THE PRESIDENT'S CONE OF SILENCE

It's October 12, 2007, 2:30 PM; we're at the inauguration of Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, the new president of Harvard University. Before her inaugural address, we witness the opening ceremonies. There's the procession led by a bagpiper and the Harvard College Pan-African Dance and Music Ensemble, followed by an official Call to Order and then six official "Greetings" by six different individuals. Interspersed among these greetings, we hear a violinist perform the Preludio from J. S. Bach's Partita no. 3 and Vaishnav Jan To, the devotional hymn composed by Narsinh Mehta that was a favorite of Mahatma Gandhi. (So they tell us.)

If these interminable greetings and obscure musical interludes have not put us to sleep, we're eager for the inaugural address of Dr. Drew Faust, the first female president of the the oldest university in America. Her address will be almost six, single-spaced, type written pages, consisting of 3,377 words. (As a frame of reference, the sermon at the Hangar Bible Fellowship on November 10th was 3,277 words and the sermon last Sunday, Nov. 17, came in at 2,306 well-crafted words.)



During her speech, Dr. Faust alluded to the great motto of Harvard, "Veritas" ("Truth")." However, that was only part of Harvard's original motto. The original motto was, "Veritas Christo et ekklesiae" ("Truth for Christ and the Church"). You can still find this motto at various places around the campus such as dormitories and one of the libraries. 

On the Harvard crest containing the original motto, you'll find three books, the top two are face up, while the bottom book is face down, signifying the limits of human reason and the need for God's revelation. 

In 1869, due to Unitarian influence, the motto of Harvard became, "Veritas," and the three books are now facing up. This was and is a classic case of Romans 1:18, the suppression of truth in unrighteousness. By 1869, Harvard had become the enemy of Christ and His church (cf. Matthew 12:30).

THE SPEECH

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) was so impressed with Dr. Faust and her inaugural speech that he had it included in the "Congressional Record."

In her address, Dr. Faust said,

"The “Veritas” in Harvard’s shield was originally intended to invoke the absolutes of divine revelation, the unassailable verities of Puritan religion. We understand it quite differently now. Truth is an aspiration, not a possession. Yet in this we—and all universities defined by the spirit of debate and free inquiry—challenge and even threaten those who would embrace unquestioned certainties. We must commit ourselves to the uncomfortable position of doubt, to the humility of always believing there is more to know, more to teach, more to understand."

I know you caught it--the new president put a cone of silence around the old motto, but did refer to its intent "to invoke the absolutes of divine revelation." She went on to state that we understand things differently today; we understand that we can't possess absolute truth, even though truth is something we aspire to have. So, since we can't possess absolute truth, the university must commit itself to "the uncomfortable position of doubt."

But then she goes on, "[W]e . . . challenge and even threaten those who would embrace unquestioned certainties." 

So there it is, a throwing down of the gauntlet if ever there was one: Parents, send your student to Harvard and we'll challenge and even threaten his belief in unquestioned certainties (i. e. absolute truth). Upon graduating from Harvard, your student, if the school has reached it goal, will receive a "Bachelor of Arts in Doubt," regardless of their chosen major. In other words, Harvard is the place where faith goes to die.

IT WAS NO ALWAYS SO

In the fall of 1764, George Whitefield, itinerant evangelical English preacher, gave a commencement sermon at Princeton University, then a place of evangelical learning which he described as a “blessed nursery, one of the purest in the universe.” Many would laugh at the idea of an evangelical pastor giving a commencement address at one of today’s elite colleges because the Ivy League schools are today distinguished by secularism and outright contempt of  Christianity. (Was Billy Graham ever invited to bring a commencement address to Yale or Harvard?) 

If George Whitefield were alive today and Harvard were to invite him to bring a commencement address, we would think that he would be regarded as a retrograde bigot and demonstrations would break out on the campus.

BUT TODAY

Take a look at some of the commencement speakers at our prestigious universities this year: Jay Leno, John Kerry, Shonda Rhimes (the creator of "Scandal," "Gray's Anatomy,", and "Private Practice"). Susan Wojcicki, the Chief Executive at You Tube, spoke at Johns Hopkins. Going back to 2011, Conan O'Brien addressed the graduates at Dartmouth. (They said he was "hilarious.") Is there a biblicist in their midst? I didn't see one.

TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY

A family sends its carefully nurtured youth to Harvard, not knowing that the intent of the school, according to its president, is  to "challenge and threaten the unquestioned certainties" in which they raised her.

But is not turn about fair play? It seems that they can "challenge and threaten" all they want, but unholy havoc breaks loose when any one dares to challenge and threaten the cherished ideas of a university.  Even a Harvard professor has noted the difference. 

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Ruth R. Wisse, professor of Yiddish Literature and Comparative Literature at Harvard, wrote about the limited debate and rising opposition to free speech occurring on college campuses. 

She observed, “Universities have not only failed to stand up to those who limit debate, they have played a part in encouraging them. The modish commitment to so-called diversity replaces the ideal of guaranteed equal treatment of individuals with guaranteed group preferences in hiring and curricular offerings.”

