Is The Social Gospel A Misnomer?

NB: The Bible addresses this issue directly in Amos, who decries the lack of social justice (5:24).

"Where there is no vision the people perish..." (Prov. 29:18 KJV).
NB: A church has a mission to the unchurched and a ministry to its congregation. We are all ministers and should all be on a mission. Many believers confuse works and faith not realizing that works are not a replacement of faith, but the fruit of it. Faith without works is dead according to James 2:17 and dead faith saves no one. We need people of social concern, but this is not the primary function of the church--discipleship is.

However, the faith you have is the faith you show, they say. We are not saved by works and we are not saved without works either. We are not saved by service but unto service. If we have no good works, our faith is suspect or spurious. Eph. 2:10 asserts that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." We don't want to be like the Cretans: "They profess to know God, but by their works they deny Him." True faith yields fruit: no fruit, no faith. John 15:16 says, "But I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide...." Again: "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Heb. 10:24). The danger is that there will be some who are converted to the program but not to Christ. To sum it up, the Reformation formula was that we are "saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

I do not believe He is even going to ask us if we are Arminian or Reformed in our interpretation of Scripture. However, He is going to say," I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was naked and you clothed me, and I was in prison and you visited me." Christianity is not a philosophy, but a relationship with a living Lord (and this has become a cliché) but, nevertheless, it is vital that our faith doesn't vanish into a religion of dos and don'ts, or a duty done out of obligation, rather than love as a high calling and not as duty (God sees our motives).

In Mal. 3:5 God is "against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages" and who "thrust aside the sojourner". God is indeed concerned about social issues (there are many social injustices that one could get concerned about privately) and it may be the calling of individual Christians to go on a crusade (e.g., against child labor or slavery), but this is not the calling of the church at large. Great Christians like William Wilberforce have influenced the end of slavery as we know it in the free world. The job of the church is to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe all that Christ commanded (cf. Matt. 28:19-20). Soli Deo Gloria!

The Necessity Of A Christian Worldview

"Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred..." (1 Chronicles 12:32, NASB).

"... [A] people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14, ESV).

C. S. Lewis, the literary apologist who wrote the Chronicles of Narnia and Mere Christianity, said we must defend our worldview and not lose by default or neglect---in other words, we must have the answers and be prepared for spiritual battle. Lewis also says "[we] must show our Christian colours, if we are to be true to Jesus Christ. We cannot remain silent and concede everything away." We must dare to be "Daniels" willing to get into the action and not stand aside and merely passively observe. We cannot remain neutral, for that is a stand against Christ and His truth. Matthew 12:30 says: "He that is not with Me is against Me."

The Judeo-Christian mindset has not failed, it has not been defended, but abandoned. The dual problem is that many do not know why they believe, nor even what they believe! Our mission: Get the truth out there and propagated in a culture that is convinced that "truth is a short-term contract," but there is absolute truth! But it is not all relevant. We must all be responsible to disseminate what light God has given us. The ramifications of being remiss or negligent are a nation devoid of divine viewpoint and being hi-jacked by fanatical or fringe movements, using God to promote their agenda, and possibly even the ultimate surrender to secular thinking, and the elimination of Christian input in toto into the public square could transpire, i.e., muzzling our freedom of speech!

What is a worldview (commonly referred to as Weltanschauung, the German terminology)? Opinions are something you hold, while convictions hold you: It is the sum total of your convictions and why you see a life worth living or something worth dying for. It has been said that it usually answers the queries: "Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?" Your worldview helps you explain God (or explain Him away), your world, and the relationship between the two as to how they relate individually and as a society. In sum, your outlook on life. In essence, we have a theory of the world and God, and how we relate to them, according to the dictionary. This is a vital discipline because kids are going to college ill-prepared when there's a war of ideas going on, and too many need to get their thinking straightened out (cf. 2 Cor. 10:5: "... [B]ringing every thought [or viewpoint] into captivity to the obedience of Christ"). So how do you interpret reality?

To answer these questions from the viewpoint or perspective of Secular Humanism, they leave God out of the equation and explain away the supernatural, only believing in the observable and rational, and leaving the universal language of science and consensus to figure out all the answers. Science has become a religion--or "scientism" and making value judgments, (as Carl Sagan, the 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, according to my source, said, "The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be"--this is out of the realm, scope, and domain of science). More people believe in the theory of evolution (which is unproven and "unprovable") as religious dogma and scientific fact, and this is the Big Lie. Dr. Karl Popper says that evolution does not fit the definition of a scientific theory.

But Evolution is the building block of Secular Humanism and this belief system has no place for God in the Picture. This is the predominant worldview today in academia and we cannot remain silent and concede everything away, according to C. S. Lewis, again. Humanism has been around since antiquity and was known as man being the measure of all things (define and begin all reality with man, not God) and it was called homo mensura--deifying man and dethroning God. They see all religion as just chasing some "pie in the sky," and believe in living for the "here and now," without living in the light of eternity.

