100 Sermon Illustrations on Ethics

“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” proclaims a new holiday ad from the American Humanist Association. Already appearing in the New York Times and Washington Post, the message will soon be blazoned on the sides, taillights, and interiors of over 200 Washington, D.C. Metro buses.

It’s the first ad campaign of its kind in the United States, and the American Humanist Association predicts it will raise public awareness of humanism as well as controversy over humanist ideas.

“Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “So that’s the point we’re making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.”

This information from the humanist website is one more in a recent spate of atheistic claims that religion and theism are not only wrong, but unnecessary and probably even evil. But can they demonstrate they are correct? I don’t think so.

First of all, the humanist experiment to sustain a good (moral) society without appeal to a supernatural lawgiver and a revealed set of rights and wrongs is sitting on the foundation of a culture that was created from the belief in a Creator who has granted to His human creatures certain “inalienable” rights. The ethics and values that Americans have long embraced such as freedom, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, honoring parents, compassion for the needy, etc. as well as “empathy” and “fairness” are all grounded in the understanding that God made us and expects us to behave in these moral ways. We have lived, written laws, and behaved on the basis of these bedrock beliefs.

Are we to expect that all these ethical principles and practices will likewise flow from the belief that there is no God, no created order that makes man’s existence purposeful and special, no absolute set of rights and wrongs, and no eternal consequences for the way we live? We do have some recent examples of societies that do not believe in God nor recognize a mandated divine value on human beings. They are associated with names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein. Devoid of any sense of God or godliness, they created a social order of mayhem and evil that destroyed millions of lives. So much for the morality of godlessness.

Secondly, in this non-theistic paradigm, who is going to decide what “being good” is? We have traditionally asserted that being faithful to your marriage partner is “good.” But now there are those who not only want to redefine marriage but also those who insist that marriage itself is a bad thing. For centuries, our people have valued sexual chastity, making it almost synonymous with the concept of “purity.” Now, young people who value such an ideal are routinely called foolish and mentally and socially deficient. Is being good respecting others’ property or may I take what I can get away with as long as it “doesn’t hurt anybody”? Dare we broach the human-life topics of abortion and euthanasia? Are cheating, lying, and carousing on the “good” list or the “bad” list, or is it simply optional? How are you going to be good if no one agrees on what “good” is?

Thirdly, without a divine touchstone, why is it I am supposed to care what someone else (or everyone else) thinks is good behavior? If human beings are only biological phenomena who populate a random universe for a brief span of years before disappearing into nothingness, what motivates us “to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity” (the stated goal of humanism)? Is it completely utilitarian, i.e., “I scratch your back and you scratch mine”? Is the motivation to good behavior the approbation of our fellows which stokes our self esteem? Or do we hope to sustain kindness and mercy and brotherly love on the flimsy platform of some ill-defined and irrational altruistic impulse?

The more likely outcome of godless, autonomous ethics is what we see played out among us every day. Human beings grounded only in their self-interest pursue any avenue which appears to gratify, satisfy, stupefy, or mollify. Love means merely self indulgence. Other human beings become mainly a means to an end. Use them. Abuse them. Discard them. Ignore them. When the humanists protest that this is not good, the reply will be, “We will decide what is good for us!”

The history of man’s inhumanity to man only gets worse the more “enlightened” we become. Remember, the 20th century brought us not only the Humanist Manifesto but the worst human rights record in history. Against this backdrop, the humanist expectation of god-less ethical living is more implausible than Santa Claus.

What humanism (and all varieties of dishonest atheism) refuses to see is that the worldview they posit not only detaches human life from God but also from purpose, meaning, value, joy, love, and hope. I do not know how a person can ignore the innate sense within themselves that tells them there has got to be more to a person than 75 years and a box in the ground. There’s too much plot in the universe for it to be just a colossal accident. I would challenge anyone who has fallen under the demonic spell of atheism to recognize that even the moral ought-ness in your own soul that causes you to ask questions about “goodness” and “badness” is a homing signal from your Creator. And, if you are still unconvinced of God, take a long, hard look at where atheism has left you -- alone in the dark, going through the motions, unloved and unlovely, where your most tender and most cherished human experiences are mocked by the insanity and pretense of it all.

