How Did We Get Here?

 

So, How Did We Get Here?

In the 1960’s a revolution seemed to explode onto the scene and became a disquieting reality. Some called it the “Hippy Generation”. Peace, love and rock & roll was the gentle outcry of this retreat from society, morality & truth. This regress was marked by a rejection of cultural norms and Judeo-Christian standards. Sex was said to be free, and whatever else that means, it was a rejection of a worldview rooted in truth and pursuing truth. Drugs were seen as a rebellious and necessary means of disconnecting, something that has been part of primitive animistic cultures in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment for centuries.

To many this generational movement seemed to be just a fad, and an expression of teens and young people’s need to push away from parents and authority. In reality this is much too simple an explanation. To some this may have appeared an innocent eruption that accidently came on the scene and would easily disappear in time. In reality it was a step in a devolving need of standards rooted in truth.

The reason this was not just a fad that faded away, was the success of this mindset to penetrate every discipline of life in a very concentrated period. Had this remained a philosophical rebellion that culminated in a “Woodstock” event marking the historical calendar, it may have well passed with little long term affect. But that is not the case. Till this decade civilizations, for the most part, were “constructionists” in nature. That is, civilizations, cultures and societies built themselves up, evolving over time. Wheels were built, laws were written, and men were put on the moon. Humanity was constructed fact upon fact, precept upon precept and truth upon truth. We learned, we grew, we evolved in both knowledge and application. This was true in religion, philosophy, language and science.

Post-modern relativism challenged all that. Relativism is simply the questioning of the fixed nature of, or knowableness, of any given truth. Can we really say: “Illegal drugs – bad”, “marriage – good”, or “laws or morals – immutable”? Do these kinds of binaries really exist, and if so are they necessary? OR ought we not liberate ourselves from these kinds of limitations as more mature and evolved beings? If these binaries do actually exist, then truth exists and must be dealt with. Both binary realities, and binary choices demand that truth exist. Something either is, or it is not. It is either 80 degrees Fahrenheit, or it is not. That is a binary reality. There was a time when every culture in every time in history agreed that whether one was male or female fell into a category of truth. Today there is a whole political, philosophical, legal and scientific worldview that has been convinced that one’s sex is a choice, and that this choice is in no way binary. In order to conflate sex with sexual orientation in this way, philosophy, psychology, religion, language and science have all gone through some measure of deconstruction, and the very meaning of binary realities are being challenged.

The Deconstructionists

Thus far relativists have attempted (rather successfully) to blur the lines between clear binary realities. In America freedom meant that one was free to live within certain legal boundaries, for the protection of all; and within certain moral constraints for the good of all. Today freedom is evolving into something else. Whatever it is and wherever it ends up boundaries and constraints have become very broad gray areas dictated more by individual feelings than a legal or moral code. This is the post-constructionist reversal of reality. There was a time when liberty and safety were found in boundaries and constraints. These foundations provided security and opportunity for most of the free world, but for some, these boundaries seemed like limitations. The deconstructionists do not just challenge the constructionist ordered world, they are dismembering those constructions at the cellular level.

Richard Rorty is a philosophical deconstructionist. Rorty taught at Stanford and according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, developed a distinctive and controversial brand of pragmatism that expressed itself along two main axes. One is negative—a critical diagnosis of what Rorty takes to be defining projects of modern philosophy. The other is positive—an attempt to show what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge in which the traditional problems of epistemology and metaphysics (and indeed, in Rorty's view, the self-conception of modern philosophy) are rooted. Note what this says: “what intellectual culture might look like, once we free ourselves from the governing metaphors of mind and knowledge…”. Freeing one self from “mind” and “knowledge” is the “deconstruction” of accumulated societal knowledge and the individual mind. This seems little more (or less) than the Buddhist hum that tries to think of nothing while emptying the mind. Atheist Sam Harris calls this “incoherent” but acknowledges that Mr. Rorty’s students find him mesmerizing and brilliant. Understanding these things is difficult. With knowledge and mind set aside, and rational thought believed impossible (or at least non-productive), one can see where Rorty’s pragmatism is baseless…, but Rorty might say that is the point. To which another philosopher might ask: “what point”?