According to scholar Carl F. H. Henry, Christianity speaks to all academic disciplines and is relevant to all facets of life, not just having a personal relationship with God. There is a struggle for student allegiance in the school system and atheism has been declared a religion by the Seventh Court of Appeals in 2005. And Secular Humanism was defined in the book Religion Without Revelation by Julian Huxley. In A Common Faith, John Dewey sees the Secular Humanist movement as having the elements of a religion. They say that children's minds should be kept open, but they proceed to brainwash them. A. Solzhenitsyn has said that "man has forgotten God," and Friedrich Nietzsche (the patron saint of Postmodernism) said "God is dead." meaning that He is "no longer believable or relevant" Will Durant has well said, "The greatest question of our time is whether man can live without God." A current politician has said he would "keep God out of it."

You either must begin with man and explain the cosmos, or begin with God and explain the cosmos. This begs the question: What was in the beginning? "In the beginning God," or "In the beginning matter." Which created which? Do matter and energy have inherent power and intelligence to fix all the more than fifty constants in our cosmos and make life suitable for us, known as the Anthropic Principle, or the fine-tuning of our planet for human life?

Athanasius (the father of orthodoxy), one of the Church Fathers, said that the only system of thought that Christ will fit into is the one where He is the starting point. The false assumption that science makes is that Christianity is anti-science: In fact, it made possible modern science in the first place and is the "Mother of Modern Science" Many good scientists have been theists: Examples are Kepler, Newton, Copernicus, Boyle, Pascal, Galileo, Maxwell, and Farad.

Shakespeare said it well, concerning our meaning in life apart from God in Macbeth as he mused about the entirety of living: "...['T]is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." R. C. Sproul said in the same vein: "With God we have dignity and without God, we have nothing." When you insert God into your thinking you can explain reality and find meaning to it. Bertrand Russell restated it well, "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless." Life is nonsensical without reference to God!

The biggest challenge Secular Humanism faces is the word "purpose" (and its corollary "meaning"), or the study of it known as teleology (from telos for purpose). The word seems almost theological to them in nature. There is indeed a war of "isms" and the battleground is the mindset of a whole generation that is apathetic toward them in their interpretive framework. The bottom line is that these "isms" have consequences.

It was the proponents of Secular Humanism that bemoaned the fact that children's minds weren't kept open when evolution was a forbidden subject in school; now they refuse to even let Creationism have equal time, though there is plenty of evidence, so that lack of evidence presents no excuse for denying it. We need to keep God in the public arena and defend the Christian worldview in the public square wherever possible, not letting Secular Humanism eradicate it or make it irrelevant. (They believe religion is acceptable as long as it is "privatized.")

"If there is no God," Fyodor Dostoevsky's dictum goes, "all things are permissible," and up for grabs, and we are without a moral compass--if we are animals, why not act like them? (Morals are then subjective and only a matter of personal conviction.) Some believe values are just a matter of public consensus--justifying Nazism and Communism! Listen to the New Age definition of it: "Morality is a nebulous thing; listen to the God within!" And if it feels like the truth, it is.

Postmodernists say that it can be right for you, but not for someone else. They dodge the morality and no-truth issues. Compare this idea to the situation described in Judges 21:25 (ESV): "... [E]veryone did what was right in their own eyes." All we need to know is that God is the moral center of the universe! A theologian Karl Barth, focused on Christians who are religious, but not righteous--and decried this as a natural fruit of this way of thinking.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff, ascertaining the truth from the fiction. "My people perish for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:14). Note well: "Knowledge is power," said Sir Francis Bacon (cf. Prov. 24:5). "For lack of knowledge My people go into exile" (Is. 5:13). I Chronicles 12:32 says we need people who can interpret the times and know what to do. Our faith is "defensible" and we must meet the challenge and not lose by negligence or default. If we are versed in our worldview we will realize it outshines every other one.

The answer to Pilate's question: "What is truth?" is obtainable. Absolute truth is knowable since Jesus claimed to be the personification or embodiment of Truth with a capital "T" Himself! We need believers with a sense of "ought" and are committed to defending the truth as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian. He penned The Cost of Discipleship and coined the phrase "cheap grace", and was a dissenter of Nazism (involved in assassination attempts), and a political/religious martyr, who said, "Who stands fast? ..., not the man whose final standard is his reason, his principles, his conscience, or virtue, but God." If we study the rationales behind these flimsy, bleak belief systems, we can readily detect their Achilles' heel. I rest my case! Soli Deo Gloria!

Focusing On Worldviews...

Deciding who to vote for is more than getting what you want on some issue that you deem vital. They don't buy your vote! What you may see as the most important stand he takes may be of no value or consequence to the opponent. It is not a matter of having a wish list and whoever gives you what you want wins your vote. A person can be a godly person and have a Christian worldview, and still be wrong on something--no one is infallible and inerrant. There is such a thing as selfish voting for one's personal agenda to advance one's economic cause or predicament. We shouldn't be able to vote ourselves out of poverty. True decisions should be for the welfare of the people at large and not favoring one group with a bias. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people (all the people!). What happens usually is that when someone gets elected he only feels beholden to those who put him there and fails to realize faithfulness and responsibility for all the people. Everything is not going to change when your candidate gets elected and it is just pie in the sky to hope that a would-be messiah will save our nation.