What is evangelism? What does the gospel of grace do? Do they not challenge and threaten (through discussion, dialogue, and persuasion, never through force or manipulation) the unquestioned "certainties" of the unbeliever, e. g., his "certainty" that all religions are the same; his "certainty" that there is no God; his "certainty" that good works earn him a place in heaven; his "certainty" that the unaided mind can come to the truth apart from divine revelation. 

Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Apostles went out to challenge and threaten the "certainties" of the world system and the rest is history, basically the history of the Western World.

On October 12, 2007, President Drew Faust put a cone of silence around the old motto and the shield of Harvard University. She committed the school to "the uncomfortable position of doubt." 

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
 

 

THE NIGHT JOHN BOOKMAN TOLD HIS WIFE HE DIDN'T LOVE HER ANY MORE

John Bookman arrived home thirty minutes earlier than usual from work that evening; he had an important announcement for his wife and kids. John felt like he needed to be honest with them; they needed to know the score. He had the timing planned--after dinner, which he was carrying in a sack from Lotta-Burger, he'd shepherd them into the den and have the conversation with them that he'd been putting off for weeks.

As he walked through the door, his wife, Betty Bookman, greeted him with a warm, "Hello, how was work?" His two teen-aged children, Billy (16) and Barbara (14), were sitting at the table, ready to eat. 

During the meal, they talked about the day's events. Billy's swim team practice that morning had gone well; he was getting so good at the sport that he'd be in the free style relay at the next meet. 

Barbara's piano teacher said that she was making great progress and had encouraged her to sign up for piano camp this summer at the university. (That would mean big bucks for John, but he didn't want to put a damper on Barbara's musical talents, so he said nothing.)

Betty said that she'd had a trying day as she tried to get things ready for the all-school Thanksgiving dinner which was coming up in three weeks. Parents were complaining about all the work to get it done, but what else was new, and then Betty had gotten word that Jabez and Geraldine Stone were calling for a boycott of the meal and going before the school board to argue that it violated the First Amendment. "Jabez and Geraldine need to get a life," a weary Betty said.

It was then, after Betty had concluded her report of the trials and tribulations of the day, that John began to speak. He sat upright in his chair and got right to the point: "I don't know how to say this, but I have to say it. I don't love you any more, Betty. I don't love you, Billy, and I don't love you, Barbara."

John looked around the table and saw the stunned, hurt, and quizzical  faces looking back at him. Betty had turned pale and began to breathe like the oxygen had left the room. Billy stared straight at his father with a pained look in his eyes, and John saw a tear start to form in Barbara's left eye. 

Almost as one, they blurted out, "What?" 

"I don't love you any more," John said, trying to hide the emotional upheaval inside.

There was what seemed a very long silence, that kind of silence where you can hear paint drying. Betty looked at John in pained disbelief; Barbara started crying; Billy slammed an open palm on the table, and said in a semi-yell, "What's going on, Dad!"

John began to explain as best he could. "You all know that for the past year I've been taking night courses at the college. There's this one course called Sociobiology, sometimes it's called "Evolutionary Ethics." It's a course that deals with the biological basis of all social behavior, including morality, and I've learned an awful lot."

"Socio-what?" Betty asked. "Like, what have you learned!" Betty demanded.

"Well," John said, "To put it as simply as I can, I've learned about  something called "the reproductive imperative." That's an academic way of saying that the ultimate goal of any organism is to survive and reproduce."

"So?" Billy asked. 

"So,  moral systems exist because they ultimately promote human survival and reproduction," John answered, like a robot reciting words he'd been programmed to say. "This includes what we call 'love,' which really isn't 'love' at all, it's really just selfishness.

" Listen Betty, I 'love' you because 'love' is an effective means of raising effective reproducers. We're made up of genes, right? So look at it this way: our genes make our bodies do what we do to protect them, so they'll survive. Our bodies are just the engines our genes use to survive and reproduce."

John saw that his family was looking at him like he had lost his mind; he continued. 

"Let me illustrate it this way. Kids, suppose I see your mother trapped in a burning building. I run into the building, into all that the intense heat and suffocating smoke and rescue her. I don't realize it, but I'm not doing that because I 'love' her; my genes are using my body as an engine to look after their own reproduction. All this 'love' stuff is just an illusion. It's not real. We're selfish animals, looking out for our own survival and reproduction. 'Love' is  really selfishness at its basic level."

Betty didn't want her kids listening to all this and she wasn't going to sit there like the dutiful wife and agree with the nonsense her husband of twenty years was spewing all over the table. She was thinking, but not saying, that his education had made him into a fool. 

Betty cleared her throat, pushed back the tears, and began to object. "OK, people do run into burning buildings to save their wife, their child, their brother or sister, maybe even their cousin or an uncle or aunt who are genetically connected, but people also run into burning buildings to save complete strangers, people to whom they're not genetically connected, people who'll never be able to repay them, people they've never seen before and may never see again. That's an act of empathy, compassion, courage, even love. How do you explain that?"

