Headline Potpourri #89

President Obama remarked in light of the Brexit decision that it is more efficient to negotiate trade deals with blocs of nations rather than one at a time. Since when did he care about government operating efficiently?

A congregation was instructed to pray that a forecasted shower would be directed towards other towns so as to avoid raining during the scheduled vacation Bible school. But what if churches in these other vicinities also have vacation Bible school scheduled for this particular evening?

Is speculating Britain leaving the European Union might bring that confederation back down to the ten prophesied to grant authority to the Beast anymore worthy of a condescending snort than a sermon series on the Book of Revelation ascribing most of the upheaval described within to Muslims or that tornadic calamity befalling America's agrarian heartland classes is the fault of foreign policy elites in their Foggy Bottom offices failing to pander to Zionist interests? Perhaps this is why some don't usually open their mouths in church if sincerely responding to what one thinks about what is going on in the news is going to lead to feelings of derision and borderline belittlement.

A prayer thanking the Lord that a VBS mishap wasn't too bad sounds suspiciously similar to “Lord, thank you that there likely won't be a lawsuit.”

It was remarked in an opening prayer that, in some churches, the formalized weekly hootenanny begins with an invocation asking God to be with the proceedings but that in this particular church such was not required because He is wherever two or three are gathered in His name. If God already knows what is going on in other churches, is there really a need to remind Him of this publicly? Doesn't this prayer translate as, “Lord, the way we do things here is so much better than everywhere else. Thank you, Lord, that we are not like other men.”

A sermon on Genesis 41:38-53 was titled “Joseph's Reward From The Lord.” If this text is approached from the standpoint of what believers can also expect from the Lord, does that possibly include a heathen wife from a family benefiting from a polytheistic religious power structure? After all, it says in the passage that Joseph's wife was the daughter of a priest of On. I guess this is one of the things you aren't supposed to notice in the text. Mind you, to many of the hardline fundamentalists you are violating the injunctions about being unequally yoked if you just go out on a date with a Methodist or some manner of Charismatic.

If you point out that the King James says butler but the idea is more cupbearer, aren't you saying that the King James might not be the most accurate English translation out there after all?

It was said in a sermon that some that don't like police officers because such people usually want to commit crimes. True to an extent. However, for the sake of accuracy, shouldn't if such a remark is delivered from behind the so-called “holy desk”, shouldn't it also be recognized that some sincere people are not that found of law enforcement because of the disturbing percentage within that profession that like to throw their weight around?

A hymn often sung on Mothers and Fathers Day with the lyrics altered to fit the respective parent being celebrated is “Faith Of Our Fathers/Mothers”. One verse reads, “Our Fathers/Mothers chained in prisons dark, were still in heart and conscience free. How sweet would be their children's fate if they, like them, could die for Thee.” So aren't what you are asking for essentially that your children be executed for their faith? Seems to me does not Scripture counsel pray that you get to live a quiet and peaceable life with that being one of the primary reasons Romans 13 urges submission to temporal authorities?

A UNICEF commercial begs for money from viewers. In other words, an appeal to the free market to alleviate the suffering largely the result of socialist or command economies.

Given with what is being done with Marvel superheroes, the great prize to be claimed throughout the multiverse to be valued even more than the Infinity Gauntlet will eventually be the last remaining drops of testosterone.

Sulu is to be revealed to be homosexual in the upcoming Star Trek film largely because George Takei, who originally portrayed the character in the original TV series, is himself gay. Applying this logic, should it be concluded that the character of Willard Deckard from Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a child molester since it was later revealed that actor Stephen Collins exhibited that particular inclination on a number of occasions?

Regarding the Archbishop demanding that divorced remarried Catholics live in a celibate state without carnal relations. Wonder if he is as condemnatory of his fellow clergy with a hankering for underaged minors.

In light of the terrorist attack against police in Dallas, those questioning the militarization of law enforcement are now being categorized as subversive. Police should be granted access to the equipment that will protect them. However, citizens are rightfully concerned when the federal government has often told these departments that not even the municipalities that provide the civilian oversight of these agencies is to be told that the agencies now possess this equipment.

If Fox News analysts are going to insist that nothing critical of law enforcement should ever be verbalized for fear that such remarks might spark violence against police, does the network intend to extend such protective linguistic deference to other civil servants such as revenue officers and environmental regulators?

Hillary Clinton said White Americans need to do a better job of listening. Does she also plan to say that Black people need to do a better job of not destroying property when confronted with a story in the news that they find upsetting?

Matt Damon has called for the systematic confiscation of firearms across the United States. So in the upcoming Jason Bourne film, does the character intend to appeal solely to reason and warm sentiments in approaching conflict? And in failing to reach an amicable compromise, does the character intend to peacefully surrender in deference to the superior wisdom of collectivist institutions?

In a podcast regarding the demise of Christian Conservatism, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson spoofed the number of activists advocating this particular ideology that fell into sexual sin. Does he include within that criticism his own good friends and allies such as Doug Phillips of Vision Forum and his own former sidekick Dave Beuner? Contrary to the racial guilt peddled by Southern Baptist bigshot Russell Moore, one fails to see how middle aged and geriatric working class Whites that have never committed a crime are at fault for minority youth that lack the basics of self control.

A meme with a quote attributed to Dr. James White reads, “I have no interest in fireworks because my country has indeed declared its independence from God.” Maybe so. But does it follow from that statement that everybody else's party needs to be pooped on? Things are indeed likely descending into Ghenna in a wicker transport receptacle. However, that does not mean one can't take a celebratory day to both recall times past and to enjoy what good things still remain in America. Secondly, Dr. James White has positioned himself as a foremost Reformed Calvinist theologian. As such, if America has declared its independence from God, as White suggests, isn't that God's responsibility for imposing the inability to head anywhere but in that lamented direction?

Home school activist Kevin Swanson claimed that there is a push to allow the transgendered to use their bathroom of choice because Christian parents have not taught their children the law of God. But apart from an activist cabal demanding such a level of debauchery and their handlers among the New World Order elite, what normal everyday people support this policy innovation? Given that Swanson is himself a Christian parent, are we to assume that because this is transpiring that he ranks among those that have not properly taught his children?

Echoing the spirit of the FBI's disposition of the Hillary Clinton investigation, try telling the IRS that in failing to file your tax return that you did not intend to defraud the government of any income in that the government had already preemptively confiscated what it was owed to begin with and see what happens to you.

In a discussion with Albert Mohler regarding our fractured society with political theorist Yuval Levin, it was decreed that we ought to be more invested in our COMMUNITIES. And what if the respective institutions at that particular level of social organization don't really want your involvement?

Given that the one shooting victim was selling videos in a parking lot, couldn't it just as legitimately be viewed as an assault against capitalism? Interesting how the leftwing media never plays up that angle.

Hillary Clinton has said that Whites need to put themselves into the shoes of Black people. By that, she is probably referencing so-called criminal justice disparities. As such, the very first she needs to redress is her own case in which anyone else in a similar situation would have been tossed in the slammer for decades probably.

If a Lutheran church building has two distinct congregations of the same denomination meeting on the property and one is specifically advertised as “multiethnic”, are those that decide to attend that one berated and chastised for not wanting to be around White people?

If Obama believes in class integration of neighborhoods to the point where his regime threatens to erect ghetto enclaves in middle class areas, why is he planning to move to ritzy sections of Northwest, DC rather than somewhere like Suitland, Glennarden, or District Heights?

The Mormon Church condemned its member Ammon Bundy for his occupation of a federal wildlife preserve in Oregon. Does the organization issue press releases regarding the questionable actions perpetrated by its other members? Did the Latter Day Saints release official declarations at the point in Mitt Romney's political career when he supported the right to an abortion? Did the church issue an epistle in condemnation of obscure presidential candidate John Huntsman's support of gay marriage? And perhaps most importantly, how was Bundy's “militia” any worse than the armed gangs raised by Mormonism's “prophet” Joseph Smith?