The most dangerous thing is an idea whose time has come and this is what we see now is new ideas that resonate with the people--a revolution in politics and things are not as usual and candidates march to the beat of a different drum. I've never seen such finger-pointing and using someone as a scapegoat. The campaigns seem like movements and I'm not the only one saying that--people are voting who have before felt disenfranchised--but I question the sincerity and naivete of the youth of our nation who don't realize that candidates basically make empty promises to get elected, and true competence is a rare commodity in the political arena.

I find myself agreeing with a candidate some of the time, and simultaneously finding him obnoxious and repugnant personally--but this is the way the common man in our nation is and they relate to him. I believe that "character counts" and one must have a candidate that God can use and can be trusted--God is the one who is really in control and is the one who ultimately decides our election, though we must be good citizens and vote the best we know-how. One can be right on a number of issues and still not have a Christian worldview--it is not a matter of who is right on the most issues like a math equation. Some politicians are more problem-solvers than ideologues or purists. Martin Luther said that he'd rather live under a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian--but I think he means one that doesn't think like a Christian (have a correct worldview) and is one in name only without conviction. God gives a nation the politicians it deserves and politics is dirty business according to Goethe and makes strange bedfellows--so we must beware that they all pander to a degree and are saying what they believe we want to hear.

What is problematic is when you find yourself agreeing in spirit with someone who doesn't qualify and may be dangerous. I'm not saying that there are parallels to the way Hitler had so much charisma and promised to make Germany great again (great slogans, but no record), but we have to look beyond the issues and the promises and really find out what kind of man we are voting for--can he be trusted? Do we want a candidate that appeals to our lower nature that is divisive? The litmus test: "Power tends to corrupt," says Lord Acton, and "absolute power corrupts absolutely"--can we trust them with the nuclear code or national secrets? After all, we are electing the diplomatic leader of the free world and the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces of our nation--not designated wheeler-dealer or deal-maker who thinks the path to prosperity is as simple as a trade war. As Bob Dylan sang: "The times, they are a-changin'." Promises have to be realistic and achievable, because anyone can just tell people what they want to hear and give their own solutions, but are they trying to buy votes with promises?

One must realize that in today's politics pragmatism rules and the test of the truth of an idea is its effects or whether it works. Adolf Hitler got a lot of success for that matter but was dead wrong--"the final solution" (making the Jews the scapegoat and eliminating them) looked like it was working. The end doesn't justify the means as pragmatists and utilitarians ultimately believe, and we can't just look at results to judge the morality of a law or action. Doing anything to win today's credo and saying anything to win is just politics as usual. The New Morality of today only looks at the motive and if one is sincere and well-meaning or doing it out of love, the methodology or the end result doesn't matter. In a Christian perspective, the motive, as well as the result or goal, must be concordant with Scripture and morality.

In the final analysis, we really don't know who God's man is until he wins and we acknowledge God's sovereignty. We do err in judging our fellow man for his political opinions, (no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom) which may be due to ignorance of the biblical perspective, though he may be a Christian himself. No one is right on all the issues and should be crowned the king; we live in a democracy that respects everyone's right to vote their conscience and the way they see things in their world. Only God knows what is the most important issue--all we can do is vote according to what we know and our worldview and being willing to reach across the aisle and compromise to get things done in an otherwise dysfunctional government in gridlock. Soli Deo Gloria!

Biblical Economics

Christian economics is in accordance with biblical principles that are called God's economy.  It is stipulated, for instance, that it is more blessed to give than to receive (like Jesus said) and that God is interested in the success of His servants (not necessarily financial success), i.e., that God blesses the task or endeavor of the believer, and uses him for His glory as a vessel of honor ("... And in whatever he does, he prospers," says Psalm 1:3, NASB).   Jesus said in Matt. 10:8 (NASB) "... Freely you received, freely give."  It is also written, "Give, and it will be given to you.  They will pour into your lap a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return"  (Luke 6:38, NASB). We cannot out-give our generous God!

Jesus said, "To whom much is given, much is required." Thus, we all have different levels of talent, resources, time, money, and opportunity to let our lives bring glory to God.  Mother Teresa of Calcutta summed it up by saying that God doesn't call us to success, but to faithfulness. God isn't interested in our achievements, but in our obedience.  To put it in perspective, Einstein also said that we should not strive to be persons of success as much as persons of value--inherent worth in Christ.