John thought and thought, but finally admitted he had no answer for that one. He did admit that no one has figured out how time + the impersonal + chance produced something so personal as love, empathy, and compassion. But, according to the tenets of evolutionary ethics, the reproductive imperative just has to be.

Someone had asked the question in class and Professor Goodpasture had no answer, except to say that this reproductive imperative goes along with the evolutionary theory which everybody "knows" is true. "It's a logical conclusion from evolution no one can deny," he'd said.

Enraged, Betty picked up her plate and slammed it down on the table. "Next thing I know" she said, "you'll be telling me that you didn't marry me because you loved me, but you married me because our genes thought you and I would best enable them to reproduce and survive!" She was almost screaming at this point, and she was scaring the children.


"Yes," that's exactly what I've learned in Sociobiology!" John said. Now he was getting angry to be contradicted like this in front of his own children. 

Betty was starting to come apart at the seams. She'd always thought they were a Christian family, a family who loved and cared about each other. Now all this was an illusion? Now they were a family whose only purpose was to survive and reproduce their genes? 

Betty was shaking now. "John," she said, "Let me ask you, suppose that I'm dead and in the ground, and the decomposers are doing their thing. What difference does it make to me whether I've reproduced or not? If it's all over, if death is the end, who cares whether or not you or I or these children have reproduced?"*

After an awkward silence, John answered, “Well, I guess it doesn’t matter at all.” 

Betty continued, "Don’t you see, you were talking about how the only purpose in life is to survive and reproduce, but now you've just admitted that this purpose doesn't matter, so it's really an illusion. 

"According to what you've just said, you're forcing us to live a lie–the illusion of hope and meaning. How do we go on with our lives when we realize that it really doesn’t matter what we do, that there's no point to any of it?” 

John hadn't thought of all of this, and he certainly hadn't expected Betty's explosion. He was getting angrier by the second. I don't know. Professor Goodpasture told us all this and that's good enough for me. I wish it were for you. They're teaching Sociobiology all over the country, so you may as well get ready for it."

Betty was thinking that this was a good reason to stop saving for the kid's college fund, if they were going to learn such nonsense. She fired back at John something she remembered Paul's saying, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

John didn't take kindly to his wife calling him a fool in front of the children. He said that he wasn't going to discuss it any longer, and that he wished Betty had more education so she could see what he was talking about. The kids noticed that their father's face was turning red. They had come to hate their dinner and didn't finish their Lotta-Burgers. They each pushed their plates back and just sat there, silently wishing this would all go away. Once again, the evolutionary theory had done its destructive work, but they were too get the full impact. They only knew their dad didn't love them any more.

John Bookman folded his napkin, stood up, went into the den, and turned on Monday Night Football. The Dallas Cowboys were about to play the team from Washington.
___________________________________________________
 *This is a good question, one asked by Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 
____________________________________________________

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, and the author of Truthspeak, available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing sue.bove@gmail.com and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius. Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99"There is

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius. Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius. Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

 

HEY KID, WANNA GO TO CAMP?

A modern phenomenon is the "camp." Harried parents pay big bucks to shuttle their children to various camps throughout the summer and even the year. I'm not talking about the traditional camping trip of going to the mountains for a miserable week and roughing it in miserable tents and miserable bedrolls whose discomfort level reaches Procrustean proportions. No, these are more indulgent and sophisticated camps, catering to various "needs."

I'm talking about horseback riding camps, frisbee camps, snowboarding camps, music camps, surfing camps, hunting camps, all kinds of camps to grab week after week of the youth's time. I await the day when a parent may have the opportunity to choose a "camp- camp," for their young ward, but that's down the road awhile.

WHAT KIND OF CAMP DID YOU SAY?

But, get this: "Hey kid, wanna go to evolution camp?" Say what? Yes, you read correctly; there is such a thing as an evolution camp. The First Unitarian Unitarian Church (I use the word "church" advisedly) in Springfield, Missouri, hosted an evolution camp whose goal is to teach kids to defend the evolutionary theory from iany and all critics.  It's a five-day experience for kids ages 5-11. 

I AM WHO?

Jennifer Lara, (Director of Religious Education at the First Unitarian group) is the organizer of he camp and one of the teachers for the week. She begins her indoctrination of the children with, "I am the universe. Like you, I started as a speck about 13 billion years ago. I was smaller than than a piece of dust under your bed. It was bursting with wild and dazzling dreams of galaxies, stars, and planets in radiant colors--bright yellow, molten red, and piercing blue."(I wonder if any child raises a hand to ask, "Is that speck eternal? Where did it come from? How do you know all this? How does a speck dream of galaxies, stars and planets?")

WHO ATTENDS?

Who takes their kid to such a camp? You'd be surprised. Unitarians aren't the only ones who came that week of July 7-11, 2014. According to Lara, Christian parents brought their children too. One such parent was Brandy Clory who brought her five-year old son. Her rationale for bringing him was so that he "could be around open-minded children learning science."[The minds of open-minded children are like those of open-minded, immature adults--garbage cans for anything and everything; this is the kind of a mind that Proverbs calls "simple."] 