On an episode of “Standing For The Truth”, it was suggested that the only thing that will likely bring revival to America is persecution. However, it was lamented, the attitude of the average American is to avoid suffering. Such a statement raises at least two observations. If persecution breaks out in America and we are expected to view that as the Yankee getting what's coming to him and we'll be better off as a result, why isn't the same thing being said regarding other nation's such as Syria? For did not the Christians martyred there also fail to exhibit a faith pure enough if they are enduring such obvious affliction? Secondly, if only Americans seem to run from hardship and misery, why are hordes of refugees pouring over the borders of modernized nations?

In a Berean Baptist Church podcast, it was countered that to counter transgender restrooms, Christians ought to open up their homes to be used as alternative public facilities. It was also decreed that any believer unwilling to allow total strangers to urinate or defecate in their homes were selfish. So what is to prevent deviants from getting hold of a list of citizens providing this service and using the document for nefarious purposes such as robbery or sexual assault? Will this church pay the legal bills of homeowners defending themselves or is it still more glamorous to finance missionaries ?

Those that oppose investment in fossil fuels certainly don't mind reliance on the numerous devices that depend upon such resources in order to remain functional.

Michael Savage has said that survival is more important than civil rights. For a certain extent that is correct. But what if Savage was one of the ones locked away without trial with no concrete charges filed against him. After all, didn't Savage toss a fit when he was banned from entering the United Kingdom, a country he admitted he had no desire to visit in the first place?

During a sermon on Joseph, it was remarked how some emulated the Hebrew patriarch and lived up to their responsibility to teach vacation Bible school. Good for them. But from that, it does not follow that those that did not participate were somehow shirking responsibility. How does the pulpit exegete know that others did not having more pressing responsibilities to attend to during that period?

In a church where the vast majority that attend are elderly, on what grounds can it be said that few children in the congregation is evidence that parents aren't fulfilling their obligations? Can it be said for certain that children in the area don't attend other congregations?

It said in a church bulletin that over $200 had been donated for Syrian refugees in the Middle East. If offerings are now being bequeathed with strings attached, what if someone targets funds for outreach to Geeks at Comicon, bikers at Sturgis, or flea market vendors at swapmeets? After all, sociologists will likely concur that each of these is its own valid subculture.

It was remarked from a pulpit that, from what has been said by certain members of the congregation, a number of these believers seem to think Heaven is going to be similar to Earth. Given that humans as of yet really have no other geographical reference to relate in that most have not yet visited another planet or dimension, can people really be blamed if they think of this eternal destination in terms of the best that this particular reality consists of. Despite such beratings, leadership probably no doubt baffled why Sunday school attendance is down.

Regarding theologians and Bible scholars that mock those concerned as to whether or not we will recognize loved ones in Heaven, aren't you really ridiculing God who designed familial and relationship bonds to be so strong?

That's quite a hermeneutical homiletical stretch to reference Joseph's reunion with his brothers in Egypt as a springboard to mock those longing to be reunited with departed family in eternity.

It was said that dogs can't go to Heaven because they have a soul but not a spirit. As such, shouldn't evangelists be referred to as “spirit winners” rather than “soul winners”?

Newt Gingrich remarked that White Americans just can't comprehend what it is like to be Black. Wonder if he would ramble on in a similar progressivist manner if the road being blocked was one that his third Mrs. Gingrich traveled over to get to wherever it is one purchases those expensive Tiffany lamps she's reportedly so fond of?

Wonder if the media propagandists heralding as heroic the activists blocking access to public roadways would be as celebratory of pro-lifers blocking access to an abortion clinic, Tea Party demonstrators delaying access to the Food Stamp office, or a Christian baker standing by their own particular convictions denying a gay couple a wedding cake.

Featured on the August 2016 issue of Architectural Digest is a cover story titled “Anderson Cooper's Brazilian Paradise”. So apparently it is acceptable for this mouthpiece of the global elites to own multiple dwellings scattered across remote corners of the world. But if you reside in a single family dwelling in a suburb rather than a highly controlled multi-purpose highrise in a ghetto neighborhood you are accused of endangering planetary ecology.

Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that the nation needs men willing to put in tens of thousands of hours into the lives of the sons of single mothers. But isnt that more the fault and responsibility of the men that already put their something into these single mothers?

In his analysis of a mother arrested for beating her sons over burglarizing a neighbor, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that often these African American single mothers are the last line of social stability in the lives of these children. Does he also intend to admonish and chastise these Black women for their poor taste in breeding partners? After all, any other time Swanson is part of the chorus insisting that young women should rarely be allowed outside of their parents' home for the purposes of advanced education or even employment and are to be allowed minimal say as to whom their husbands will be.

“Reboot” means that producers lack the creativity for anything other than a rehashed origins story.

It is being insisted that using the police robot to expedite the Dallas gunman onward to his eternal reward was inappropriate because he was a veteran. That is really a moot point. This terrorist forfeited any respect due such when he turned his weapons on unsuspecting Americans.

Jeb Bush has announced that, in good conscience, he cannot vote for Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. So why are the remainder of us obligated to enthusiastically fall at the feet of his particular crime family or to surrender to them our hard earned resources simply because their minions drop a direct mail fund raising letter into our mailboxes.

Addressing the assassination of police officers in Dallas, President Obama said that “we ask too little of ourselves.” Maybe so of Obama's core constituencies that demand the world as their oyster and not lifting a finger for it with the exception of looting the property of others. The rest have already been asked of enough as they comply with assorted taxes compelling surrender of nearly 50% of what we own accompanied by threats of the brutal police state tactics the President otherwise opposes when applied to his beloved shiftless deadbeats.

A Louisiana mother arrested for whipping her sons after they burglarized a neighbor's house is being lauded as an ideal parent by a number of public officials. Yet the same ones praising her disciplinary methods would probably rank among the chorus that would condemn those wondering if the lack of character in the mother's own life was what led her to take such drastic steps in the lives of her children. For example, is she even married to the father of whom it was revealed is himself in the penitentiary?

In a sermon, it was suggested that, because Jesus did not utter condemnatory words during His trials and mistreatment, we are also obligated to emulate similar linguistic surrender when we find ourselves verbally attacked and berated. But is this exhortation about cultivating Christian virtue or more about letting the leadership have its way with a congregation? For in other instances, did not Christ give people a piece of His mind when He spoke in reference to the moneychangers in the Temple and when He said to the Pharisees that they were as whitewashed sepulchers? In addressing the Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter, how was comparing her to a dog little different than referring to someone as a “bitch”?

In a New York Times interview, Jimmy Carter categorized Donald Trump's mere advocacy (to say nothing of actual implementation) of a border wall and the banning of Muslims from entering the United States as human rights violations. Does the former president intend to speak out as forcefully against his allies in Hamas for producing Sesame Street-style programming indoctrinating toddlers regarding the glories of killing Christians and Jews in suicide attacks? Does Carter intend to renounce his friendship with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia? For in that regime, one can be executed for converting to another religion and women severely punished for being seen in public with a man that they are not related to. For supposedly being against the death penalty, Jimmy Carter certainly associates freely with rather bloodthirsty and murderous people yet rarely utters a word critical of these assorted atrocities.

Vocalizing criticism of the police is different than advocating violence against them.

It was said in a sermon that one ought not criticize a preacher until one has himself preached. However, it is doubtful that the ministers admonishing such would allow pulpit time to those that differ with them in opinion though still within the boundaries of orthodox theology. For when are the available opportunities, especially when what was billed as the first annual talent knight has not been held since its inaugural debut over two years ago? And where does it say that someone adept at the written word cannot critique something they encounter aurally?

It seems that these tragic assassinations of police officers are to serve as broad generalizations justifying sweeping changes in the course of public policy. If so, it would seem that the problem is not so much firearms in the hands of lifelong civilians but rather apparently in the hands of those supposedly trained by the government on how to handle a weapon.

CNN propagandists insist that Hillary Clinton's affinity for Saul Alinsky is no big deal since that was back in 1969. Wasn't that about the same time that Paula Deen is alleged to have verbalized the “N-word” in the privacy of her own home after being robbed at gunpoint? So if Paula Deen is to be punished over the articulation of a single phrase around which she did not build her life's work, shouldn't Hillary Clinton be ostracized even more so for a lifetime of striving to implement Alinsky's revolutionary totalitarianism?