The Bible doesn't endorse any form of economic system outright, but the spirit of it seems to view human rights and an open and free economic market.  Biblical economics relies on the profit motive, competition (the government should level the playing field and ensure fairness), stewardship of God's resources (we are accountable to God at the Judgment Seat of Christ), equal opportunity (not equal outcome) in an open market, as little government intervention as possible (even Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, advocated this), i.e., laissez-faire policy, property rights (even the government cannot seize without due process), the Protestant work ethic (ensuring dignity in all labor), and the legitimate money system (stable, free from inflation, and not just fiat currency).

The barter system and mercantile (exchanging gold for products, etc.) systems were used before money in the form of coins or currency were in circulation. Now we have fiat  (it's money by decree, not inherent worth) or printed money from the government, which is only legal because the government says so and has the monopoly to do it, and it's not even backed by its value in precious metals anymore since 1963.  America went off the gold standard soon afterwards.

The basic types of economic systems in existence, though none exist in their purest  form, are capitalism (favoring free enterprise without governmental intervention,  fraud, theft, or force wand open markets that are unregulated), and socialism or communism that take away biblical rights and use a centralized governmental control one's freedom and the other entails totalitarianism or no personal liberty.  Note that economics is called a dismal science because it's not really science, but more like philosophy.  The Christian's main focus necessitates central planners that regulate the means of production and the economy at large.  We are not here to achieve the American dream or to amass wealth as the summum bonum, "for where his treasure is, there his heart will be also."  We are neither to be materialists seeking to become successful monetarily, not to be so spiritual that we are no earthly good. However, we are called to be productive and bear fruit and return on the investment that God made in us to the best of our ability, opportunity, resources, time, and talents.

With a Christian's ethical view, making the maximum profit is not the ultimate bottom line.  Profit must be legit and not by the exploitation of workers or the consumer.  Christ judges a company by its moral value and contribution to the well-being of society, not by how much it makes.  Serve God in the one that you can most glorify Him in and dedicate your service to.  We are made in the image of God and show forth that image best when we work or are in engaged in our calling--what we are meant and suited to do.

There was a film years ago "Wall Street" about a broker that said, "Greed is good."  Capitalism is driven by greed, envy, and covetousness.  We want to keep up with the Jones's!  Businessmen today interpret ethics as the art of not getting caught, not doing the most good to the most people, at the most times, in the most manners, as long as you can.  It has been said that capitalism is a system suited for sinners, while socialism is for saints (but we have both!).

Communist theory or mentality is basically that each one will automatically produce what he is capable of and society "owes" him a living to meet all his needs, if he cannot.  This is the source of the "entitlement mentality" that prevails today--people ruin their lives or are victims and blame the government for their own problems.  But note that society has granted certain people as being entitled.  No one gets something for nothing or undeserved, but only out of compassion and rule of law.  If they get laid off, the government is to blame and must support them. Prosperity is not about God blessing us and seeing how much we can produce and contribute to our fellow man, but how much we can get from the government by milking the system for all it's worth.


The Bible warns against governments that weaken or defile the money supply with dross and this is comparable to inflation, or what is in reality a hidden tax on the one's who are most vulnerable. Inflation is not just an increase in taxes, but an increase in the money supply, which drives up everything in turn and no one comes out ahead.  The only way to eliminate this juggernaut is to balance the budget, but today's economists basically follow the Keynesian model that makes deficit spending respectable and the government just prints money and increases its supply as a hidden tax, which the politicians have gotten away with because of the ignorance of the common people.  Even defender of free enterprise, Milton Friedman, calls for limited and controlled inflation as being in the best interest of the general public, and so it is commonplace to subscribe to.

The Christian worldview doesn't call for a redistribution of wealth or the scarce natural resources of robbing the rich and giving the poor, but of creating equal opportunity under the law, because we believe that "all men are created equal," not equal outcome under the law--the goal is to equitably distribute natural resources.  Also, the Pledge of Allegiance calls for "liberty and justice for all."  The Bible nowhere teaches that we are to be one economic class or classless, as communism teaches, but we are still "one in Christ." Before the law, we are all equal and no one is to be denied liberty and justice, which are never to be perverted--we must not resort to the law of the jungle.

Mandatory welfare was known in antiquity and Israel was obliged to practice it with their tithes, alms, and farming practices, such as being allowed to glean in the fields.  There was to be no poor in the land (cf. Deut. 15:4).  But a welfare state whereby the state takes care of you from cradle to grave, called a "nanny state," was unknown in biblical times--people took responsibility for their own lives and fates.  The more rights we receive, the more obligations others have. Today only a small portion of all entitlement (20 percent) goes to the poor (actually less than 2 percent of the total budget) and most of it goes to Republican party members who own farms and other businesses that get a take. Partisans are talking about cutting entitlement, they are focused on food stamps or some other aid to the poor, not the upper classes.  Scripture condemns labor exploitation in Malachi 3:5 and warns against not giving him his due. The worker deserves his wages and the farmer ought to be the first to benefit form the fruit of his labor. The Greeks looked upon labor as a curse that was only fitting for slaves, but Martin Luther gave it dignity because all manner of labor, secular and sacred, can be done to the glory of God (cf. Col. 3:23). America has championed the Protestant work ethic since the days of Jamestown and Captain John Smith, who declared that if a man is unwilling to work he shouldn't eat, just like Paul told the Thessalonians in 2 Thess. 3:10. There is to be no "idle rich" or leisure class living in luxury that is unproductive or retired from engaging in the Lord's work, in which we never give up doing--doing the Lord's work with slackness is cursed (cf. Jer. 48:10).