The First Unitarian group of Springfield has a website on which they explain, "Our members "identify and draw inspiration from Christianity, Humanism, Paganism, Judaism and other religious and philosophical traditions." These are truly "open" minds, minds open to everything in a dismal mix.

Mrs. Clory believes her duty as a parent is "to expose him" to the evolution camp so that he he can "grow up knowing both paths [creation and evolution] so he can make his own decision." 

We might paraphrase Brandy Clory with, "I want to expose my child so that he can learn he started as a speck about 13 billion years ago and was smaller than than a piece of dust under his bed."

JUST LIKE ERIC?

Later, will her five-year old come to realize  the implications of the "speck theory," the implications that he has no purpose, no meaning, no destiny? Will he come to believe that because of the workings of the survival of the fittest, he too should put on a shirt that says, "NATURAL SELECTION," just like Eric Harris wore on April 20, 1999, that day at Columbine High when he went on a survival of the fittest rampage? Later, will that five-year old, like Eric, write in his school planner and in the yearbooks of several high school friends, "Ich bin Gott," "I am God"?

Dr. Peter Langman who has spent ten years studying Eric Harris and the Columbine massacre has proved that the reported cause of Eric's rage (bullying) is bogus, a fabrication. His research shows that Eric didn't murder people because the athletes used him as a punching bag or for verbal sport, as the popular theory goes. 

Writing in "Psychology Today Online," Dr. Langman cites the fact that Harris was fascinated by Hitler and natural selection, the survival of the fittest. He, Eric, was one of the "fittest" and he would do the "selecting" so as to help evolution along. There was no bullying of young Eric to produce the Columbine horror.

Interesting isn't it? Jennifer Lara begins her teaching of the children with "I am the universe," and Eric Harris writes, "I am God."

ALL THIS TO SAY

Recently, I had a conversation with Jerry, a friend from days long ago, a friend with whom I'd lost touch. I learned that he'd graduated from a fine school, Texas Tech University, to be specific, and had gotten a graduate degree that enabled him to get a job in Colorado as a high school principal. His goal was altruistic; he wanted to make a difference in kids' lives. (Along the way, he invented a type of software that revolutionized educational administration. Jerry is no dummy.)

THE EARLY DAYS IN ACADEME`

But after serving in that high school for a while, he realized that he was in the wrong place. If he wanted to make a difference, he concluded, high school wasn't the place to do it. So he resigned and became the principal of an elementary school, and it's there that Jerry has impacted lives because he figured out that children needed to be trained up (not indoctrinated like so many unthinking little Manchurian Candidates) in the way they should go. The earlier this training begins, the better, was Jerry's idea, and he has been just the man to do it.

AN ATHEIST

There's this atheist who was writing about the factors that led to his defection from the faith. It was saddening to learn that one of his reasons was "those silly Sunday school lessons" he heard growing up. He didn't elaborate, but I can imagine his teachers presented Noah's Ark as a cartoon boat, David as a six-year old boy with a toy defeating the giant, Samson as having magic hair, and God's killing little children with bears. That's not "Bible."

TEACHERS

What we need is good, solid, and accurate biblical teaching of children that is of such caliber that, whatever they learn, they won't have to unlearn silliness later. What we need is teaching that enables children (and adults) to see the Bible for what it is, a connected Big Story, not scores and scores of isolated little morality tales. Maybe we also need to rethink separating children in church from their parents and teach them both together. Who is your child's SS teacher, anyway? What do you know about him/her and what they teach?

WRITERS

We need Christian authors who can write solid works on the child's level that he wouldn't later say were little silly books with silly pictures. We need solid authors who know and can tell the Big Story with captivating words.  

ARTISTS

We need a mindset that warns us to be careful with pictures, if we're going to have them, because pictures are worth thousand words.  

We need artists to picture David as what he was, a young adult with a military weapon invented for killing, which is what a slingshot was in his day. We need Noah's ark drawn to scale, and the narrative of Samson's strength which traces it to its true source, the Holy Spirit, not hair, not muscles. We need teachers who take the time to study and learn that Elisha was confronted by young adults, a mob intent on taking his life, coming at him.

And, all in all, we need more Jerrys.





 

THE DESIGNER WATCH

William Paley was born in July 1743, in Peterborough, England, trained for the Anglican priesthood, graduating from Christ's College, Cambridge in 1763. He was appointed a fellow and tutor of his college in 1766, and rose through the ranks of the Anglican Church. He died on May 25, 1805, and he's famous for leaving behind a parable on which to chew. 

In his parable, Paley pictures a man walking along an uncultivated land and he stubs his toe on a rock. He looks at the rock for a moment, but the stone doesn't tell him much, it's just there. (But the fact that it's there is telling him something or at least causing him to ask, "How did it get here?")