Jacque Dirrida challenged everything that was binary in terms of language and definitions that are essential to giving meaning to anything. Thus defining what is true and what is false becomes an illusion. Dirrida is considered the father of literary deconstructionists. He ultimately reached the logical deconstructionist conclusion.  We must question the legitimacy of language, the definition of every word… then when the second word in a sentence is examined we must return to the first in order to re-evaluate it “in light of” the second word. Apparently Derrida’s idea is that no words actually have definitive meaning, but somehow develop meaning within a sentence, based on other words chosen, which also have no real meaning till “interpreted” together. With no standards of interpretation, it is difficult to exaggerate the subjective nature of any given series of words, no matter how skillfully they are employed. The deconstruction of language is perhaps the most basic and destructive element in the post-constructionist worldview. Without language, science, poetry and love letters are left without objective or aesthetic meaning, and the beauty and wonder of living every day becomes little more than meaningless transactional activity.

With the contributions of Rorty and Derrida, is it any wonder that Michael Fuco concluded that there is no such thing as “absolute truth”? To which one should ask: “Is that an absolutely true statement, or just a relatively true statement”? If it is absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist, then at least one absolute truth does exist, and that is that absolute truth does not exist, which makes the statement self defeating at best. If it is only relatively true that absolute truth does not exist, then absolute truth must exist, because it is only “relatively” true that it does not. Either way Fuco’s conclusion is not concluded and must be thought through further and restated if it is to be understandable and rational. But that is really the conclusion of truth bias; nothing can be understood or made rational in a deconstructionist world.

Thomas Kuhn  is both a scientific deconstructionist and a somewhat unaware critic of scientific deconstructionism. Given the nature of deconstructionism, I suppose this makes perfect sense. Kuhn is supposed to have shown that science does not give us an account of an independently existing reality, rather he states that “scientist are an irrational bunch who run from one paradigm (accepted narrative) to another for reasons that have no real connection with finding objective truths.” Kuhn is describing scientific “well accepted Narratives” that establish the base lines of scientific inquiry, whether or not those baselines can be established as true. If what Kuhn is describing is accurate, then instead of science building a knowledge base, fact upon fact and truth upon truth, it is instead building a narrative, hypothesis upon hypothesis, with little or no basis in truth, and with no real intention of establishing a data base of objective knowledge. Given, this is not what science was, but according to Kuhn, this is what science has become in a deconstructionist world.

Oddly enough in a world of intellectual elites this kind of unthinking, unreasoned esoteric knowledge is highly admired and held up as an example of academic brilliance, worthy of grant money, publishing and promotion. The emperor’s clothes, not withstanding, questions need to be asked, but in an environment where questions are discouraged and considered a sign of intellectual inferiority, this is less and less likely to happen.

More disturbing and perhaps dangerous than the deconstructionist acceptance in academia, is how this mindless mindset has been embraced by most cultures in the areas of policy, politics and public discourse. Exactly how this infection escaped the academic laboratory is debatable, but it is no doubt connected to the perfect storm of the rebellious 1960’s, the acceptance of the Darwinian paradigm, and massive technological advancements which made living so easy as to no longer need either God or thinking skills. Google replaced the former and is quickly substituting for the latter.

 

 

 

 

"NOT So Common Sense" - An Introduction

 

NOT… Introduction

Common sense, according to Wikipedia is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people. As usual Wikipedia misses the mark. What we use to call common sense is no longer “shared by nearly all people.”

It is the premise of this book that:

1.    in a post-modern reality almost anything that, in the past, was held to be common sense has been fractured and crushed in the name of a non-fact-based intellectualism. In short, acknowledged common sense has been replaced by acceptable common thought. Rather than unity in diversity, the expectation is uniformity without question or conversation.

2.   Esoteric thought and poorly constructed philosophical musings have replaced truth as the standard by which values and morals are drawn, if they are drawn at all.

3.   With the death of truth we find no facts to stand on. All foundation for any meaningful conversation is lost. Indeed, any value system: the law, ethics, the family, business ethos, journalism, religion, and life, all become valueless.

What happens to a culture when the law is constantly devolving, when ethics become an antiquated idea, when family is defined by one’s emotions, when a business loses its “brand”, when the synonym for journalist is lobbyist, when religion is rooted and dependent upon emotion, and life only has value if it is convenient and economically viable?