The government has the divine right and obligation to assure equal treatment in the marketplace and that there is a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services, whereby no one takes advantage of or defrauds the consumer.  It respects the right of private property and its chief purpose is to maintain peace and safety and protection of personal property in the society.  There must be law and order in a land run by the rule of law for there to be opportunity to make the investment because of the ability to make a profit is not infringed on by an over-regulated economy.  We need as little government as possible, known as being against Big Government, and need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all our problems.  The more government, the less freedom and rights and more obligation to others.  There has to be a balanced trade-off because of the law of diminishing returns on interventionism by the bureaucracy, lest one system run amuck.

However, the Christian is concerned for social justice and whether there is equity and opportunity for the poor.  "He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well.  Is not this to know me?  declares the LORD?" (Jer. 22:16, ESV).  The prophet Amos decried the social injustice of his day and how "... They sell the innocent for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals"  (Amos 2:11, NIV).  John Wesley had the right attitude and motto:  "Make all you can, save all you can, give away all you can--this is good stewardship of God-given resources.  Never lose track of the fact that we own nothing, but are just stewards of God's gifts.  In sum, there is no "social gospel" that we are called to convert the world to (however our social commission per Jer. 29:7  is never-ending), other than the Great Commission and making disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that Christ taught (including labor/management rights and responsibilities).
Soli Deo Gloria!

Eradicating Christian Worldview

The Christian point of view is not only disdained but frowned upon, including any mention or hint of it in the open marketplace of ideas. Back during the Scopes trial of 1925, they bemoaned the fact that the kid's minds must be kept open, and they shouldn't prohibit the teaching of evolution. In our nation, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin; in China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government--which one is muzzling the Christian worldview the most is your guess. This is not the building block of secular worldview and religion in its own right. Now the reverse has occurred: You must teach evolution not as a hypothesis, but as unquestioned scientific fact, even though it doesn't even qualify as a theory--it is unproven and cannot be proved in a scientific manner, because no one has observed it nor is able, and there is no evidence in the fossil record. There are no missing links found when there should be millions. Darwin said that if his theory were correct it would be evident in the fossil record--it isn't!

It seems like Christianity is copacetic if one privatizes it and doesn't try to "proselytize" or spread the faith to the infidel. Evangelistic outreaches are a no-no in academia. The primary result of believing you are just a glorified animal is that you begin to act like one, irresponsibly and unaccountable with no hell to shun and make up your own set of values as you go along. Christians are to stand up and be counted and not be ashamed of the faith, nor of sharing it. They are to defend the Christian worldview and fight the secularization of society, forcing God out of our courtrooms and being politically correct, which is wrong--you want to be correct if it differs.

Daniel was forced to make his faith known when they prohibited him from praying. He neither flaunted his faith, nor privatized it, but demonstrated that he would not be hindered in the free exercise of his religion. The government, likewise, can make no law abridging the free exercise of religion, as well as establish a religion by force. Today they say: As long as your religion is private and doesn't bother anyone else, it's okay! However, we are a nation founded upon the Judaeo-Christian worldview and we stray from it at our peril. This interpretation and framework of thinking is not failing, nor has it failed; believers are abandoning it because they actually are convinced their faith cannot be defended on the open marketplace of ideas. When Christianity is no longer welcome in the public square it is time to take a stand and not lose our worldview by default or negligence, conceding it away without a fight--we are to fight the good fight and contend for the faith!

Au contraire! There is plenty of evidence to make our worldview believable and relative. There is plenty of evidence for those who have the will to believe--God can make a believer out of any skeptic if he is willing to do God's will (cf. John 7:17). No one can say there wasn't any evidence, because people reject Christ out of the hardness of their hearts, not because they are wise (cf. Psalm 14:1).


We are in the world, but not of it (cf. John 15:19), but this doesn't mean we are to love the world or its system--we are to be lights and salt to the lost. We, who see the light, are to share our vision with a lost world and stand up and be counted for Jesus, showing our Christian colors. Today it seems like the resurgent atheists are the militant ones out to convert the prospects to their way of thinking! We are to let our "lights so shine before men, that they may see our good works and glorify [our] Father who is in heaven" (cf. Matt. 5:16). In the final analysis, the philosophy of leftism says religion is unobjectionable as long as it is "privatized." What they really mean is that you make no effort to propagate your faith and spread the good news of Jesus and just keep your faith to yourself. There comes a time to act in protest and civil disobedience and to defy the law that prohibits any free exercise of our faith or establishes some other faith by decree or mandate. Soli Deo Gloria!