God meant something better for us. He loves humanity. So He created, He blessed, He taught. And when we ran away, when we goofed it up, when we did not get it, He came Himself -- human to human -- to set the world and us straight. “Long lay the world in sin and error pining, till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.” This is the reason to rejoice. This is the reason to be good.

________

David Hankins is executive director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Philosophers discuss many strange topics, and they usually do so in a strange fashion. The strangest topic of all for the philosopher is ethics.

Ostensibly the task of the ethicist it to investigate two questions: “What is good?” and “How can I be good?” The albatross of contemporary ethics is that it gets mired in the first question and never makes it to the second one. It stalls out on “What is good?” and never properly addresses “How do I become good?” This pushes ethics out of strangeness and towards perversity, for what good are volumes and volumes of theoretical discourse on goodness, if in the study you don’t get one whit closer to being good? We ought to study goodness so we can learn to be good not so that we can learn to be learned; for why study goodness save to be good?

I should not be too hard on the philosopher, though, for they have good reason to be reticent in addressing the question, “How can I be good?” for ethics cannot answer this question. Rational discourse is utterly powerless to make a person good. To be clear, discussion might make the right path apparent, but discourse cannot provide the power to choose this path. And so ethics is in the difficult position of having to raise a question it cannot answer. To use Christian language, it does not have the power to transform the evil inside us, though, it knows the evil must be transformed. Thus ethics must fall silent, and fall silent it does.

I know of only one source for the transformative power to be good: the genuine and persevering work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Only in humbly trusting in Him, and the efficacy of Christ's death and resurrection in my life, do I find the resources to be good. True faith brings true righteousness. And righteousness is what the ethicist seeks; for righteousness is living right towards God. That is goodness realized.

As a Christian I do not mean to smugly criticize the ethicist, lest I risk stealing away my righteousness in Christ with the legerdemain of pride. Leslie Newbigin, the scholar missionary, had it right when he said, “The Christian is one who has forever given up the hope of being able to think of himself as a good man.”[1] Outside of Christ we are not good, and we are only inside Christ if we are humble.

Humility then ought to be our track as we pursue a life of faith in Christ. The Spirit, His Spirit, empowers such an endeavor. And the result is righteousness.

____________

1. John Baille, Ed., A Diary of Readings (NY, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), p. 327.

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18173]

The apostle Paul once wrote, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” The bold propagator of early Christianity lived his life with the understanding that he was free to engage in most any pursuit. However, he regulated his behavior by two criteria. Number one, would the activity be beneficial to his spiritual, intellectual, social or physical well-being? Number two, was the proposed pursuit potentially addicting?

Given the admired apostle's behavioral philosophy, I have to wonder how he would approach the subject of television in general and so-called “reality” programs in particular. I bring this up due to the seeming sustained popularity of television fare such as “Joe Millionaire” which has the distinction of the being one of the most-watched programs in recent TV history.

If Paul were presented with the opportunity to view any one of the glut of recent programs involving real people in contrived situations, his first question would be, “Is watching this program going to benefit my life in some shape, form or fashion?” I have to admit that I find little or no value in any of the “reality” programs, so of course I believe Paul would reply that the only profit in watching Joe Millionaire, “The Bachelorette,” “Fear Factor,” “Survivor,” ad nauseam would be in observing people make fools of themselves, which Paul would probably not deem to be profitable.

What do all reality programs have in common? From what I can tell, they all encourage greed and selfish ambition as noble motivations, with ethics being irrelevant. Does anyone really believe that any of the young ladies who vied for the attention of Joe Millionaire would have done so if they knew he was really “Joe $19,000-a-year Construction Worker”?