If you are a historian, you may recognize Rome in the previous paragraph. If you are a 21^st century semi-sentient being over the age of 40 you will no doubt, see America lurking in the shadows of that description as well. For those brilliant readers under the age 40, who are not historians, you may have nothing else in your expectation. This intellectualized standard less wasteland is your normal and without a referent, there is very little to disturb within your core. I want to challenge you to hang in there through the reading of this book. Imagine with me that absolute truth does exist, can be known and ought to be the standard by which all of life is valued and enjoyed.

One of the purposes of this book is to explode the myth that “relative truth” is not an oxymoron. It is one thing to espouse valueless idealism, it is quite another to live in a standard-less universe. We value the idea of total individual freedom, limitless liberty, until that liberty in another infringes upon our loved one’s safety or economic wellbeing. The practical reality of total individual freedom without boundaries is nothing less than anarchy-based survival of the fittest. It is this anarchy that has produced the norms in some communities of a total disrespect of police officers. We do not want them intruding into our homes, lives and communities – until someone that threatens our lives intrudes into those same areas, then the cries change to: “call the cops”!

We will here suggest that:

1.   in the war on plutocracy, anarchy is not the answer.

2.   In fighting bad theology, killing off thoughtful men and women of any faith is not productive.

3.   Screaming a lie, loud and often, does not make it the truth, only a more commonly accepted lie.

4.   Pragmatism does not equal truth.

5.   Truth is more valuable than pragmatism in solving any problem.

6.   Band-Aids are good for cuts, not so much for cancer.

7.   Fact based debate can lead to understanding… emotional arguments rooted in one’s biases or presuppositions only leads to divisiveness.

8.   Thinking is hard work, but productive. Blowing off steam soothes the ego, but seldom finds resolution.

9.   Whispered disinformation builds consensus. Truth and consensus are not necessarily synonymous.

10.                In a world of sin and corruption truth is not convenient, comfortable, nor without cost. ie: truth is inconvenient, uncomfortable, and costly.

11.                The lie is more costly.

The title of this book came from conversations my wife and I had over the last two decades. We would be discussing any number topics when one of us would say: “…well its just common sense.” One Monday evening sitting in front of a warm hearth my wife retorted: “There is no such thing as common sense anymore.” That phrase became a theme as we discussed a host of issues which included finances, faith, family, neighbors, world events, fly fishing, knitting and politics over the next 20 years. There literally seemed to be no place the death of truth had not corrupted. The Biblical question: “what is truth” has perhaps never been as relevant as it is today. I fear, however, that we have atrophied to the point that we find no value in truth, and therefor the question is not worth asking.

Common Sense assumes that facts matter, and absolute truth exists. When relativism and situational ethics became trendy in educational circles, eventually becoming part of our curricula in the 1960’s, the fix was in. The American Heritage Dictionary states that “Situational ethics or situation ethics takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. With the intent to have a fair basis for judgments or action, one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct, such as Biblical law under divine command theory or the Kantian categorical imperative.

Notice the appeal to “fairness” and “personal ideals” in the dictionary’s explanation. Of course, the problem with this subjective analysis (situational ethics) is that each person has their own ideals and ideas of fairness. Left to situational ethics, judgement concerning any subject, at any time, within any context changes with who the judge is, as well as how the judge thinks and feels in the moment. One cannot be confident that the grounds upon which judgement comes will not change radically from day to day, person to person, or situation to situation. Indeed the entirety of situational ethics demands that the standards of judgement do change according to a designated judge’s observations and feelings of “fairness”.

Knowing the rules and establishing boundaries before starting any endeavor or engaging in any relationship is crucial to civility and order. Whether the subject is raising a child, running a business, living within a family or ordering at a restaurant, certain expectations are essential for sanity to prevail and profit to be realized. We will seek to show that any system where truth is devalued, and situational ethics are employed is inevitably headed toward anarchy, derision, and divisiveness within the ranks. Ultimately, if not corrected, morals and ethics find no foundation and the result is civil unrest, bankruptcy and/or war.  

In the “Introduction” to a book once read and treasured Thomas Paine wrote: “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

We have come a long way since the words of “Common Sense” rang true in the hearts of men. Perhaps what need happen now is determine if that way is right and true, and whether the destination has left humanity any foundation, practically, morally or ethically.