In his upcoming book “Liars”, does Glenn Beck include Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

On Fox News, anchor Shannon Bream corrected Alan Colmes that being in favor of a business owner's religious liberty did not necessarily make one anti-gay. The leftwing pundit snapped back that such was a cold-hearted understanding of religious liberty of a kind that he did not believe in. Where does it say in the Constitution that such liberties are to be extended only to those that agree to implement those protections in an sufficiently warm or flaming manner?

It has been suggested that Hillary Clinton's email improprieties should be overlooked in large part because she likely did not intend any harm. Given that her actions were of even lesser consequence, why doesn't this same sense of magnanimity extend to Melania Trump in regards to her plagiarizing Michelle Obama's own convention oration?

Fuss has erupted that Melania Trump's Republican Convention speech might have been plagiarized. Is that all that big a deal if a potential First Lady confines herself to a traditional role? For her primary responsibilities would consist of seeing that her husband's clothes are cleaned, that he has been adequately fed, and sufficiently sexed.

If Megyn Kelley now insists sexual advances made by Roger Ailes over a decade ago are now somehow out of line, why didn't she leave before being given her own show that bumped Hannity to the 10 PM slot? How do we know she did not like it at the time until she found out she wasn't the only news skank that he had the hots for?

The forty-seventh anniversary of the Lunar Landing. That was back in the day before NASA's primary mission, according to President Obama, was to make Muslims feel positive about ancient contributions to math and science.

Throwing his weight around, Governor Chris Christie decreed that Ted Cruz is obligated to endorse Donald Trump as allegedly promised or that Cruz is not the person he presented himself to be to the American people. But given that Christie has condemned those believing that constitutional liberties are irrevocable absolutes, why is Cruz obligated to keep his alleged word when Christie does not believe that the government is obligated to keep its world?

If Cruz was allowed to speak at the Republican convention without endorsing Donald Trump, for the dimwits in the audience, that means he was not obligated to endorse Donald Trump. How is the approach taken by Cruz any different than Reagan not endorsing Ford? Yet from the esteem in which many of these same political operatives hold Ronald Reagan, one might easily conclude that the Gipper's flatulence exuded no aroma.

The verbal formulations selected by Cruz at the Republican convention have been categorized as “petty” and “classless”. His remarks were no more classless than Trump's remarks regarding Cruz's wife and those insinuating that Cruz's father played a role in the assassination of President Kennedy.

If Ted Cruz is obligated to endorse Donald Trump despite Trump insulting both Cruz's wife and father, how is this different than the mindset of cultic Obama worship that conservatives have condemned for nearly the past decade?

Leftwing propagandists are concerned that the Republican chant of “Lock her up” could lead to a mob mentality that might result in violence. Yet just recently CNN pundits insinuated that Black Lives Matter agitators should be allowed to rampage and destroy property as desired.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Confession: Breaking Through to Ultimate Victory by Dr. F. Stoner Clark

In the spirit of manufacturers today who set forth their products anticipating potential misuse or abuse of their products, I offer my own disclaimer with this article—not for the spiritually squeamish or faint of heart. I say that because I’m going to talk with you about “confession,” a long lost spiritual discipline within the Protestant ranks of the church. When most believers are presented with the idea of confession, it summons images of a Roman Catholic confessional booth where persons purportedly anonymously confess their sins to a priest. Although most Protestant believers are not averse to the idea of confessing their sins, they seldom think of this activity in terms of an accepted practice or discipline of the faith. If the confessing of one’s sins is truly a biblical mandate, then its omission could potentially leave believers seriously spiritually deficit in their Christian walk.

We turn to James’ epistle for our precedent in attempting to further understand the significance of this concept of confession.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much (Ja 5:16 NASB).

This verse directing believers to confess their sins is not an isolated, stand alone verse; it has a context in the preceding verses. Leading up to this directive is a discussion about how we are to address affliction and sickness which involves calling upon the church for prayer and ministry. It also brings out the correlation between life’s afflictions and sin in one’s life. The idea of healing here is directly related to the forgiveness of sins. This concept was first set forth by Jesus in his healing of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof where Jesus ministered.

“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’”? (Mk 2:9 NASV)

James verse on confession follows directly on the heels of addressing affliction and sickness. In the more modern translations the word “therefore” is supplied at the beginning of the verse. I believe this is a perfectly understood and correct rendering which captures the appropriate meaning of the verse. If we desire healing and wholeness, we should solicit the ministry and prayer of the church and then in keeping with that action we should confess our sins.

I believe a brief caveat would be in order at this point. In seeking to more fully understand the significance of personal confession as it relates to our walk with Christ, we need to see that this issue is much broader than simply obtaining physical healing for our bodies. As with all teachings in Scripture, we should couch it within the meta-narrative of God. We should always keep the larger picture of God’s ultimate intention as our context. Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection wasn’t just about securing our place in heaven. It was principally about bringing us fully into the same kind of relationship with Father God that Jesus himself has always enjoyed. It is all about the full stature life in Christ, about being fully conformed to his image. Considering this, we can see that the New Testament concept of healing—drawing upon Thayer’s Greek Lexicon—means to make whole, to free from errors and sin, to bring about one’s full salvation.

Returning to our James 5 passage, we learn that what NASV translates as “sins” could just as easily be rendered offenses, trespasses, fall or faults. In matter of fact, the Greek paraptoma is translated by Thayers as: a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness; a sin, misdeed. This corresponds closely with our understanding of “healing” as that which brings us into the ultimate fullness in Christ. Taking these several verses together from James 5, I think it is reasonable to aver that coming out of our aberrant ways into a modality leading to full stature life in Christ minimally involves intra-church ministry and personal disclosure of how we have been spiritually errant. Confession is functionally both individual and corporate. However, this does not mean that all confession is necessarily public.

Summing up where we have come in this study so far, we can see that James has introduced a very challenging—if not threatening—spiritual discipline to the church. This discipline—confessing personal sins one to another—ties together the concepts of total wholeness and the need to reveal undisclosed sin in one’s life. Confession is an intra-body ministry and resolves to bring persons fully into conformity to the image of Christ.

Many believers struggle with understanding exactly what it is in their lives that deserves confession. Most Christians tend to over simplify the definition of sin as that which is outward, palpable and socially condemned. This viewpoint of sin is not only erroneous but will always leave believers far short of reaching the spiritual depths and maturation Jesus died to bring them into. As point of clarification, I am assuming here by definition that true believers would not be intentionally, knowingly involved in biblically defined sin such as is delineated in the Ten Commandments. Sin literally means missing the mark. Sin is broadly speaking anything in our hearts, attitudes, thought life and behavior that in any measure precludes Christ from assuming his rightful place on the throne of our hearts.

If we seriously want to grasp what it is in our lives that qualifies as confessionable, we simply need to look no further than identifying content in basically two areas. One is to bring indictment to every area in one’s life where there is a demonstrable failure to overcome according to biblical standards and the expectations of God. If we are failing to aspire to overcome in ways that are biblically mandated and that reflect the heart of God for us, then we are spiritually culpable in these ways. The second is to mark those areas of one’s life wherein God has been in any manner excluded or prohibited from assuming his rightful place in one’s heart. Maybe another way of viewing this is to discern in one’s life in what manner is conformity to the image of Christ being ignored, thwarted or denied.

In considering the above two categories, it is imperative that we keep our focus on the matters of the heart. We are enjoined in Proverbs to guard or watch over our hearts with all diligence since everything in life flows out of that. Jesus warned the Pharisees about cleansing the outside of the cup while ignoring the inside. He explained to his disciples that the origin of all corruption resided in the heart.

I want to qualify here that a proper understanding of confession must necessarily embrace sincere repentance. Without repentance—a turning and going the other way—confession simply turns into scrupulosity and becomes a farce. It becomes a kind of religious excessive-compulsive disorder wherein a pathological guilt arises over attention to misdeeds sans any intention to correct one’s heart and behavior. Without true repentance, confession is reduced to simply attempting to assuage one’s false guilt. Confession that arises out of godly sorrow and authentic repentance opens the way to emendation in one’s journey unto completion in Christ.