Then, as he looks at the rock, he sees something lying beside it, a watch, running and keeping time. Now, he's got something more to consider: "How did something with such an intricate design come about?" The watch is different than the rock. The rock doesn't show any design, but this watch does, this shows an intricate design, precision movement, like, say, a fine Swiss watch. 

He thinks more deeply about the watch and concludes that it's of such fine design and precision that it's telling him more than the time of day; it's telling him that there is a watchmaker. 

You can easily see where the parable is going; no surprise ending with the story. Paley told the parable to illustrate the fact that when we look at the universe, we see a "watch," a precisely arranged "watch" with intricate parts, all moving in a glorious harmony in what must, therefore be, a Designer Universe. It's like the psalmist wrote: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork." To line the psalm up with the parable, we'd say, "A watch declares the glory of a Watchmaker and shows His handiwork."

Any normal person, finding the watch in the heather would think, "This watch has a maker," but that's not true when we come to fallen man and his ideas about the universe. When fallen man "finds" the universe, there are two words that he won't say to explain it: "designer," and  "cause." He won't allow himself to think "designer/cause," to say "designer/cause," or to declare a "designer/ cause" for the universe. 

If he thinks or says, "Cause," that means that the watch (or the stone, for that matter) hasn't always been there. If he thinks or says, "Cause," that opens the door for another forbidden word, "God." And that word leads to all sorts of ramifications he doesn't want to face, such as "accountability," among a host of others.

Therefore, he must suppress this "designer/cause," fight it tooth and nail, hammer and tong. He must look for something, anything, to suppress the truth the watch is telling him. He'll leave no stone unturned to find something, anything to get around "designer/cause." And, after searching, Darwin found it: natural selection.

"At last," fallen man said,"Natural selection accounts for the precision of the watch; Paley's parable is dead!" By natural selection, he means, "The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring."

But now he still has problems: his watchmaker is blind; his watchmaker is impersonal; his watchmaker is chance. Therefore, he is placing his faith in the impersonal + chance to have produced everything (including himself). On no other level does he trust the impersonal and chance. He doesn't trust chance when he picks and eats mushrooms or he'll be in the ER in no time, nor does he trust chance when he drives in either light or heavy traffic. Try trusting blind chance in the 80 mile Atlanta rush hour traffic and find out just what kind of fool you are. Change lanes in that kind of traffic by chance and watch someone call 911 as you lie broken and bleeding in the street. Pull any medication by chance from your medicine cabinet and take as many pills as you decide by chance and wind up unconscious on the floor.

Other problems accrue: how can we talk about "Newton's Laws of Motion?" where did such laws come from? Why is it that particles behave in the same way? Particles don't have minds by which they think, yet, wherever we find them, they act in the same way so that we can formulate "laws" to describe them. Why do far away galaxies all act in accord with the laws of mathematics? Why do shattered plates never reform themselves? Why does a pan of boiling water never produce ice? Did a blind watch maker come up with all those laws of motion?

If the universe doesn't have a cause, it must be eternal and if it's eternal, that means that "The universe is all that is, was, or ever will be." But how does that square with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? "This law is about inefficiency, degeneration and decay. It tells us all we do is inherently wasteful and that there are irreversible processes in the universe. It gives us an arrow for time and tells us that our universe has a inescapably bleak, desolate fate." 

In short, this law says that everything is running down, going from order to disorder. That law came in with the Fall of man and we've been dealing with it ever since. Since everything is winding down, going from order to disorder, how can it be eternal? It had to have a beginning if it's all falling apart.

In spite of the fact that we can observe the Second Law of Thermodynamics, fallen man says, "The universe is all there is, was, or ever will be." Since the Second Law is true, the universe must have had a beginning and if it had a beginning, it had a cause. Nothing begins without a cause.

What shall we say to all this? "Professing himself to be wise, fallen man became a fool, worshiping the watch rather than the Watchmaker." 
__________________________________________________

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, and the author of Truthspeak, available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing sue.bove@gmail.com and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99"There is

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

 

THOSE BERENSTAIN BEARS

Those Berenstain Bears. They've sold over 260 million books in 23 languages and they're so famous that they became not one, but two animated TV series for kids on CBS, the other on PBS. The Berenstain Bears series has been awarded the Ludington Award from the Educational Paperback Association for their contribution to children's literature, the Drexel Citation from Drexel University, several Philadelphia Literary Children's Roundtable Honors, and many other state reading association awards.

Those bears made their creators, Stan and Jan Berestain multi-bazillionaires. Not too shabby for a couple who met on their first day of drawing class at the Philadelphia Museum School of Industrial Art in 1941. Let the good times roll!

THE BERENSTAIN BEAR FORMULA

The stories of the endearing Bear family follow a formula according to Paul Farhi: "The action usually starts when the kids face a problem. They turn to Papa, who offers a 'solution' that only makes the problem—or the kids' fears about it—even worse. Enter Mama, who eventually sets everyone straight."