If God is Good, Why Covid19?

Foundational to the Christian faith is the understanding that God is good. His character and nature are explicitly taught throughout the Bible.
.

The challenge we face in judging God is what our human subjective experience informs us about goodness. The “good” is often confused with the “kind”, and kindness is often measured by feelings rather than righteousness.

.

In the classic argument of “If God, why evil”, there are two primary problems for those of us that hold and defend the Christian faith. First is the problem of moral evil, and the second the problem of natural evil. The first is more easily answered than the second, but together they pose the most problematic objection to the existence of the Christian God.

.

Moral evil is posed by the question: “Why would a good God allow children to be abused, young mothers to be murdered, or Stalinist regimes to torture and execute millions”? The shocking answer is love. I could make a theological argument for this answer but allow me a philosophical proposition based on the Biblical representation of God.

.

The Bible states that God is love, therefore He can act no other way. Love requires freewill. So, the argument is this: if love requires freewill, and God took away that free will every time there was a possible moral evil, He would be defying His nature and acting against His immutable attributes. This is more than clever sophistry. It is a reasonable assertion.

.

The alternative? God could have created a universe of robots that did what was right and never were allowed the freewill to chose evil over good. But because He is love, He could not create for relationship that which was in direct contradiction to who He is.

.

The Christian, however, must face the more disturbing reality of natural evil, which would include the Covid 19 virus. In events like hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, plagues, disease, and a host of other natural disasters the answers tend to not satisfy the human sense of morality. But perhaps in that statement lies a potential explanation, even if it does not totally satisfy. And I admit, it does not satisfy nor give answer to the human experience of pain and suffering that often results.

.

The key word is “morality”. We tend to judge what is moral by what we perceive is good. Almost no one would argue that Covid 19 is anything but evil. From where does a common morality like this find its genesis? Does this morality have universal standards, or could it possibly be that the Corona virus is good for one person and totally evil and objectionable to another? Obviously not. Unless we are so delusional to believe that nearly all humanity could agree on any set of morals, those morals, which are written on the hearts of men, demand one thing: a single, immutable moral law giver. Is this a humanly satisfying argument for the existence of God despite the fact of natural evil? Perhaps not, but to think the purpose of life is our own satisfaction would be self-centered arrogance. God never promised, despite our sin, all things would be good. He did promise that “all things work together for good to all who love Him and are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Lastly, Christ did not suggest that He would erase all that is evil in this world. He did say that He would overcome it. He did. He has risen! That’s good news in this Covid storm. Hang in there.

 .

.

.

Dr. David T. Seaford has a Masters in Apologetics and a Doctorate in Practical Theology. He authors the syndicated blog “Truth is Truth”, teaches at Veritas Bible Institute in Eureka CA, is a popular conference speaker and the pastor of First Baptist Church, Redway.  For more information or to ask questions email: d_seaford@msn.com or go to www.fbcredway.com.

The Devolution of The Culture

We have a problem in our culture that neither Marx nor Darwin can fix or explain. We are devolving socially, spiritually and morally at a rate that is increasing exponentially. Right is wrong, up is down and the relativists are running the show and telling us it really doesn’t matter. Postmodernism is beginning to take its toll and the effects are devastating.

.

Who would have thought a decade ago we would be faced with lawsuits because some young boy suddenly demanded to be addressed with the personal pronoun “she” or “her”? What young boy would have wanted it? What family would have encouraged it? What psychologist would normalize it? What church would have praised it?

.

Recently I have been reading a psychologist by the name of Jordan Peterson. Now I am certainly not here to take anything away from Dr. Peterson. I personally think he is brilliant and he clearly has made a name for himself. But in his new book: “12 Rules for Life” he does little more than reveal that this Emperor that we call postmodernism, has no clothes! The genius of what he does is found in his rather unique ability to speak truth to power while cleverly sneaking in that long-lost value of common sense. He begins with statements like; “if you want to change the world, start by cleaning up your own room.” Yea, that makes you smile and recall some things that your mother use to tell you when she was most perturbed with some annoyance that you perpetrated on a regular basis. OK, that is exactly the point.

.

The value that Peterson puts on truth, both assumes that truth exists and insists that it is not just relevant for our world today but is essential for us to return to sanity. As he says persuasively, we must turn our world “upside right”. I would add that time is of the essence.