When the first reality television programs were introduced, I was reminded of a joke I once heard. It seems a lovely young woman was seated on an airplane next to a distinguished gentleman. Once airborne, the pair engaged in polite conversation. Suddenly the man changed the course of the conversation by asking the young lady if she would spend an intimate evening with him for $1 million dollars. Flattered, she blushed but quickly agreed that she would. Immediately the man shot back, “What about for fifty bucks?” The woman responded indignantly, “Sir, just what kind of lady do you take me for?” He replied, “We have already established the kind of woman you are, now we are haggling over the price.”

The only ethical standard on reality television is that there is no ethical standard. Deceit and manipulation are standard operating procedure. I understand that some reality shows require some semblance of cooperation. However, it is understood that the eventual winner is going to betray and/or discard those who have helped him or her in their pursuit of the prize. Reality television is a case study in “the end justifying the means” philosophy.

Paul's first criteria for deciding to pursue any activity was profitability. His second was the potential of being mastered by it. Is reality television addictive? I don't know if it is the programming or the medium of itself that is so alluring. No doubt Americans spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the boob tube. Writing in his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman observes that America has a “consuming love affair with television.” Of late, many Americans -- some 40 million tuned in for the most recent episode of Joe Millionaire -- seem to be overtly enamored by reality programs.

Personally profitable or not, addictive or not, reality television has found a loyal audience in America. What would the apostle Paul say about reality television, or for any TV program for that matter? I think he might ask a couple of questions: How does it enhance your life and can you turn it off? Then he would probably step back and say, “You be the judge.”

_____________

Boggs is pastor of Valley Baptist Church, McMinnville, Ore.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #5593]

05:14 PM ET 02/13/98

California woman to give birth to freezer embryo

LOS ANGELES(Reuters) - A woman is about to give birth to "the oldest newborn in the world", an embryo frozen for seven-and-a-half years before thawing, doctors said Friday.

The baby is expected to be born Monday at the Encino-Tarzana Regional Medical Center in suburban Los Angeles, said the Chicago-based Center for Human Reproduction.

A CHR statement said the mother is a patient of Dr Michael Vermesh, who heads an infertility clinic in Tarzana.

The freezing of human embryos, known as cryopreservation, is a relatively new technique and most thawed embryos that result in pregnancies have only been frozen for a few months.

The embryo in this pregnancy was frozen seven-and-a-half years and "this represents the longest period of human embryo freezing that has resulted in a live birth," the CHR said.

"In a sense, this will make this newborn 'the oldest newborn in the world."'

The statement said the woman's pregnancy had been without complication and the fetus was genetically normal.

^REUTERS

On some political issues involving religion, America's youth seem to be more conservative than their elders, but cheating, stealing and lying by high school students has increased with alarming vigor, according to two separate studies.

A report by the University of California at Berkeley's Survey Research Center says 59 percent of adults ages 27 to 59 want public schools to allow prayer at official school activities such as commencements while 69 percent of teenagers support school prayer.

Thirty-four percent of adults support government restrictions of abortion, the report said, while about 44 percent of youths age 15 to 22 support such restrictions.

Forty percent of adults registered support federal aid to faith-based charities, meanwhile, while 59 percent of college-aged youth and 67 percent of younger teens support such funding.

The UC Berkeley survey, released in September, was funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Survey participants were asked to rank their feelings for religious conservatives on a scale from zero for "cold" to 50-100 for varying degrees of "warmth." While no age group showed a significant amount of warmth for Christian fundamentalists, 33 percent of youth gave them a score over 50 while 26 percent of adults gave them a similar rating, UC Berkeley researchers found.

"We were surprised by the greater support among young Americans for some aspects of the conservative cultural agenda," said Merrill Shanks, political science professor at UC Berkeley and one of the lead researchers for the study. "Young Americans show more conservatism on religious politics and abortion even though youths, as a group, appear to be less likely than their elders to attend religious services regularly or consider religion a guide in their daily life.