Confession is principally a matter of light and darkness, about things open and above board versus things buried and hidden, about that which produces spiritual health and well being as contrasted with that which is pathological in nature. The simple truth is that we are not going to overcome, mature and progress spiritually as long as unresolved un-Christ likeness continues to reside within our hearts. Any thoughts, attitudes or behaviors which fail to pass muster with respect to the righteousness of God and his holiness allowed to remain un-confessed and un-repented of will not only stymie current spiritual progress but will also become the grounds for even more extensive continuing spiritual damage in our lives. Un-confessed sin—anything in our lives that precludes Christ’s ascension in our hearts—provides Satan legal grounds for continuing his pathological activity in our lives.

Reconciling ourselves with this challenging discipline of confession will take intentionally rejecting the world’s concepts of how we perceive ourselves and how our understanding of personal significance and value are formed. The world’s concept of one’s significance is basically found in what one does and what others think. Since everyone’s emotional, psychological and spiritual well-being is very much dependent on a healthy self-perception, it is an ongoing struggle to effectively reject notions of self-worth based on one’s performance and what others think. If we adopt the world’s standards, we will find ourselves unconsciously and falsely covering up all detracting traits in our lives. The antidote for this spiritual malaise is in finding our significance—our sense of worth and value—fully in our relationship with Christ. When our self-perception is grounded purely in the love and acceptance of Christ and what he has done for us, we will be free to be fully integrous in all aspects of our lives and relationships.   

The drive to be admired, appreciated and accepted by others is nearly insatiable. All persons dread that sense of disappointment conveyed from others when failing to meet—in their eyes--expectations and measure up to whatever degree. It is fascinating that when Adam and Eve committed that original sin, their first response was to “cover up.” Unfortunately we are still continuing this destructive practice. One of the principal functions of the church is to create such an environment of love and acceptance—a safe zone—that persons will be released and encouraged to live personally integrous lives free of all pretensions and pseudo-personas. I believe this may be the major reason there are so many admonitions in the New Testament to “love one another.”  

In considering further what should be guiding our confession one to another, I want to draw upon the types and shadows in the Old Testament.

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the end of the age has come (1 Cor 10:11 NASB).

There is so much understanding to be found in the exploits of ancient Israel corresponding to the church. For example, God’s ultimate intention for his people—to be fully conformed to the image of Christ—is wonderfully depicted in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and subsequent possession of the Promised Land. Multiple times God conveyed to the people of Israel that he brought them out to take them in. Their deliverance wasn’t principally about coming out from under Egyptian bondage; it was first and foremost about getting them into the Promised Land. This is so strongly developed in the Old Testament that one could make the case that without their moving on to possess Canaan, there was no purpose in coming out of Egypt. It was Israel’s entering the Promised land that prefigured our coming into full maturation in Christ.

 Following Israel’s deliverance form Egypt they entered into the wilderness and faced various trying circumstances often leading to rebellious and unfaithful responses. Although God continuously met their needs in supernatural ways, they doubted and questioned the goodness of God and his benign intentions for them. Sometimes it was an issue of water or food. At other times they were confronted with the possibility of being overcome by an enemy. Israel’s typical response in these trails was to turn on their leaders, impugn the character of God and wish they were back in Egypt. God clarified that he allowed Israel to be tested in order to purify their hearts and bring them into absolute obedience.

Although Israel was punished for their moral failures in each of these scenarios, the most severe chastisement they received came at the border of Canaan in the face of the pejorative report brought by the ten spies. You can read the full account of this situation in Numbers 14. In this case, the people completely disbelieved God, accused him of bringing them out into the wilderness to kill them, made plans to return to Egypt and sought to stone Caleb and Joshua who attempted to persuade them of God’s true heart, intentions and ability to see them through whatever obstacles they faced.

In Caleb’s argument to the people, he strenuously warmed them about rebelling against God. The Hebrew word for rebel, marad, is defined in Strong’s thusly: to be contumacious, rebellious, seditious. Contumacious carries the following meaning: to be stubbornly perverse and rebellious; to be willfully and obstinately disobedient. Sedition is the act of leading others to rebel against authority. This is what Caleb was passionately warning the Israelites to avoid in their response to the spies’ report. As if this weren’t horrific enough, it gets even worse. Later in Numbers 14 we see God’s response to the rebellion of the people. “And the Lord said unto Moses, how long will this people provoke me”? What does it mean to “provoke” God? We mostly think of the term provoke as meaning to upset or possibly incite someone. However, the Hebrew renders this term thusly: to deride, to despise, to reject with contempt and derision. It is almost impossible to think of anyone intentionally, consciously treating God in this manner. However, this is exactly how God perceived the Israelites’ response.

Let’s see if we can summarize this situation and ascertain its significance for our discipline of confession today. God acted upon his eternal desire to form a people whom he would fill with his very presence by calling Abraham. From Abraham God amassed a people for himself shaping and refining them in the fires of affliction (Egypt) and ultimately delivering them through miraculous deeds. God made known his purpose to Israel of dwelling among them as his special people to whom he would provide an inheritance known as the Promised Land. At the border of the Promised Land and in light of the spies’ unfaithful report, the Israelites treated God with contempt, derision, perversion, obstinate disobedience, sedition and dispisableness. For these responses, for their refusal to enter the Promised Land, for their failure to believe and trust God, for their outrageous impugnment of the character of God, the people were disinherited and condemned to wander in the wilderness until all those over the age of twenty had died off. It would be hard to imagine a more final and ultimate punishment than to be cut off from God’s eternal intent and design to be filled with the fullness of his life with all of the ramifications appertaining thereto.

God’s ultimate intention has never changed or wavered. Being filled with the fullness of Christ, being conformed to his image, growing up into the full stature of Christ still remains Father God’s eternal desire and focus for our lives. Although there are myriad ways in which we can sin—far short of the glory of God—there is none more eternally fatal than refusing God’s overtures to bring us into the same relationship with himself that he enjoys with his only Son, Jesus. In determining the deepest egregiousness of sin, all one need do is ascertain to what degree a behavior, belief or attitude deters or precludes one’s progression into the fullness of Christ—the Promised Land.

Confessing our faults one to another is fully meant to help us discover and rectify the things in our lives that interdict God’s eternal work of taking his rightful place on the throne of our hearts. The consequences of not doing so are too monumental to contemplate. Working out the particulars of how confession is practiced in one’s life is mostly a personal matter. It is time to focus on that which is truly eternal, set our pride aside and cooperate with the eternal heart of almighty God.

Dr. F. Stoner Clark

Technology May Be Outpacing Limits Of Imagination & Ethics

If technological progress continues at its current pace, most authors of science fiction may soon find themselves out of work as science seems ready to surpass the ingenuity of speculative fantasy literature.

From a plot straight out of a movie or novel, a cult that worships extraterrestrials hopes to be the first to produce a cloned baby.

According to the Sunday Times of London, the Raelian movement through the auspices of its Clonaid corporation plans to produce a duplicate of a ten months old baby boy who died during an operation. So from a certain naturalistic perspective, one might say these scientists hope to bring about the child's "resurrection", if you will.

This story is quite newsworthy in itself. However, a closer examination of those behind this effort provides pivotal insight into the forces at work in the world today and their possible implications upon the future.

Clonaid's attempt at human cloning will be as much a religious sacrament for the group as a scientific accomplishment. According to the Sunday Times, the Raelian movement believes human beings were themselves originally genetically engineered by extraterrestrials.

The movement's webpage claims that in 1973 Claude Vorilhon met an extraterrestrial who revealed to him that life on earth was, in the words of the group's official statement, "not the work of an immaterial God, nor the result of random evolution."

Rather terrestrial life is the work of the "Elohim". Bible scholars will note this Hebrew word for God. Vorilhon contends the word has been mistranslated and more accurately means "those who came from the sky." Upon receiving this revelation, Vorilhon changed his name to "Rael", meaning "messenger of the Elohim".

Raelians also hope to establish an official embassy welcoming extraterrestrials to earth. They also reject the Book of Revelation, and for good reason as we shall discover later.

However, one does not necessarily have to turn to Bible prophecy to see where the implications of this story are possibly leading.

Viewers of the science fiction drama "Earth: Final Conflict" will note the similarity of the name adopted by the movement's chief seer, "Rael", with an alien character on the show named "Mael" who played a similar role in bringing extraterrestrial wisdom to mankind.

