“…a moralistic religion of self-salvation is our default setting as fallen creatures. If we are not explicitly and regularly taught out of it, we will always turn the message of God’s rescue operation in a message of self-help.”
–Michael Horton, “Are Churches Secularizing America?” Modern Reformation, V17, N2, 2008.
According to a program on the Animal Planet, bears ‘adapted’ the ability to hibernate in ‘response’ to food shortages. Additionally, certain crickets ‘adapted’ the capacity to withstand being frozen solid. In other words, evolution occurring over millions of years produced in these bears and crickets an ability they did not possess before.
Yet scientists don’t know how either of these animals accomplishes its cold-weather feats. If they don’t know how it’s done, how can scientists be certain that those abilities ‘evolved’? The idea of evolution such as this is that the accumulation of many minute changes are passed down through generations, eventually resulting in the characteristics we observe now. So, at one time, bears could not hibernate. On this theory, the first bear ‘hibernated’ a little bit, his bear son hibernated a little more, and so on until the great-great bear grandson made it all the way through winter.
Can anyone see the problem? The case of the cricket makes the difficulty more obvious. The first cricket in the evolutionary chain could not withstand being frozen solid. Little Jiminy, therefore, died. After attempting to survive being frozen Jiminy left no cricket offspring to whom to pass his contribution to the evolutionary process — jumping into the freezer.
Another problem is that there are plenty of cold-weather animals that do not have this ability to hibernate. Most notable among them: men. What makes one animal ‘adapt’ favorably and others not? The evolutionists thus propose a position that these hibernating creatures are ‘smarter’ than humans. Sure, men can fashion warm clothing and build heaters, but so what?
Isn’t it more reasonable, doesn’t it make more sense, that these animals were designed this way?
Certainly by now I am not the only one who has noticed the utter stupidity of current US energy policy. Of course, calling it ‘policy’ implies that someone has actually thought about it, which is perhaps giving a bit too much credit. Images of knees jerking come to mind.
Gas prices are soaring, the price of crude oil is soaring, and more than likely the incidents of hitherto unknown ‘pump rage’ will soon be soaring. Oh, and the oil sheiks across the pond are soaring off the moguls on their full-size, indoor ski slope, purchased with the profit from my driving to work and hauling rug rats to T-ball.
We are, at present, refusing to open up new oil fields for drilling and are making it as difficult as possible to open new refineries (to process Saudi oil) or build new nuclear plants. That big slurping sound you hear is China sucking the oil and natural gas from under the Gulf of Mexico. Soon our heads of state will not only be begging increased production from Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, but also from the Chi-Coms. Jamaica was able to put together a bobsled team for the Winter Olympics: perhaps, they, too will soon be drilling our oil.
The response from alleged leaders is noticeably juvenile. Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain recently opined that we should be developing power from wind and solar sources and from battery-operated-cars good for 100 miles before a plug-in. I was waiting breathlessly for him to suggest that we harness the power of twisted rubber bands, or juice up every gerbil exerciser in the country.
God gave us corn. God gave us oil. He did not give us Ethanol, and for a very good reason. Corn makes delicious foodstuffs: cornbread, fritters, muffins, tortillas, taco shells, and nachos. It is also crucial for agriculture, fattening our cows, pigs and chickens. Corn is good to eat. Oil, on the other hand, is good to burn. And to lubricate the moving parts of machines that burn it.
Yet, what is our stance toward these two, God-given resources? Leave the oil in the ground and put the corn in the car.
If we rely on this logic for too much longer, household exchanges might sound like this:
Boy: ‘Daddy, I sure am hungry. What’s for supper?’
Daddy: ‘Crude on the cob. Dip this dried up husk in some oil and suck on it.’
“People in Sunday School should feel comfortable, welcome, loved, and willing to help.” So says a long-time Bible study teacher who was advocating against the notion of evaluating church Bible teachers. Is this true? If so, then what is the difference between an alleged Christian Sunday School class and the local Garden or Exchange Club?
Is this what the calling of Christ has become? A summons for those willing to forsake all for the Christ to ‘come, and be comfortable?’
A colleague chastises me for slipping of my loafers and walking around the office in my sock feet. There is no unbearable stench or ugly toes poking through threadbare material. He just doesn’t like feet. But why wear loafers (he does) and only remove them at home? Why obtain the ability to easily remove your shoes but never use it?
CONVENIENCE WITHOUT UTILITY IS MERE NOVELTY.
The congregation of a Baptist church became quite exercised when a pool hall across the street applied for a liquor license with the city. Because of the natural — and admittedly stereotypical — incompatibility of Baptists and beer, strategies were devised, the warnings sounded, and the forces mobilized. It was considered a great victory when the city, primarily due to the agitation of the church, denied the liquor license, and the pool hall eventually closed. (It was not reported whether the hall’s patrons had also been dancing and playing cards.)
In 2 Corinthians 5:12-13 the apostle Paul warns the church that it is to judge those on the inside, not those on the outside, because God would handle them. Yet the congregation that expended such energy in excising “evil” from the surrounding community turned a blind eye to the greed, selfishness, anger and unfaithfulness of its own members. To be fair, most congregations are the same in this regard, refusing to exercise discipline and tolerating sin in their midst.
The church, according to Scripture, should judge those inside, not those outside, yet we do precisely the opposite. We judge those outside as if they should know better, and ignore those inside as if they should not.
The world thus sees the church criticizing people who do not know God for drinking, gambling, sexing, spending, killing and all the rest, without offering any hope of reconciliation with God. At the same time, the world sees the church permitting its members to live however they want, without any consequence.
Perhaps Paul challenged the church to exhort its own members to faithful, holy living in order for it to establish a voice with those outside, with those who might long for an example of truly changed and redeemed lives from those who claim the gospel is powerful to change and redeem them.
Besides, given his behavior in Scripture, one suspects that Jesus would have been over at the pool hall ministering, not throwing stones across the street.
Posted on the marquis of a public middle school: “It doesn’t matter what you believe — only that you believe.”
Lets hold off, for a moment, on the standard jokes regarding the competency of public schools to educate, and test this proposition. Lets suppose that a middle school student could actually read the marquis and began to put its truth proposition into practice (and yes, the statement is a proposition about truth, regardless of its contention that truth does not matter). Sammy Student formulates the belief, based upon his school marquis, that good grades were not dependent upon completing coursework, paying attention in class, or even upon attending school. He receives an “F” (this may be a bit unrealistic, because giving bad grades could be considered too “judgmental”) but “believes” that it is an “A”, and his fragile self-esteem is, at least temporarily, preserved.
Or, lets suppose that Sammy believes that drugs were not truly illegal. Or that it was acceptable for him to beat another student senseless in the bathroom. Or that strapping explosives to his chest and blowing his student body (in both senses) to smithereens would make him a hero.
Would it be any comfort, or would it meet reality in any sense, for him to explain these things “Well, I believed., and isn’t that what really matters?”
What I “believe” is that this vacuous, feel-good tripe is both unlivable and self-contradictory. As Sammy Student so painfully discovers, the proposition does not enable him to live his life, because he would not live long believing “It will not hurt me if I step in front of this chicken truck.” Furthermore, the statement is self-defeating. If it does not matter what I believe, then I don’t need to believe this statement. Because it proposes an accurate assessment of reality, it is a truth claim. But if the statement is true, it proves itself untrue.
Is this what passes for education? Or what people believe about life? I believe so, and that is what matters.