.

In Dr. Peterson’s deeply perspective and prescriptive moments, audiences laugh, finding his comments funny. At first, I found this curious and perplexing, but then someone said to me: “the comics best lines are always rooted in truth we all know instinctively”. Perhaps these comments are not so deeply perspective after all. Perhaps they are just common-sense statements causing a burst of laughter because of our own discomfort. Perhaps that laughter is facilitated simply to cover up the embarrassing truths we have buried in intellectual sophistry.

.

Anyone that has not just regurgitated the party line, and has thought about many of the postmodern idioms, understands the absurdity of them. The parade marches on, the professors wave their flags, and the students submit to the uniform blur of bellicose and relativistic thought and speech. This speech, when reduced to essays and research papers are met with raves from academia. The media find these things relevant, exciting and cutting edge. The fact remains however, that just because one begins a passion filled argument with a well stated conclusion they desire to reach, does not make it true.

.

While total gender equality, for example, plays well on liberal university campuses, in coal mines, foxholes and boxing rings, it rarely finds equal resolution. Yes, there are a host of things men just don’t do very well either. Despite gender blurring, we don’t nurse babies well, and even if we could, the first time the tike bit our nipple, we would be finished with that job.

.

We find Peterson interesting, exciting and compelling simply because he is so radical toward radical thought. In other words: rational. After so many years of relativistic thought, rational thought is nothing less than revolutionary. Maybe this will catch on. Perhaps one day reason will rally, challenge “lack of reason”, and win, simply because that is the most rational, thoughtful and true outcome. Perhaps we will one day realize that when the extremists scream: “there is no truth”, they are asking us to believe that their statement is objectively true?

.

If there is no truth, there are no conversations worth having. There are no rights, no wrongs and absolutely no morals. Anything goes. Sex, love and rock & roll prevail as anarchy. Squint your eyes just right, turn up the vinyl and you are almost back at Woodstock. We have devolved quite a lot since those days. We have dressed it up a bit, legalized our fears, and normalized immorality. Now we don’t bother with the archaic idea of the truth about such things. Truth is tentative, morality malleable and words, well they are just words. All that matters is that it is relevant. We just have no referent to measure relevant to.  No wonder our children's most common response to any statement is: “whatever”. Nothing matters. There are no standards because we have no referent.

.

I want to argue that we have succeeded at defying our own common sense. Morality does not exist for us because we don’t want it to exist, even though we know instinctively that it should …and does. The pendulum of the Power of Positive Thinking of the 60’s and 70’s has swung back to its antithesis and found the Power of Postmodern Thought. This truth-less, amoral worldview is even more accepted, innocuous and demoralizing to the human condition. Our thoughts, when we have them, are not disturbed by incongruity nor the regularity of irregularities in our lives. You don’t like having a schedule, don’t wear a watch. No problem. Students are failing math at extremely high rates – take it out of the curriculum. Problem solved.

.

No wonder, when we discover we cannot actually live this way that we have turned to drugs, alcohol and more and more to suicide. The world does not make sense and we need to escape it occasionally, …or permanently, in our best dreams.

.

Yes, we need to turn the world upside right! We are drowning in our own vomit. It is time for some common sense. Welcome Dr. Peterson, you are a breath of fresh air!

To Win the Argument OR To Engage the Soul

I had an interesting conversation yesterday. Two members of our church asked that I make a trip out to visit a man that is "hurting and confused". This is not necessarily an unusual request in our ministry and so I agreed without much thought or frankly preparation for the work at hand. Yes, I did ask appropriate questions about the "hurting and confused" issues, and did get some answers more related to emotion than theology and this too is not unusual. Many if not most people these days frame much of what they believe around emotional responses to difficult issues in their lives. Many cults and false religions have largely based their growth and success on this reality.

After a long drive crossing rivers into the woods of Northern California, I faced a most interesting conversation because, while it was likely rooted in a truly devastating situation in this man's life, it was also framed around what I believe is this man search for an authority he thinks he can follow safely. While this is my opinion now I could not have formed this opinion until the conversation unfolded. It is also important to remember that I had little framework for this exchange and had no idea what to expect before we were chest deep.