What Is Truth?

"Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25, NIV, emphasis mine).

"[A]nd you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32, ESV, emphasis mine).

"... For this purpose I was born and for this purpose, I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice" (John 18:37, ESV, emphasis mine).

"Pilate said to him, 'What is truth?'" (John 18:38, ESV).

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..." (Proverbs 1:7, ESV).

"Without the way, there is no going; without the truth there is no knowing; without the life, there is no living." (Thomas a Kempis (Thomas von Kempen in German) medieval author of the classic Imitation of Christ, emphasis mine)

This is the famous question of the notorious, weak-willed, wishy-washy Pontius Pilate addressed to Jesus during one of his so-called trials. Of course, he wasn't interested in waiting around for an answer, but only in being cynical. To him Rome was truth, there was no universal truth that applied everywhere except Rome's truth, because "might made right." To him, there were just too many religions for one to have the gall or audacity to claim exclusivity. He is the example that the Bible defines non-Christians as those "who reject the truth" (cf. Romans 2:8).

But truth is knowable because Jesus claimed to be truth incarnate ("I am the truth"). It isn't all propositional, but something we can have a relationship with and get to know personally. There are statements that are true or false, and there are relationships between them that are either valid or invalid, according to Aristotelian logic. When you make conclusions, you've assumed something beforehand! Conclusions are only as valid as their premise or presuppositions. Logic just defines the relationships between statements or propositions assumed as true. 

The point is that no matter what conclusion you reach or what you claim to know, you have started somewhere with some proposition that you cannot prove. "Faith precedes reason" is the formula. This means all knowledge begins with faith and assuming something you cannot prove, according to Augustine and all truth is God's truth. And Aquinas added that all truth meets at the top. What this also means is that God is the God of truth and "no lie is of the truth"--Satan is the author of deceit and father of lies, and there is no truth in him.

The problem with evil is that it isn't the opposite of good, but infection and distortion of it. There is an element of truth (this is what makes it so enticing and alluring) and this element is in every false religion and cult--that's why they are so dangerous and appealing to people in need or with a vacuum to fill in their desperate lives. New Age people would say that if it feels good it is truth for you. And Postmodernists (and the only truths that are really relative are those relating to Christianity) and Postmodernism would say that it might be true for you, though not for someone else and that all truth is relative (relative to what?). For them the "truth is a "short-term contract." "

You can know nothing for certain," they say. And they are certain! Pragmatists, on the other hand, may posit: "It may work for you, but not for me (confusing something that works as something that's true)." They sincerely believe you cannot know whether something is true, but only whether it works and this is the true test of an idea. New Age thinkers go beyond that in urging you to listen to the "God within." We do have a right to our own opinions, but not our own truths. We must not fabricate our own truth! Being opinionated is no compliment if not based on truth.

When we stray from "absolute truth" and God as its source, all things are permissible according to Dostoevsky. Would anyone argue that rape or incest isn't wrong under all circumstances, at all times, and for all people [unless you are forced to do it]? They're never right! That's because it is an example of absolute truth that exists and we don't argue about it, but accept it as a universal standard, just as much as a mathematical table. We all have a sense of right and wrong, or sense of "ought" and things like fair play, good faith, truthfulness, sportsmanship, integrity, altruism, courage, honor, duty, and unselfishness. This is a sense and a sense implies a person or personality, not a thing; which implies a "Higher Mind and/or Sense" or God behind the cosmos that keeps things going so orderly.

We all appeal to an ultimate standard of behavior all the time, even when someone buds in line, steals a parking spot, or cheats at golf. Life would be chaos without some standard of decency to expose lewdness and without principles to live by. We don't just make up our own rules as we go along and we don't live and do according to what is right in our own eyes. Even in prison, convicts have a "code" and a conscience that if you steal their cigarettes you will pay dearly. Man is a "moral" creature in that he has an inner sense of right and wrong, even if he ignores it at his peril.

"Absolute truth" is true everywhere and all the time and applies to everyone. Objective truth is true regardless of whether we believe it or not. There is absolute, universal truth, but there is no absolute, universal belief. There is no belief that is regarded as true by everyone, and just because we don't believe something doesn't make it untrue. What people erroneously do is think that belief and truth are identical. And they are right in saying there is nothing that everyone universally believes in the way of religion, for instance, but principles of right and wrong apply to everyone. There is an invisible moral code we all appeal to and it is just as real as the laws of logic or a musical scale or math table.

In a court of law, your opinions don't matter as evidence, except as expert testimony if you are one; however, people will believe what they choose to believe and will always have prejudicial and irrational opinions. By and large, it only matters what is truth, not what is an opinion. It's just like in the TV show Dragnet, when Sgt. Friday said, "Just gimme the facts, ma'am!"