But from here, "Earth: Final Conflict" becomes more of an indictment against the Raelian movement than an advertisement for it. In a move paralleling Raelian teaching, the Talons, or "Companions" as they prefer to be called, arrive on earth in a spirit of peace and goodwill.

Such beneficence turns out to be merely a ruse since the true intentions of the Talons are to subjugate the earth and experiment on mankind, manipulating humanity into the Talons' ongoing conflict with another alien species known as the Jaridians.

In pursuit of this end, over the course of the program's four season run thus far, the Talons have placed cyber-viral implants into the minds of humans for purposes of control and genetically engineered clones referred to as "bio-surrogates" into which personalities could be downloaded from other bodies as well as attempted to produce human/alien hybrids in an attempt to solve the problem of their own infertility. There was even an early episode dealing with a "Church of the Companions" that worshipped the aliens, but little ever came of this potentially fruitful plot; one almost wonders now if it might have stepped on one to many toes.

Most would dismiss the Raelians as silly and any insight available through "Earth: Final Conflict" as escapist entertainment. It would seem, however, that extraterrestrial theologies and UFO religions are on the rise and increasing in influence.

Several years ago, the Heaven's Gate Cult committed mass suicide, thinking that leaving their earthly "containers" would beam them up to a spacecraft trailing the Hale-Bopp Comet. Scientology, the religion founded by science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, believes human beings are reincarnated space aliens. This particular sect is prominent among the Hollywood elite, with John Travolta and Tom Cruise perhaps being the most prominent adherents.

Yet this worldview placing extraterrestrials on the throne of heaven once occupied by God is not confined to the less educated fringe of society. It is becoming increasingly popular among society's so-called "sophistictaed" who cannot stomach submitting to an omnipotent God as the source of all morals and creation.

The director of the Raelian movement's Clonaid project, Brigette Boisselier, holds two doctorates and teaches college level chemistry. Others just as educated but perhaps not as quick to embrace the mystical ramifications of New Age theology are coming to accept the idea that life on earth is the product of intelligence beyond this planet. This is because naturalistic science needs a new alternative in light of probability declaring evolution an impossibility.

In scientific circles, the idea that life on earth developed in outer space is referred to as "panspermia" and is advocated by no less a scientific luminary as Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA.

But despite such stellar credentials, panspermia still doesn't cut it. For even if it were true, it only moves the need for God back one step. Even if man was manufactured aboard a flying saucer, it does not explain where the little green Martians came from. Eventually you're going to run up against the need for an unmoved mover originally discussed by Aristotle and given a more Christian form by Thomas Aquinas.

Unfortunately, history teaches that those unwilling to admit their sin and need for salvation through Jesus Christ are impervious to sound theological logic regardless of the consequences. And it might not be too far fetched that cloning and UFO theology might have a role to play in end times prophecy.

In a blasphemous attempt to imitate Jesus, the Anti-Christ might be brought about by a false virgin birth by being engineered in a laboratory as the perfect human specimen. Or upon receiving the head wound mentioned in Revelation 13, the Anti-Christ could be "resurrected" by being cloned or having his spirit "downloaded" into an additional body kept in cryogenic storage for just such an emergency.

Demons masquerading as extraterrestrials promoting New Age religion and philosophy could come forward to take responsibility for the Rapture, claiming that Christians upon the earth at the time had to be removed for the sake of mankind's evolutionary development.

Such scenarios are merely a possibility of how certain eschatological events might unfold in light of current philosophical, theological, and technological developments. To many, such a course of events seems highly unlikely. But then again, who among us as little as five years ago would have thought clones and UFO cults would come to the forefront as legitimate news items in reputable journalistic sources?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer's "The Church At The End Of The 20th Century"

Francis Schaeffer has been characterized as an Elijah to the late twentieth century. Though not as inspired in the same direct sense as his Biblical forebears, Francis Schaeffer did articulate a vision of the future remarkable in its accuracy and a message startling in its relevancy. Schaeffer was able to accomplish this by extrapolating from the cultural situation of the late 1960's and early 1970's and projecting these trends into the future where the implications of these assumptions would have the time necessary to fester over into a comprehensive dystopian milieu. Schaeffer's "The Church At The End 20th Century", from a standpoint a tad less than nearly a half century in the past, explored a world not unlike our own where Western society has abandoned its Judeo-Christian foundations and stands poised to lose not only its order but also its liberty as a consequence.

Throughout the corpus of his life's work, Francis Schaeffer categorized ideas as the primary force motivating history. Richard Pierard in "Reflections On Francis Schaeffer" says regarding Schaeffer's philosophy of history, "People's world views or presuppositions determine the direction of their political and social institutions and their scientific endeavors (199)." "The Church At The End Of The 20th Century" attempts to show how such distorted thinking comes to impact the structures of civilized existence such as the institutions of government and culture.

Francis Schaeffer concluded that the confusion and chaos rampant at the end of the twentieth century were traceable to the rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundations upon which Western civilization once sat. However, as a result, modern man has not drifted along as before, blissfully unencumbered by the burdens classical theism strove to address. Instead the whole world has pretty much started falling apart. In the first chapter titled "The Roots Of The Student Revolution", Schaeffer provides a summary of the streams of thought he saw as establishing the backdrop of the contemporary world drama.

Having abandoned the Judeo-Christian worldview, modern man has also forfeited many of the benefits inherent to that particular body of thought. Being the God of both the physical realm and its order as well as the realm of the spirit and its yearning for freedom, those turning their backs on the God of the Bible inevitably end up losing an essential balance between these two pillars of existence.

Much of the social confusion characterizing the contemporary world is understandable in terms of these extremes dancing unfettered across America's cultural landscape. In the mind of Schaeffer, philosophies and perspectives seemingly light-years apart to the casual observer were in the final analysis interconnected in that they stemmed from the same root problem.

A number of thinkers who have abandoned Judeo-Christian principles have attempted to find ultimate answers in an understanding of science construed though their materialistic philosophy excluding life's spiritual component. Schaeffer referred to this approach as "modern modern science" (13).

Schaeffer deliberately distinguished between modern science and modern modern science in an attempt to emphasize the difference between the two epistemological approaches. Schaeffer stressed that modern science in fact arose amidst a Christian framework. The methodology's earliest practitioners believed that one could understand the operation of the physical universe since it had been imbued with a sense of orderliness by its rational creator.

However, modern modern science would step beyond the confines of such a paradigm to exclude the role of God by arguing that the universe is a closed system complete in itself. But by eliminating the need for a personal Creator, modern modern science also eliminates those aspects of man transcending the sum of his material parts or those qualities Schaffer cleverly referred to as “the mannishness of man”.

When the cosmos is reduced to mere matter, man can no longer be seen as possessing those qualities that distinguish him from the proverbial furniture of the universe. Instead of arising as responses to metaphysical verities, things such as emotions, thoughts, and acts of creativity are reduced to nothing more than responses to electro-chemical biological stimuli. The aspirations the Declaration of Independence gives rise to become no different than the reaction to the gastrointestinal conditions sparking heartburn and may in fact possibly be interrelated.

The hypothesis of man as little more than an empty bag of mostly water, as the infamous Crystalline Entity put it on one episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, does not fit the data or provide much comfort on a cold night when we consider the aspects of existence seeming to rise above the immediacy of our biological functions. Such inadequacy no doubt provokes a response from those not willing to accept how divine revelation fills in these blanks but who realize that the cold scientism of Mr. Spock does not quite cut it either.

Schaeffer pointed out that assorted brands of mysticism are often, surprisingly, the children of scientism's ultimate consequences. With rationalism found wanting, modern man feels he must step beyond reason and make what Schaeffer refers to as "a leap upstairs" in order to find meaning in nonrational experience.

Writing along similar lines, James Sire says of existentialism in "The Universe Next Door", "....against the absurdity of the objective world, the authentic person must revolt and create value (100)." Values are not arrived at in a rational manner through contemplation upon transcendent criteria but through an intuitive choice based upon feeling much more akin to a mystical experience whether we decide to embrace New Age pantheism or various forms of political activism.