What I got was a grilling to (in my estimation) disqualify me as an authority of the scriptures. This man set up this exchange by expressing anger to me about others he had engaged in the past. If they disagreed with him, he grew angry and refused to accept that they had anything to contribute.

He then asked me: "Why was Aaron given to Moses by God?" All kinds of things ran through my mind? Was he asking literally, theologically or philosophically? Did he have the initial conversation Moses had with God about his stuttering problem in mind, or the issue with the golden calf? Or was it ...at least 50 other things that ran through my mind? So I asked him for clarification by asking him: "What do you think the purpose was"? ...He refused to answer and became a little aggressive in demanding an answer from me. When I further sought clarification he said because Moses could not speak for himself. After which he immediately asked how many children Aaron had. Since I did not recall the Bible addressing the number of children Aaron had (only the number of sons, which was also likely not to be a complete genealogy (Number 3:2) since this text was focusing on the sons that Aaron ordained as priests...and not the total number of "children") I said I did not know how may total children Aaron had, and he immediately said 4 based on the Numbers passage, and played me an audio of that passage. Quickly he followed up by asking what two of the sons did? That is a rather open question that certainly had no context, but I assumed he was thinking of the event where two of Aaron's sons as burned "strange fire" before God. As I started by saying that they had done what they ought not have done and were instructed not to do..., I was cut off and he finished the story line.

I then asked this man who actually spoke to Pharaoh when Aaron and Moses did go to him. Given that this man had memorized so many details and that this was a rather common knowledge question, I thought this would open up the conversation to more important issues than factoids and statistics. When the man angrily answered wrong, I just shrugged my shoulders a bit before he rattled off 5 or 6 more questions, which I was also not given an opportunity to answer.

So the question I continue to ask myself relates to the 1 Peter 3:16 mandate to engage people like with with "gentleness and respect". My thought in this particular situation was that my opportunities to engage this person again in the future and possibly talk to him about really important issues for him was more important than winning the debate, or interrupting him to demand finishing my answers to his questions. Bottom line is that his questions, while not difficult once one knew what his actual question was, were actually less important than eventually getting this man answers that will make a difference in his life. His questions were only designed to measure someone's basic knowledge of the Bible in a sort of "Gameshow" format. The answers I desperately want him to know regard the knowledge of who God is and how he can have a loving relationship with He and His children.

Time will tell if I made the right choices. Now I ask for your prayers with regards to this man and for me should I have another opportunity to interact with him!

Gentleness and Respect... while giving an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope that is in you! What a mandate. What a challenge!

Personal Values Replace Truth as the Necessary Standard of Faith & Life

It is now necessary to reach lower in order to share the Christian faith effectively. Cultures and societies around the world continue to devolve, spiraling through a pluralistic – post-modern reality, and consequently philosophical tolerance has become an acceptable substitute for truth as a standard for determining one’s values. Simultaneously tolerance for a wide array of individual values, regardless of their origin or basis in truth, has become the plum line for civility and for the most part this lack of standards has become its own standard. This state of disintegration of standards goes well beyond the post-modernism of the early to mid-20^th century, and has now become what I am calling post/post-modern.  Post/post could be described as a world where the only civil discourse must be based on the most extreme definitions of tolerance, where any allusions to absolute truth are either questionable or plainly dismissed as fiction. The relativism that infiltrated every subject taught in our primary schools in the 1050’s and 1960’s has come to full bloom. I am suggesting here that this is not just the case in the secular philosophical academia any longer. Those primary school students are now our senior citizens and among that generation these attitudes prevail. It has become the acceptable condition of the workplace, our churches and on the streets from Calcutta to California. 

As a pastor, Christian apologist and street evangelist who has served in many cross-cultural situations around the world, it is plain to me that most of us are not just being propelled toward this worldview, but that we are living in it currently. While Christians holding themselves out as evangelicals would never embrace this confession openly nor perhaps express it publically as a way of life, the choices many of us make reveal this “post/post” world is where we live, where we work and unfortunately, where we are most comfortable.

Lest we think these issues have no real world implications, consider that recently there was a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The neighbors to those that carried out the attack said that they knew something sinister was going on in the house and garage where the attackers lived, but would not tell anyone, for fear of “someone thinking they were profiling”. I would simply suggest that when, as a people, we fear telling what we know could save our own lives because we do not want to be seen as “intolerant”, it might be concluded that the consequences of speaking the truth is feared more than the possibility of death by tolerance.