Truth is defined by God (it's "true truth," according to Francis Schaeffer), and this truth is what God says it is because He is the God of truth--i.e., "the only true God" (cf. John 17:2). Things we believe may be true, but God's Word is truth and the difference is that truth doesn't just inform or reform, but transforms and sanctifies (cf. John 17:17). It is so true despite the fact that "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (cf. Romans 1:25, ESV). As Paul Little has said, "Believing something doesn't make it true; refusing to believe it doesn't make it false." Don't equate belief with truth! The Bible is objectively true; true regardless of who says what or who told us! It is self-attesting, appealing to no one or nothing for verification of its truth but itself as the highest authority. Only Scripture can objectively be called "truth," since total objectivity doesn't exist--except with God!

In the final analysis, truth is what God decrees as truth--you cannot dispute God! (it has been wisely said). And truth is what conforms to God's divine nature and is immutable, not subject to our criticism or scrutiny--it is often too profound for us to fathom ("Canst thou by searching find out God?" Job is asked). You cannot label it, put it in a box, confine it, nor define it because it is infinite and the "finite cannot grasp the infinite" according to the Greek maxim of antiquity. Soli Deo Gloria!

Christian Worldview 101

Has Evolution Become A Religion?

Science has become the universal language and in the modernist worldview, it was said that science could answer all our problems and be the panacea to man's plight. Carl Sagan, 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, has announced that evolution has become a sort of religion.  Science, itself, is a universal language.  Evolution, itself, has become the faith of secular academia.  In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; while in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!  Even Darwin criticized himself (one chapter in his book was entitled, "Difficulties with the Theory").  The evolutionist always has the comeback:  "You must assume, that, somehow by faith, it happened (abiogenesis) or it was there (the primordial soup)!"

The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup.  Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to.  Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest.  His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from?  It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.

The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion.  It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.

Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality."  According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row!  The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence.  They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.

Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth).  Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from?  A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from?  The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.

The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around.  Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst!  We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed.  Man is devolving, not evolving!  I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!

Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories.  It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.

The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death.  The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen!  Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible?  Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable!  What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith."  Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment.  One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.

They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will.  The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed.  There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all.  The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word.   But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man.  One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.

Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility!  We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores.  It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is.  It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely.  Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one!   Soli Deo Gloria!

Epistemological Breakthrough

I am appalled at the relative ignorance of journalists about the science of epistemology. They let contributors get away with just about any assertion or even allegation, without challenge. We have a right to opine or believe what we want, but we don't have the right to fabricate our own truths; however, some people have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with the facts. The truth is true whether one believes in it or not--i.e., objective truth--and no matter who says it. Even experts speaking in the area of their expertise (and often they are deemed authorities outside their domain), can be wrong. Let me give you a for instance: When investigating history, a secular historian trumps a biblicist of the first order, a theologian, biblical scholar, expositor, or whosoever.

The Bible has never been proved wrong historically, though many have attempted to do so, and this begs the question: "Why should it be considered unreliable or have dubious authenticity or veracity. There is ample evidence to support its claims and even archaeology has never contravened a biblical reference (with over 25,000 excavation sites or digs). The burden of proof, historically (per Socrates dictum), is on the person challenging the authority of the Scriptures, not the Bible, which is self-attesting because it has to be, or it couldn't claim ultimate authority in itself.

The only faith and worldview that has EVIDENCE to back it up and isn't based on pure blind faith is the Judaeo-Christian one. There's no evidence that Muhammad was spoken to by Gabriel--in fact, it controverts what we know about him from the Bible, because he proclaimed Christ to be the Son of God, and the Koran says Jesus is just the prophet that preceded Muhammad, though He is called the Christ or Messiah, He is given no divine status! Why would an angel contradict himself?

I want to see journalists challenge the persons of interest that they are interviewing and learn to direct the conversation by direct questions, and, when they give roundabout answers to challenge them, that they haven't answered the question, but have just fed us a line of propaganda in order to get free publicity for their cause or agenda. Hold them accountable and we need fact-checkers to be watchdogs and given the opportunity to do their job.

People often believe statements merely because they are publicized or in print and accept them as gospel truth. They are gullible and lend credence to such impossible ideas as conspiracy theories, which are only a figment of the imagination and have no basis in fact. Another suggestion is to listen to both sides before making a rash decision about who's right or wrong--don't jump to the conclusion because of partiality! When someone makes a statement in the media, it should be clarified that this is only his opinion and not factual per se; he could be wrong! There is quite a leap of faith going from opinion to fact and some people make no such distinction.

We can know things from circumstantial evidence, such as the resurrection of Christ, which also has eyewitness testimony and historical documentation, and this kind of evidence is acceptable in a court of law and is valid. A court case can be proved based on it alone.

My plea to journalists is to keep contributors and guests restricted to making statements that they can back up with factual evidence and stick to their area of expertise or training. A chief propaganda methodology is to tell really big lies and keep telling them till the public at large learns to accept it. A better technique to keep lies at bay is to ask them where they gathered their information--we don't want hearsay, gossip, disinformation, or even misinformation (even if misconstrued) to be disseminated, or should I say perpetrated? False allegations should be given the opportunity to be refuted in an equitable manner--the public has a right to hear both sides of an issue.