Charles Krauthammer, although not a fan of the Bears, said that his four-year old son can't get enough of the Berenstain clan. "The books are filled with appealing color pictures and funny characters," one mother says, and another gushes about the Bears, "We really enjoyed this book. My 8 year old read it to me. It is a good introductory science book. I found that it introduced a lot of natural science vocabulary. My son loves The Bears and this was a good book. I would recommend it for grades 1st and below"

Could there be a better way to introduce a child ("1st grade and below) to the joy of reading than the Berenstain Bears? Even the name has an appealing alliterative ring to it.

But not so fast, Francis. There's a Bear book called,"A Nature Walk through Bear Country," and in that story, the Berestain Bears come to the reader bearing (pun intended) a cup of hemlock ripe for the drinking. A naive parent, wanting to encourage the child to read, innocently purchases "A Nature Walk through Bear Country," thinking that this little story will introduce her budding genius to the world of science and build the little darling's vocabulary prowess But what she doesn't know is that she's moving a Trojan Horse into her home and the words of one catchy sentence in the book are poised in the belly of the book to invade the mind of her child.

As she reads the story to her little boy, she comes to the sentence tucked away in the Trojan Horse, and once she reads it, the Trojan equine is in: "Nature is all there is, was, or ever will be." There it is, poison from the pen of Stan and Jan. Whether the young mother knows it or not, she and the Bears have her son that matter is eternal; it is all there is, was or will be. Most likely, she reads on, giving what she's just read little or no thought.

What she may not know is that the sentence is close to the one which astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996) made iconic in his 1980 PBS series, The Cosmos, the series considered the ground-breaking series of scientific documentaries. The Cosmos was the vehicle that Carl Sagan used to burn his famous sentence into our brains. He thought it was such an important statement that he began every episode with: "The universe is all there is, was, and ever will be."

 




Sagan believed that the universe is eternal; for him to have admited otherwise would have rocked his socks because such an admission would mean that Someone outside of space and time created it. Yet Sagan saw what we all see; he saw the universe, that it's running down, he saw that the world and he himself are passing away, decaying, which means it all had a beginning at some point. But yet, he still said, "The universe is all there is, was, and ever will be." It is his untestable assumption, his presupposition taken by faith from which he begins to think about the universe. But enough of Sagan.

BIGGER FISH: THE DEFAULT SETTING

We have bigger fish to fry. The problem is that the Sagan Slogan is the default setting of the world system; it permeates the culture and is passed on by the educational systems from kindergarten to grad school. For our culture, Sagan's slogan is an assumed, unquestionable, and undiscussable given. Send your kid to a state or private university, and all the knowledge the professors transmit to him will be from that foundation.

But there are other Trojan Horses transmitting the sentence: books, magazines, journals, music, movies, and TV programs march into our minds from that one-sentence starting point: "The Universe is all there is, was, or ever will be." Many are the teachers who are dedicating their lives to its propagation and to the ridicule and scorn of those who believe otherwise. Speakers who disagree with Sagan's Slogan won't be invited to speak at commencement exercises or come to the campus to give lectures.

THE ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4 AND ALL ELECTIONS TO COME

I hope my candidates win on Tuesday November 4th and in all other elections to come, but I know, I absolutely know. they won't; what I hope and what I know are two different things. But I do know this: no matter who wins, even if my hallowed candidates somehow win, Harvard and Yale, the Ivy League, the schools of the Pac 10, and the Big XII will continue playing football and turning out their product of an educated man or woman who may not have come to their groves of academe` believing the Sagan Sloan, but they will by the time they're through with them. The world system will have done its inexorable work.



If my candidates do emerge victorious on November 4, there will be no change in the content of movies or television programs, except maybe to get worse and more blatant in their espousal of the Sagan slogan. It doesn't matter which candidates win--the world system will go on giving its awards and accolades to the story tellers who produce the dramas, the comedies, and the books that adhere  to the motto of The Cosmos.

On November 5th, the day after the election, nothing will change and we who defy the slogan will continue to be marginalized, ridiculed, scorned, denied promotions, and forced into sensitivity sessions, world without end, amen. Even if I win on that one day of the electoral process, I'll lose the other 364 days of the year. What a pessimist I am, but I've read II Tim. 3:13, so I can't help it; I must be a realist. But yet, what an optimist I am and I'm an optimist because I hear something.

I HEAR LAUGHTER AND SCORN AND THERE'S SOMEONE THERE

But do you hear it? It's there. It's divine laughter: "The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. He rebukes them in his anger . . ." (Ps. 2:2). Do you hear the psalmist's scorn: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God."" (Ps. 14:1) Let's paraphrase that verse: "The fool says in his heart, 'The universe is all that is, was or ever will be.' " Do you hear Paul?--"Professing himself to be  be wise, Sagan became a fool." (Paraphrase of Romans 1:22)

I hear the laughter when the Bible says that Jesus Christ is returning and bringing with Him His rod of iron (Ps. 2). This world needs taking over, and He's God's anointed Person to do it, in spite of what all political parties say about their hallowed candidates.