That said, the tools we have used as Christian apologists for a number of years that presume people believe in truth, that anything is knowable, or that there is one true reality, may now need to be re-adjusted in order to once again begin where people now actually live. In 19___ Dr. Norman Geisler adjusted his now famous10 points that show Christianity to be true to 12 points. He said at the time that this had to be done because the culture had digressed so far that we could no longer presume that people believed that truth about reality was knowable. Today (2016) it seems that even the phrases: “absolute truth”, “one reality” and “knowable truths about realities” are questioned if not totally dismissed as naïve concepts. 

In the 1960’s there was a small sub-culture that said they believed in “sex, love, and rock & roll.” Everything else in their lives became subservient to these values. These self-proclaimed “hippies” were held together from Woodstock and beyond by this common value system (ie: sex, love and rock & roll). This movement, based on these values, grew and has had a major impact on our society and on every modern culture. This is just one example of how one small group’s values has replaced the necessity for truth’s existence. Sex, love and rock & roll were the core value and everything else in life adjusted to fit that paradigm. When this kind of replacement morality takes hold tolerance is king and any self- proclaimed value could become the core upon which any individual person can justify any lifestyle without fear of being chastened or ridiculed in a healthy tolerant society. One can become a “Jewish/Buddhist”, a “Christian/Anarchist”, or the “only member of the ‘Mother-God’ Society” without much concern of being questioned. In fact those that have such singular beliefs are often considered intellectuals, brilliant or just free thinkers. In a “post/post” world even the idea of polar positions or antithetical thoughts are primitive, constraining and un-necessary walls that separate otherwise loving people. 

It is with this understanding that we now suggest the following preamble to the long held 12 points:

1. If truth exists, it has value

2. Not all values are equally valuable

3. Truth exists

4. Values predicated on truth about reality are by definition more valuable than those rooted in personal preference, tradition or any presupposition alone

Truth about reality is knowable… (the beginning of the 12 points).

Christmas AGAIN &%^$@*!?

OK, so there are some Christmas' that are better than others and to some of us it seems the "better" ones are fewer than the "not so good ones". I have to fight the crowds, buy the presents and what do you get for your 94 year old grandmother that never leaves her house? I've got to clean the house, prepare for guests and not burn the stuffing all at the same time... and this is suppose to be great, joyful and celebratory? How can we ever get back to the sanity and sanctity of Christmas?

The good news is that you are not alone. The panic began on the first Christmas as the angel appeared to the shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flocks in the night. The difference is that their panic was over what they did not know and many of us as Christians are panicking in spite of what we know! We are focused on the wrong things and giving priority to the wrong preparations.

Perhaps it would be better this year to clean less and prepare more to share the gospel with those you truly love and care for. Perhaps it would be a better use of time to set the timer on the stuffing and sit in prayer for those loved ones while the stuffing bakes. Perhaps the quiet work of studying the Scriptures and rejoicing over the fact that the Messiah has come and atoned for your sins and desires a personal relationship with you, would be a more productive preparation for the relatives coming than washing the dog would be.

May I suggest a reading before your Christmas meal this year of Luke 2 and Luke 23. Chapter 2 is His coming. Chapter 23 is why He came. The manger ought never to be viewed outside of the shadow of the Cross! If you know Jesus, you are blessed this year to have a Savior that came humbly and willingly, and that loves you and is with you even now. IF you do not know Jesus the good news is that you can know Him right now, right where you are sitting. Take that dusty Bible off the shelf and and turn to the book of Romans (it is about 80% of the way into the Bible). When you get there go to Chapter 3, verse 23. There you will find that you are not alone in needing a Savior. We are all sinners. Then turn to Chapter 6, verse 23 and there you will see that we are doomed without finding that Savior (The wages of sin is death), BUT "the free gift of God is salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans chapter 10 verse 9 tells us HOW to receive this salvation and HOW we can walk in this life without the panic of a secular Christ-less and Panic filled Season!

There really is good news and you should share it this Christmas. You can begin that reality by setting your mind and heart on the person of Christ and the Good News of Salvation!

Merry Christmas!