In such a situation, one is reminded of the famous statement in "The Charge Of The Light Brigade": "Ours is not reason why. Ours is but to do or die." The human heart realizes that there are things worth valuing beyond the concrete material universe even if it cannot justify the basis for this belief. However, when rational standards are abandoned, chaos of some sort is usually bound to follow.

Perhaps the most ironic thing of this entire discussion is that, the further each alternative gets from the Judeo-Christian standard, the more allegedly objective rationalism and subjective romanticism come to resemble one another. Schaeffer argued that, without some kind of transcendent reference point, even the imposing intellectual monolith of contemporary science breaks down into personal preference and social utility.

Schaeffer illustrated this by highlighting how Cambridge Anthropologist Edmund Leach preferred a theory of evolution whereby all human races descended from one common ancestor rather than arising separately from one another (92). Leach based such a conclusion on no other criteria than that the theory of a single common ancestor fit better with the notions of racial harmony.

No longer are scientific decisions to be made in light of the facts or data available at the time but in reference to the same kind of subjective criteria by which we would decide whether to wear a red or blue tie to work tomorrow. Right answers and wrong answers become predicated on their usefulness to society or at least to those wielding power. One might say objectively that objectivity is not quite what it use to be.

Things might not be so bad if adherents of these worldviews sat in a corner and kept quiet amongst themselves. Yet the ironic thing is that those convinced that no objective truth exists seem the most bent on inflicting their version of it upon everyone else in the attempt to remold society in their own image. Regarding the application of secularist perspectives, Schaeffer was perceptive in realizing that ---- as in the realm of thought ---- these non-Biblical approaches to social organization end up in the same place as well.

Schaeffer elaborates upon what he sees as three alternatives to a society built upon Christian foundations. Despite the differences in these systems, each bears a striking similarity.

The first alternative Schaeffer warns about is hedonism, defined as each doing their own thing. The second alternative is what Schaeffer refers to as "the dictatorship of 51%" or what social scientists and political theorists classify as pure democracy where there are no absolutes or standards beyond what is determined by the electorate, in a focus group, or by a committee. The third possibility Schaeffer foresaw was some kind of dictatorship, either in the form of one-man rule or by an elite technocratic bureaucracy.

As with scientism and the subjectivism from which the aforementioned approaches to politics and social organization derive their foundations, it would seem on the first view that anarchism and the various forms of authoritarianism would have little in common. But once again, closer investigation reveals that each shares a startling degree of similarity.

Anarchy promises liberation through the abolition of all traditional standards and institutions. This is either an empty promise or the proponents of this particular outlook do not fully realize what they are advocating.

Without eternal standards through which rights and property are respected, freedom rests on a most precarious foundation. For while the adherents of the various form of Leftism claim to stand for freedom and rights, this concern extends only to those professing an ideology similar to their own or pursuing related ends. Schaeffer illustrates this in the case of one student radical in Paris who told a caller to radio program, "...you just shut up --- I'll never give you a chance to speak (Schaeffer, 32)."

So much for freedom of expression. One cannot argue that such incidents merely reflect the heat of the moment and do not represent the true sentiments of those advocating total social revolution. Similar sentiments have been expressed by the very theoreticians of this movement as normative operating procedure.

Herbert Marcuse is quoted in "Left Of Liberal" as saying, "Certain things cannot be said, certain things cannot be expressed...which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination (Bouscaren, 13)." In other words, those seeking a world of absolute decentralization in terms of morals just as much as politics would set themselves up as an elite imposing their own arbitrary standards with the same radical rigor they employed in their conflict to rend asunder the traditional order. Francis Fukuyama, author of the acclaimed "The End Of History & The Last Man" noted in a May 22, 2000 Time magazine article titled "Will Socialism Make A Comeback" that a socialistic anarchism will come to exert influence over the world of the twenty-first century without having to assume the formal reins of government by orchestrating disruptive protests like those that now regularly taken place during global financial summits in an attempt to alter world policy.

Francis Schaeffer has been with the Lord since the early 1980's. Yet the thought of this visionary Presbyterian continues to provide considerable insight into a world tottering on the edge of chaos and encouragement for Evangelicals having to navigate a variety of perplexing issues. Schaeffer realized that one could not avoid the dangers of the contemporary world by simply ignoring arenas such as politics and other forms of social engagement since such forces have the power to impact all facets of existence in a mass society. Schaeffer addressed the impact of worldviews upon different aspects of culture in the chapter "Modern Man The Manipulator".

Particularly startling is the accuracy of Schaeffer's predictions regarding technological development. Schaeffer warned, "Very soon, all of us will be living in an electronic village hooked up to a huge computer, and we will be able to know what everybody else in the world thinks. The majority opinion will become law in that hour (97)."

Today, this prediction finds itself on the verge of fulfillment. Leaders such as Newt Gingrich and as far back as Ross Perot have suggested that the networking capability of the Internet be utilized for the purposes of referenda in order to decide major issues facing the nation. However, Schaeffer correctly warned of the manipulation likely to result from the use of this technology by and against individuals not adequately grounded in the truths that do not change regardless of the latest digital innovations. The Information Superhighway can take the websurfer either to the accumulated knowledge of mankind or the electronic equivalent of a red-light district.

Some will dismiss Schaeffer's injunctions as Evangelical eschatological hysteria, especially when he speculates about the bio-electronic manipulation of individuals in reference to a May 22, 1970 International Herald Tribune article about monkey controlled by radio receivers implanted into their brains (98). That is until one reads the May 22, 2000 edition of Time Magazine predicting that prison guards may someday be obsolete thanks to implantable biochips that could be used to modify inmate behavior. Then one realizes that Francis Schaeffer’s understanding of human nature is truly holistic, comprehending the present in light of the past and the future in relation to the present.

It would not be much of an overstatement to say that Francis Schaeffer played a primary role in awakening Evangelicals to the precarious state of the world around them. One cannot discount the influence of Schaeffer upon the contemporary Evangelical mind. Regarding Schaeffer’s influence, Clark Pinnock writes in "Reflections On Francis Schaeffer", “He [Schaeffer] enlisted in this task fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye who, although they were world-denying dispensationalists at first, quickly became culture-reclaiming activists (Pinnock, 179).” In other words, Schaeffer helped Evangelicalism realize that the world and human endeavor possessed value beyond the number of souls that could be saved, central though individual salvation may be.

Schaeffer in no way sought to undermine the centrality of the individual, but rather hoped to expand Evangelical concerns to encompass all areas of thought and creation since the God the Christian served was the master of these as well. It was out of this sanctity for the individual created in the image of God that Schaeffer believed it was imperative for believers to engage in these other areas. Key to accomplishing this mission, Schaeffer believed each individual must take stock of their personal beliefs. Schaeffer often lamented that most people caught their presuppositions like they would the measles ---- quite haphazardly.

Such reflection was just not to be a Sunday school exercise. Schaeffer saw it as groundwork for intensive apologetic conflict and engagement with a decaying world. Though himself a Presbyterian minister and evangelist, Schaeffer hoped to inspire Christians to get involved as salt and light in all academic disciplines and intellectual pursuits. Schaeffer said that the best thing a Christian scientist could do would be to invent a computer for the individual designed to counter the centralizing tendency of intrusive databases (Schaeffer, 99). No where did he conclude that learning was off limits to the believer since it had often been employed for questionable purposes.

I Chronicles 12:32 praises the children of Issachar for understanding the times in which they lived. Our own era stands witness to a rate of change unprecedented in the pages of history. Like the men of Issachar, Francis Schaeffer will be remembered as one of the few capable of rising above the confusion of the moment to determine the overall place of our times in relation to God's providence and the consequences that will result from ignoring it. By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Why Study Philosophy?

Because of its reputation as an esoteric field thanks to areas within the broader discipline concerned with matters barely connected with everyday life, many ask, “Why study philosophy?” when confronted with the subject. Related to this are concerns and reservations raised by many sincere Christians regarding this area of study because of luminaries such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx who used their formidable cognitive abilities to undermine the Judeo-Christian framework of Western civilization.

But in reality, philosophy can be a powerful tool capable of helping the Christian to better comprehend God's universe and to fulfill their Scriptural obligations as salt of the earth. In “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, Norman Geisler provides the reader with a number of reasons why the study of philosophy is useful beyond the exercise of mental abilities (20-22).