I am the pessamist/realist/optimist. And in the meantime, I want to keep on evangelizing and making disciples, which I enjoy, because I hear the laughter. 

___________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, and the author of Truthspeak, available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing sue.bove@gmail.com and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99"There is

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

There is hardly a more common error than that of taking the man who has one talent, for a genius.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/helps_arthur.html#mpzMv1GyXYdlOVbq.99

 

ROBERT REDFORD, PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

When I was in the cozy confines of a middle school Civics class, we studied how politicians use something called "Glittering Generalities" (GG) to grab votes. It's not only those running for office who use such the GG, but also advertisers who want our money in exchange for their product. As I learned back then, "GGs use words that glitter and sparkle, while only stating generalities. That is, they give us a general, or vague sense of what they are trying to sell; they just look good. Glittering generalities are used for their emotional value, not their logical value."

MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER

Let's look at a GG: "Pure, fresh, mountain spring water. Bottled especially for you in Iceland from only our purest mountain springs.” We note the words that glitter in the ad--"pure," "fresh," "mountain spring," "Iceland," and "purest mountain springs." (I get thirsty just reading it.)

Then I realize that I'm in the mental clutches of a GG. That statement, the brainchild of some advertising agency, doesn't tell me why the Icelandic waters are any better than the waters from the mountain springs in Colorado, nor does it tell me just how "pure" pure is. They leave "fresh" vague. And I ask, how do they know who I am? They must know me because they bottle their fresh and pure Icelandic water "especially for me." How does their bottling process work so that it's "especially for me?" After such questions,  I'm not thirsty, and I've saved my money.

COKE

Let's look at a well-know slogan for Coca-Cola: "Things go better with Coke." Now, there's a GG staring us right in the face. What "things" "go better" with Coke? Just how does drinking a "Coke-Cola," as we say in Dixie, make things "go better?" But the GG has us; we order a Coke and fries.

GETTING MORE SERIOUS

Let's get more serious with an advanced definition of GG that I learned in Civics: "Glittering generalities are a form of propaganda that elicit strong emotional responses through the use of vague and hollow, though perceptually meaningful, words and phrases."

Two recent GGs come to mind: "Change we can believe in" is a popular political slogan of current vintage. The problem is that it says a lot without saying anything. "What change?" is an obvious question to ask, as is, "Why should we "believe" in it, whatever it is? But, give credit where credit is due, it was a winner of a GG.

GET OUT YOUR WALLET

One clever approach to a politician's justifying a tax increase is to put a GG into action.  The GG centers around the fact that politician feigns outrage that one group or another must pay its "fair share." The magic of this GG lies in the implication that, somehow, until now, the group in question has not been paying its fair share – an implication that serves to inspire other groups to want to see that group punished through a tax increase on them. This places that group in the minority and helps make them conciliatory for their crime of not paying their "fair share."

But we note that the GG doesn't define "fair share." Is the "fair share" 100%, 75%? Who knows? The GG doesn't tell us. That's left for later when someone or some group decides what the "fair share" is.



"Pay your fair share" sounds good. Fairness is nice thing. Being fair is a good quality. All GGs sound good. It sounds good until you find yourself in the designated group that should pay their fair share as Robert Redford did this year. In August a reporter wrote, "People like Redford claim the way to make America work better is to pass laws forcing people like them to pay more in taxes. Then, the state of New York forces Redford to pay more in taxes. Actor Robert Redford is suing the state of New York for what he says are unfair taxes from the sale of the Sundance Channel; he wants his 1.7 million dollars back."  Somehow, the GG of "Pay your fair share" isn't all sparkly any more when he becomes the person told to do so. Mr. Redford didn't put on his happy face that day.



IT GETS EVEN MORE SERIOUS

We find bad, even dangerous theology when preachers use GGs as witness the following closing of a motivational speech disguised as a Bible study/sermon:

"Scripture says - Let God arise and His enemies will be scattered. When you let God arise in your life. and you go out with this unshakeable confidence, your [sic] waiting for your harvest like that farmer, knowing that it's gonna be better than expected, you know down deep no difficulty can defeat you, no person can keep you from your destiny, every setback is only temporary. Instead of complaining, you are saying "I can't wait to see what God's gonna do." When you let God arise, you might as well get ready, your enemies WILL be scattered- Enemies of sickness, enemies of debt, enemies of depression, enemies of disappointment.

"I'm gonna come out like Job - with twice what I had before. . .  . Friends you have comeback power in your DNA. You've been created to overcome every obstacle, to rise above every challenge. I want you to have this confidence that no matter what comes against you, it cannot defeat you. As long as you're letting God arise, your enemies will be scattered. That same dirt that's trying to bury you can be the dirt God's gonna use to promote you. Learn to shake it off and step up. Remember in the tough times that loss, that disappointment, that injustice is not the end. It's a new beginning. Pull your shoulders back, hold your head up high. Dare to declare, "I'm coming back and I'm coming back better." If you do that, you're gonna come out like Job, with twice what you had before. Those difficulties are gonna give way to new growth, new potential, new talent, new friendships, new opportunities, new vision. You're gonna see God blossom your life in ways you'd never even dream of. Amen?" (Time forbids the listing of all the GGs in the above.)





