the Bible communicates the absolute truth.  Church leaders need to get this concept firmly ingrained in their thinking, and they need to communicate this clearly to their congregations.

How can the church change the perception that it is anti-science and out of step with the scientific world?  First, we need to properly frame the issues.  The church should not be anti-science.  God gave us science so that we can better understand and utilize the world He created for us.  Science has given us medical advances to cure disease, agricultural advances to produce better crops, and technology that allows us to share the Gospel to wider audiences in more diverse ways.  The philosophy and pseudo-science of evolution are anti-Christian; science is a gift from God.

Secondly, the church needs to stop teaching spiritual truth in isolation from the rest of reality.  Truth is truth; there is no distinction between spiritual truth and scientific truth.  Rather than avoiding scientific discussion, the church must embrace it.  Pastors and teachers need to be informed about the current scientific issues, and teach how to apply Biblical truth to these issues.  Young adults would have far less problem “staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries” if they were taught why there is no conflict between Biblical truth and real science.  1 Peter 3:15 tells us that we need to be prepared to defend the Gospel.  The church needs to equip science-minded Christians to stand up for the Gospel, and all Christians to defend the Gospel against the attacks of evolutionary pseudo-science.

Governmental Attacks on Religious Freedom

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

~ The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The First Amendment has been under attack for a long time.

The First Amendment contains two clauses pertaining to freedom of religion.  The first, known as the Establishment Clause, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”  The second, known as the Free Exercise Clause, reads, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The Federal Government has been gradually stripping away the rights of most religions, including Christianity, while at the same time granting and establishing special protection for other religions, especially Secular Humanism.

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).  This allows Secular Humanists the same rights as any other religious people under that Free Exercise Clause.  Secular Humanist organizations are tax-exempt as religious organizations.  Followers of Secular Humanism cannot be required to take oaths to God, and can file for conscientious objector status based on their religious beliefs, and are otherwise free to exercise their beliefs free from governmental intervention.

Yet, in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), the 9th Circuit Court ruled that Secular Humanism is not a religion under the Establishment Clause.  This means that Secular Humanism can be taught in public schools.  Public school teachers can actively attempt to convert students to Secular Humanism during instructional time, but are prohibited from initiating any discussion of other religions.

The courts have absurdly determined that Secular Humanism is a religion for free exercise clause purposes, and it is not a religion for establishment clause purposes.  This, in effect, allows the government to establish Secular Humanism as the de facto state religion, which it has done.

This is why evolution is taught in public schools, but creation and intelligent design cannot be; why relativistic morality is taught, but absolute morality cannot be; why teachers can assign readings from Darwin, Freud, Dawkins, and Asimov, but not the Bible; and why commencement speeches can be on any topic, except belief in God.

The recent Obama administration ruling requiring all employee health care plans, including religious organizations, to cover birth control, including drugs that induce abortion, is another example of the attack on religion by the government.  This ruling is a direct attack on both the Establishment Clause – the government is establishing access to birth control as a right – and the Free Exercise Clause – the government is forbidding religious organizations from freely exercising their belief that providing birth control is immoral.  In effect, the Obama administration is usurping the free exercise of certain religions by establishing the values of the religion of Secular Humanism as law.

Some people would like to frame the attacks on religious freedom as a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives.  I disagree.  It is a battle between God‘s people and the Devil:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 6:12, NKJV

I do agree that, as Christians, we must use the political process to defend our rights under the Constitution of the United States.  The pressure from religious organizations and from constituents in both the Republican and Democratic parties seems to be forcing the Obama administration to back down from its policy of mandating coverage for contraception in the health care plans of religious organizations.  However, when the fickle winds of public opinion blow in a different direction, there is nothing to prevent this administration – or another – from reinstituting this policy in the future.

I believe that it is far more important to remember that, ultimately, the problem is not political, but spiritual.  Satan has declared war on God’s people.  In order to halt the attacks on religion and reverse the decline of Christianity in America, Christians need to be on their knees, in repentance and supplication before God, and must actively and persistently work to change the hearts and minds of those around us, to lead people to a relationship with Jesus Christ, and to help them become His doctrinally sound, mature disciples.  This is the only viable, Biblically-sound solution to the attacks on Christianity.