For starters, philosophy can aide the individual in understanding human society. Though many fail to realize it, philosophical issues are found at the base of civilized life and how a populace approaches these issues will determine the very quality of life enjoyed throughout society.

For example, does a woman's right to reproductive choice outweigh the human rights of the tiny life growing within her? Or, is it just to discriminate against those who have done no wrong in order to benefit the descendants of those who have faced historic injustices even though these descendants currently enjoy a considerable degree of equality?

It has been said that America is the only nation based on a set of ideas rather than an accident of geography. Those seeking to solve these complex social issues had better offer justification beyond the brute power of the state if delicately balanced liberties are to remain intact.

Professor Geisler also points out that philosophy with its emphasis on clear thought can help liberate the individual from provincialism and clarify the meaning of Scripture. Many times what the Church considers holy writ are in fact human accretions added on for whatever reason. These might be legitimate or mere grabs at power whose origins have been forgotten in the distant past. Besides assisting the Church in sifting between what is God's directive and man's opinion, legitimate philosophical inquiry can elucidate the holy reasoning behind a number of divine decrees. For example, through the application of reason and analysis, one can deduce that the Biblical dictates forbidding adultery are in fact rules set down by a loving Father rather than by a deity seeking to be a cosmic wet blanket.

It would be an accurate analogy to compare history's philosophical giants with the great military leaders of the past. Just as aspiring military officers study the strategies and tactics of these figures for the purposes of perfecting their own craft in order to defeat their battlefield adversaries, Christians must know their own opponents in the arena of ideas so that they might win souls for Christ and to retake social territories in the culture war (or at least prevent the loss of additional intellectual or moral ground).

For those turned off by military analogies and comparisons, John Warwick Montgomery suggested that the apologist must soak up the ideology of his day in a fashion not unlike a missionary learning a foreign language in order to communicate with those spiraling down the path towards eternal damnation. Philosophy, rightly applied, can be an immense help in the accomplishment of this task, especially when so much of contemporary thought is an eclectic mishmash of Nietzschean, Darwinian and Marxist ideology. With even a passing familiarity with philosophy, one is able to realize how many blows are struck at human liberty simply through poorly defined phrases and concepts.

II Corinthians 10:5 says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” For too long assorted factions within the Church have sought to sanctify their own ignorance. As a result, culture is reaping a harvest of bloodshed, blasphemy and disbelief.

It must be realized that God is the God of all creation, including philosophy when built upon a solid foundation. If Charlie Church is to reach out to Phil Philosophy, he must do so by showing that this field rightly divided also points back to the creator and sustainer of all things.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Minding The Times: An Exposition On Postmodernism

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, "For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not 'post' anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174)." In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook's Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data.

Even though the Modernists sought to set out on their own without holding God's hand, many of them endeavored to maintain a system of behavioral standards and social norms reflective of the Judeo-Christian ones embedded in the cultural consciousness but now resting on an alternative foundation. Rather than seeing the niceties governing civilized conduct as arising from the character of God and discoverable through the study or application of His Holy Word, these courtesies were seen as coming about through the unfolding of trial and error, a process most akin to biological evolution. While most Evangelicals are aware of the links between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism (both vile forms of totalitarianism), most are not as cognizant of the links between this theory of origins and what many would consider stereotypical British traditionalism. Alister McGrath writes in Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths, "Darwinism achieved popular success in England...because Darwin's ideas happened to coincide with advanced Whig social thinking relative to matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle class...Darwin's science provided a foundation for Victorian liberalism (161)."

It did not take long for the hopes, dreams, and promises of Modernism to break down and disappoint many of its enthusiastic adherents. Psalm 127:1 says, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain (KJV)." Instead of utopian brotherhood as promised by Marx, millions found themselves enslaved behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Instead of the sexual liberation promised by the likes of Freud, for tossing aside restraint and embracing the wilds of passion, just as many found their bodies rotting under the curse of diseases unheard of just a few decades ago. Still others discovered that a life of constant entertainment was not quite as entertaining as originally intended. As John Warwick Montgomery so eloquently summarized through his courses in Apologetics at one time offered through Trinity Theological Seminary, in the nineteenth century God was killed and in the twentieth century man was killed.

Thus, with the realization that finite man was incapable of establishing any enduring standard, the Postmodernist decided that the best that could be hoped for was a kind of compulsory hypertolerance all must ascent to and embrace in order to be recognized as full members of the community. Not unlike the Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were pretty much free to practice whatever religion they wished so long as there was room enough within their beliefs for the emperor as an object of worship, those existing under hypertolerance's prevailing rule find themselves free to believe whatever they would like provided they are publicly willing to admit that what the next fellow believes is just as valid, no matter how strange or unorthodox it might seem to be.

Such an approach of live-and-let-live might work between neighbors who agree to keep their differences on their own respective sides of the fence for the sake of community tranquility. However, there are instances in life where matters cannot be glossed over simply by closing the door behind you and retiring to your living room, especially when how controversial issues are approached will end up impacting the way in which people live.

After all, the idea of absolutist tolerance exists for purposes beyond mediating athletic rivalries among coworkers and arbitrating those heated debates as to whether chocolate or vanilla is the better flavor of ice cream. The concept, to the Postmodernist, becomes the central organizing social and cultural principle. Harold O.J. Brown notes in The Sensate Culture, "...postmodern man is beginning to create for himself a world filled with...all manner of beliefs that would have been dismissed as absurd superstitions only a few years ago (55)."

Since Postmodernism seeks to rest asunder traditional dogmas and orthodoxies, it inevitably ends up emphasizing outlooks and perspectives not regularly brought before the public's attention. Sometimes this can be beneficial in the sense that information once overlooked is brought to light that provides a more fully-orbed picture as to what really happened such as when historians expand the scope of their research outward from diplomatic or military concerns to embrace the social realm as well. However, the approach has often sparked more trouble than what it is worth in terms of the conflict that has arisen and the rights that have been trampled upon as activists jockey for position in this moral and intellectual free-for-all.

It is this propensity for Postmodernism to deny the existence of established objective truth that makes the system so dangerous. However, it can also be this aspect that works out to be the Christian's unwitting ally in the apologetic struggle.

To the Postmodernist, what we construe as knowledge is in reality mere interpretation; the fact is, facts do not exist. Chuck Colson writes in A Dance With Deception: Revealing The Truth Behind The Headlines, "The carelessness about factual accuracy didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a shift in educational theory...Educators began to downplay facts and focused instead on changing students' values to solve social problems (47)."

The result of this has been the ascension of increasingly bizarre academic theories and assertions more about promoting trendy causes than expanding the horizons of human understanding. For example, one Feminist professor contends that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is actually about pent-up sexual energy that "finally explodes in the...murderous rage of the rapist"; others of similar mind oppose the scientific method as an approach to acquiring knowledge, claiming the method is based on the subjugation and control of sexual domination (Colson, 55).

Some of this might be cute for a good laugh if it confined itself among a few lunatic professors who were trotted out before the students for an occasional lecture or to write articles for publication in journals barely read by anyone. Like most thinkers, Postmodernist scholars hope to exert influence over minds other than their own. Postmodernists, however, want to do more than alter the focus of classroom textbooks. Dr. James Kennedy warns in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul, "In fact at the bottom of the 'change' movement is a deep desire to dismantle this nation and to sever average Americans from their heritage of faith and freedom (74)."

It is said nature abhors a vacuum. Something will eventually step in to take the place of something else that has been removed.

In the film "The Neverending Story", the amorphous adversary known as "the Nothing" operates on the assumption that those without hope are easy to control. Postmodernists might claim to be creating a community of tolerance and inclusion free of artificial hierarchies, but end up imposing a regimen more doctrinaire than anything even the most tightly-wound Fundamentalist would devise.

This is because of what Francis Schaeffer termed "sociological law", defined in A Christian Manifesto as "...law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41)." This principle results in a mass of seemingly contradictory policies that are unified only in their opposition to the divine order of innate human dignity. The individual is reduced to the level of a mere cog to be tinkered with to improve the engine of the overarching societal machine.