Asking direct questions deserve a direct answer and sometimes in the affirmative or negative. Sometimes guest outbursts call for ground rules and laying down the law. Many times conflict can be resolved by defining terms; this implies there's a problem of semantics. Kudos to all investigative reporters who don't take everything they hear at face value, but in skepticism until there is evidence to back it up--this art should not stop with the correspondent but continue in all levels of journalism.

Journalism 101 should teach journalists to do their homework, work in their field of training so they know their subject, go for substance, not appearance or delivery, not to leave questions up in the air without settling the issue or giving both sides an opportunity, not to be so image-conscious, be as skeptical and hard to convince as possible, driving them to give a straight up and down, yes or no answer when given a direct question without any avoiding the issue or changing the subject to get their propaganda some air time, they need to be informed enough to be able to ask spontaneous questions and follow what they say to lead the interview with these questions--not trying to trip them up, but being fair, so that they are not so dependent on the producers preparing questions beforehand to ask that they clueless about--it shows!

These are only common-sense ground rules that any adept journalist should have the instinct to follow. What has happened due to the race for ratings is a void filled by the lowest common denominator. It seems like they are too afraid to be labeled biased or of taking sides and don't realize that no one is completely objective; they have the right to be human! NB:  Journalists ought to beware of the "Red Herring" technique properly called by better names: the pivot, argument by irrelevance, argument by changing the subject, or even by the talking point.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Unfolding Of History...

"This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:27, NIV).
"LORD, I know that people's lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps" (Jer. 10:23, NIV).
"'...Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen'" (Isa. 14:24, NIV).
"The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples" (Ps. 33:10, NIV).
"If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us. But passion and party blind our eyes...." --Samuel Taylor Coleridge

There are no accidents of history which is dependent upon impersonal, non-existent forces, such as fortune, fate, or luck! Don't sing, "Que sera, sera, what will be, will be!" Providence is God's answer to happenstance!

History is a story by a grand Storyteller, the great Orchestrator of History itself, God, which means it has a direction, meaning, and a conclusion or consummation; we ignore it at our peril!


The ancients believed in a cyclical historical narrative, whereby history repeated itself; however, Mark Twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, it only rhymes! The only thing we learn from history, it is said, is that we don't learn from history; that is probably why Henry Ford proclaimed history as "bunk." The Bible is the final arbiter of truth and what is "bunk," though. The communist ideology justifies itself and its dialectic materialism by positing history as the judge. Some religions, on the other hand, see karma as the inevitable judge of mankind, from which we cannot escape.


Do nations that unjustly go to war, to wage unjust wars reap what they sow, is there bad karma for them? It seems like the good guys don't always win and justice comes out the loser if one observes history, yet God orchestrates all history, and history is simply "His story." We have to acknowledge that we don't always see what God is up to in His world, as He micromanages it to the minutiae--there is indeed not one maverick molecule out of His control.


Karl Marx said something interesting about history: The point is not to interpret it, but to change it! I believe one of the biggest problems we have in our nation is its lack of familiarity with American and even world history. If we don't learn some basic lessons, we are doomed to repeat history. The Bible teaches a linear approach to interpret history, that it doesn't go in cycles but is heading toward a climactic event or consummation (the Second Coming of Christ). Scientists deny any supernatural intervention in history, such as the Deluge, and this is called the uniformitarian view of history--this is because they want to make the earth out to be billions of years old and this view supports their old-earth hypothesis.


History can be summed up according to biblical interpretation: Creation, fall, redemption, judgment! History and time had a beginning at creation and Secular Humanists can't adjust their worldview to include this approach, but hold to an eternal universe (such a theory is untenable in view of scientific evidence of a Big Bang). The point is that, if there was a beginning (Big Bang), there had to be a Beginner or one who pulled the trigger! Nothing just happens by itself! We must learn the lessons of history, and Christianity is the only faith and worldview that is based on history and has evidence to back it up.


In the final analysis, we don't know the future, but we know who holds the future! This doctrine is sometimes referred to as Providence and we must learn to not second-guess God. Certainly, as Ben Franklin observed: "I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more I realize that God governs in the affairs of men." God has no back-up plan nor a Plan B, and His will cannot be frustrated by us, as we cannot thwart Him (cf. Job 42:2). 

History is something we really don't understand and cannot fathom, until after the fact, when we can see more objectively what God is doing in the affairs of men; therefore to conjecture about the future or to make prognostications is out of our realm of competency, since we don't have a crystal ball that works--it's God's dominion--we trust God for the future, and must realize that our future or (times) is in His hands (cf. Psalm 31:15).


In sum, consider the following verses (Psalm 22:28 (NIV); Job 36:23 (HCSB); and Daniel 4:35, NIV): "[F]or dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations," "Who has appointed His way for Him, and who has declared, 'You have done wrong'?" "...No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done?'" Soli Deo Gloria!