Then, signing off, the speaker says, "We never like to close our broadcast without giving you the opportunity to make Jesus the LORD of your life. Would you pray with me? Just say -

“LORD Jesus, I repent of my sins. Come into my heart. I make You my LORD and Savior.

"Friends if you prayed that simple prayer, we believe that you got born again. Get into a good bible based church. Keep God first place. He's gonna do amazing things in your life."




See the danger of the GGs? The "Bible study" hasn't been about Christ and Him crucified. It's been about the listeners' health and wealth and how the eager hearer can see his illnesses, his debts, his depression, and his disappointments defeated by letting "God arise," the recurring high-sounding GG of the sermon.

The speaker has not identified Jesus (He's the Son of God). He hasn't told us what Jesus did on the cross. He hasn't told us anything about the Resurrection. He hasn't told us anything about faith, what it is and the necessity of its meeting the right object, Christ. He leaves "repent" to be defined by the hearer who will wrongly define it as feeling sorry sin; he hasn't defined "sin" either.

Did Paul go into Galatia and deliver such a message, asking the people, "Would you pray with me? Just say, “LORD Jesus, I repent of my sins. Come into my heart. I make You my LORD and Savior.” Never. He dialogues with the unbeliever(s) in the forum and in the synagogue, explaining, expounding the gospel. He tells the listener who Jesus is and what He did. Philip sits in the chariot of the Ethiopian official explaining Isaiah 53.

To further complicate things, the speaker promises everyone who prays that prayer, "He's [God is] gonna do amazing things in you[r] life." What are the "amazing things?" The amazing things he's cited in the sermon are "new growth, new potential, new talent, new friendships, new opportunities, and a new vision" along with "the defeat of illnesses, debts, depression, and disappointments" and you're going to come out with "twice as much," just like Job. Did Paul ever promise anyone anything like that at any time?

Could not his listeners become like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if these outlandish GGs are true? No more than the average U. S. voter questions the GGs during a political campaign.

The bottom line is this: Glittering generalities aren't the truth. They're propaganda.

THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS: THE TEAM THAT DARE NOT SAY ITS NAME

On the rare occasions when anyone asks me for my favorite team in baseball, I answer as I did in high school, "The New York Yankees." Whenever anyone wants to know my favorite professional football team, I admit that my allegiance is to two teams: the Dallas Cowboys and whoever is playing the Washington Redskins.

My preferences aside, the Redskins are the focus of a firestorm of late because their name offends or might offend some, so they say we have to worry about that. It's not that certain factions have gotten into this name game; it's that the Federal Government, with all it has to worry about has weighed in on the subject, thus politicizing sports, like it politicizes everything else. Harry Reid spoke out against the team's nickname from the Senate floor, but he's not the only one.

Now, the current administration, acting through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is getting seriously involved. Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC decries the name, referring in his statement to "the Washington football club," thus refusing to sully his lips with the offending word. What prompted Wheeler's involvement is a petition filed by (who else) a law professor named John Banzhaf III at George Washington University, an institution so rocked by scandal that "US News and World Report" removed it from its list. This law teacher has quite a reputation; they say that he's  never met a lawsuit he doesn't like."

 
 The Professor

In his petition to the FCC, the professor says that "Redskins" is "hate speech," and says that any station consistently using the word should, by law, lose their license. (Somehow, the First Amendment comes to mind.) The professor is no dummy because he knows something many of us don't--the owner of the Washington "team" (I hesitate to say its name for fear of disturbing the gentle reader), Daniel Snyder, owns a radio station dedicated to Washington Redskins news and comments.
The Owner



Ah, ha! There it is! If Banzhaf's suit becomes law, that means the owner of the team won't be able to use the his team's name on the air, and, as the professor said, "He'll have to change the team name or go broke." Thus, a businessman (sports is a business) will be driven from his business because he can't say the name of his business. This sounds weird, doesn't it, but that's the world we live in, a world in which an athletic team dare not say its name.

All this seems so new doesn't it? Or is it? We can thank Harry Truman for the following statement: "The only thing new to you is the history you don't know." The thing is, what the professor wants to do isn't new. The professor is in nefarious historical company because way back when, an official governing body not only tried, but also actually did, what the professor is trying to do.

A doctor way back then, records for history the successful official banning of one word as hate speech. Those who banned the word were members of "the Council," and Luke writes about the censoring in Acts 4:17-18 when the Council declared: "But so that it [the miracle] will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them [Peter and John] to speak no longer to any man in this name.” And when they had summoned them [Peter and John], they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus."

There it is: they banned the word, "Jesus." Censor that one word and the proclamation of the gospel collapses because there's no way to disseminate the good news without saying "Jesus." The courageous disciples said, "No way," and the rest is history.