For example, in the name of elevating minorities, certain programs such as campus speech codes and preferential employment practices turn around and infringe upon the traditional rights of those just as innocent as those these convoluted regulations claim to protect. Conversely, those justifying this social manipulation by such utilitarian standards could just as easily alter their position and justify the wholesale slaughter or detention of entire ethnic groups as in the case of Nazi Germany.

According to the Washington Times, Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard argues for the abolition of the White race. So long as Western institutions continue to embrace such blatantly pragmatic standards, one can no more count on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the precepts of liberty in the end than the Chinese Community Party since, no matter how much we try to dance around the issue, both ultimately draw upon the principle of the state as the final authority. They only interpret it differently at this given time.

The human mind and spirit cannot endure for very long the chaotic vacillation of such lawlessness before the individual eventually cries out for answers to the extremes of licentiousness and total control. Throughout much of the Modern Era, the Christian apologist could appeal to a shared respect for historic and scientific fact common to both Christianity and commonsense realism. Today, the Christian must first reestablish why anyone ought to believe in anything at all and then assert how the Biblical approach provides the best possible explanation for the condition in which man actually finds himself and the facts as they are rather than how he might like them to be.

The apologist must begin this process by exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Postmodernist system. James Sire writes in The Universe Next Door, "If we hold that all linguistic utterances are power plays, then that utterance itself is a power play and no more likely to be more proper than any other (187)."

This claim by Postmodernists that all utterances are merely power plays fails the test of systematic consistency where a philosophical proposition must square with the external world as well as logically cohere with the other statements comprising the set of beliefs under consideration. But more important than the sense of satisfaction resulting from the discovery of this contradiction allowing for a degree of one-upmanship in the battle of ideas is the realization that this contradiction exposes the unlivability of a particular worldview.

Big deal, the Postmodernist might quip in response to this inconsistency since they are not known for their devotion to logical argumentation. Try as they might to gloss over this oversight with platitudes honoring the glories of relativism and tolerance, Postmodernists still deep down possess that human yearning for a universal justice. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..."

It might not be fashionable to contend that there is no such thing as right and wrong and often believing such is even an occupational requirement in certain academic and governmental circles. But when it comes down to it, no one really wants to be treated as if that was the case. C.S. Lewis was fond of noting that those among us preaching the loudest in favor of relativism would cry bloody murder just like the rest of us if egregiously wronged. Just see what happens the next time the faculty nihilist is denied tenure when up for review.

Once it is established by our own existential makeup that there is something to right and wrong beyond the whims of those strong enough to have their way with the weak, it needs to be highlighted where these standards come from. John Frame in Apologetics To The Glory Of God writes, "Now, where does this authority of the absolute moral principle come from? Ultimately, only two kinds of answers are possible: the source of absolute moral authority is either personal or impersonal (97)."

This means that the ethical framework of the universe either arose within its own structure on its own or through the conscientious ordering of a higher organizing mind. Since we ourselves possess consciousness, by default the source of this moral order would have to be aware since it is impossible for the unaware to give rise to the aware or even to establish an ordered universe since that which is not guided and directed is haphazard and random.

If the Christian has been successful up to this point, the Christian has aided the Postmodernist in realizing that there is purpose and direction in life. The next step in the process involved proving to the Postmodernist that the Christian faith is the correct system of thought and meaning. Now the Christian can reintroduce a more traditional apologetic since the Postmodernist is now capable of stomaching objective fact.

The task of the Christian Apologist is to show the unbeliever that the Christian faith is the most viable religious option. This is accomplished by emphasizing the validity of the Biblical account. The first hurdle to overcome regards the historical legitimacy of the Gospel records. To accomplish, Winfried Corduan provides the following checklist of questions in No Doubt About It: The Case For Christianity: "(1) Are the accounts written by people closely associated with the event? (2) Are our present versions of the Gospels what the original authors wrote? (3) Are the accounts so biased as to be unbelievable? (4) Do the accounts contain impossibilities (186)?"

By answering these questions, it is discovered that the Gospels are remarkably well off. The Gospels are themselves written by eyewitnesses or contain the testimony of eyewitnesses. Corduan writes, "Matthew and John were disciples...Mark was a native of Jerusalem and present at the Gospel events...and reported the reminisces of Peter. Luke...was not a disciple...Yet tells of the research he did (189)."

Regarding the quality of the Gospel manuscripts, so many have come down to us in the present day with so few variant readings that there is little chance of some textual huckster committing documentary fraud without someone catching wind of it. As to the matter of bias, while the Gospels and the Bible were written to advance a certain perspective the same as any other book, it is remarkably blunt in cataloging the shortcomings of its most beloved protagonists. Most memoirs and autobiographies go out of their way to cast their subjects in the most favorable light possible even at the expense of factual accuracy.

Lastly, as to whether or not the Gospels record impossibilities is a matter of preconception in the mind of the beholder. One can either maintain the Humean notion that miracles do not occur because miracles do not occur or abide by the canons of historical research and accept these extraordinary events as they come since the rest of the document passes muster.

Since the Gospels are deemed as historically reliable, it would follow that those studying these document should look to those spoken thereof in its pages to provided the content and meaning of these events addressed. After all, the Founding Fathers are still looked to as important sources for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and for what was intended for the early American republic.

Likewise, to comprehend fully the significance of Jesus, the sincere student of history ought to consider what this historical figure said about himself. Jesus says in Matthew 12:39-40, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign. But none will be given except for the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and nights in the heart of the earth." From later passages detailing the Resurrection, we see that he carried through on this promise.

In Matthew 16:13-17, Jesus asks His disciples who they think He is. Peter responds, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus did not chastise Peter for idolatry; instead he ratified the Apostle's assertion by replying, "Blessed are you, Simeon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

An apologetic designed to address the concerns raised by Postmodernism presents a number of possibilities as well as challenges to the Christian seeking to reach those trapped by this subtle but pervasive mindset. Crafting an apologetic addressing the spirit of the age to an extent makes the evangelistic task somewhat easier.

Postmodernism already wrests asunder most metaphysical pretensions as linguistic obfuscations protecting the powerful. Therefore, the Postmodernist has already done a portion of the Christian’s work by exposing the invalidity of most intellectual systems. The Christian can therefore rush in and expose the contradictory nature of outright nihilism without first having to tear down incorrect theologies and the faulty ethics arising from them. As a result, the Christian can then show how the alternatives found in the Bible strike the proper balance between the liberation and conformity tearing at the heart of contemporary culture and individual well-being.

However, these characteristics can also serve as drawbacks when employing an apologetic addressing Postmodernism. Even though the Apologist does not have to deconstruct (to use a term popular in Postmodernist circles) faulty conceptions of God when dealing with these thinkers, the Christian has to take the time to reestablish why anything matters at all. With those hovering around the periphery, it might be relatively easy to lure them back onto the solid ground of commonsense founded on Christian absolutes; however, those at the heart of this movement churning out its lies and deceptions will be considerably harder to convince and will continue to ensnare unreflective minds.

It is in the campaign against this ongoing subversion that the Christian waging a defensive action to preserve the remaining shreds of moral sanity can get bogged down and neglect the distinctives of the Christian faith in favor of a less offensive set of principles common to various religions and ideologies shocked by the ethical brutality of the contemporary era.

Of the crop of books over the past few years by figures such as Bill Benet, Robert Bork, and James Q. Wilson that bemoan the decline in social morality, Hugh Hewitt writes in The Embarrassed Believer: Reviving Christian Witness In An Age Of Unbelief, “But there is no apologetic content to these writings. And they are mute on the ultimate question, they are ineffective. In fact, they might actually be harmful (154).” The Christian accomplishes little of lasting impact if the message is watered down to attract allies or spends inordinate amounts of time addressing the symptoms of the disease rather than the cause.

Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual darkness in high places.” The Christian is involved in a grand spiritual conflict all around him. As in all wars, weapons and tactics change over time as each side engages in a spiraling exchange of point/counterpoint as each side tries to best the other.

In the Modern era, the Christian utilized an apologetic appealing to a common respect for objective factual knowledge shared with the broader culture. However, in the change to Postmodernism, the Christian has had to alter the apologetic to show how life without objective truth is unlivable. From that point the Apologist can go on to show how what Francis Schaeffer termed “true truth” indelibly points towards Christ.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network