"If the youth of today maintain these positions on religious politics and abortion as the years go by," he noted, "then the American public as a whole could become more conservative on these issues."

Meanwhile, a recent report by the Josephson Institute of Ethics reports that students admitting they cheated on an exam at least once in the previous year jumped from 61 percent in 1992 to 74 percent in 2002; the number who stole something from a store within the year rose from 31 percent to 38 percent; and the percentage who admit they lied to their teachers and parents also increased significantly.

The Josephson study, released as part of the Oct. 20-26 National Character Counts Week, also indicates alarming deterioration over the past two years. Cheating rose from 71 percent in 2000 to 74 percent in 2002; theft increased from 35 percent to 38 percent; and those who said they would be willing to lie to get a good job jumped from 28 percent to 39 percent.

The survey also found that students who attend private religious schools were less likely to shoplift but more likely to cheat on exams and lie to teachers. Also, students who participate in varsity sports cheated on exams at a higher rate than students who did not play sports.

"The evidence is that a willingness to cheat has become the norm and that parents, teachers, coaches and even religious educators have not been able to stem the tide," said Michael Josephson, president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, based in Marina del Rey, Calif. "The scary thing is that so many kids are entering the workforce to become corporate executives, politicians, airplane mechanics and nuclear inspectors with the dispositions and skills of cheaters and thieves."

Gender is the most significant differentiating factor among high school students, the Josephson report said. While girls cheat and lie as much as boys in general, they are substantially less likely to steal or engage in other dishonest practices and they have more positive attitudes toward ethics.

Participation in varsity sports did not make a difference in behavior except for the likelihood of cheating on exams. The study also found that students who attend private religious schools do not act much better than those who attend public schools. Generally, students who claimed their religion is essential or very important to them also performed on the national average.

The Josephson report is based on a survey of 12,000 high school students administered by schools throughout the nation. The Josephson Institute of Ethics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts a national survey of the ethics of American youth every two years.

The UC Berkeley study is based on telephone interviews completed during the latter half of 2001, and most occurred between late April and Sept. 10, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts news report. About 1,250 people were interviewed, a standard sample for academic research.

*

“You can’t legislate morality.” You hear it all the time in Washington, D. C. Some Americans assume that there is something unseemly about making laws based on moral standards. Such a notion is absurd, of course. All laws are based on someone’s moral standards, someone’s view of how things ought to be. Nevertheless, there is a vocal element that insists that morality and law should be completely separate.

These radical separationists are the first to say, “I didn’t break any laws” when they are caught in a scandal. If accused of dubious business practices, they defend by saying, “It’s not against the law.” If caught committing adultery in a seedy hotel room they plead, “It’s not against the law.” If criticized for treating human embryos as raw material to be manipulated and destroyed, they intone, “It’s not against the law.”

Applications of new technologies can give rise to profound legal and ethical dilemmas. This is especially true in the field of biotechnology where the law-morality dichotomy is proving to be an enormous problem. Many scientists believe that, so long as it is legal, there should be no limit on what they can do in their laboratories. When it comes to scientific experimentation, the question, “Can I?” in the technical sense is often followed by the question, “May I?” in the legal sense. Sadly, that is often as far as the inquiry goes. The question that all too often goes unasked is, “Should I?”

The assumption that anything which is legal is morally permissible is not valid, especially in the area of bioethical decision-making. Those who look only to the law for guidance in making sound bioethical decisions will be poorly served. The law is seldom an adequate ethical guide in the biomedical field. Here’s why:

• Law follows rather than leads. Advances in the biomedical arena are occurring so rapidly that they often occur in a legal vacuum. Frequently, there simply is no law that governs decision-making in a given area of biomedicine. The reason is that the fields of biology, medicine and the law move at vastly different paces.

Changes in the law, by design, occur at a ponderously slow pace. “Delay” is the hallmark of change in the law. Not so with science and technology. Thanks to the “magic” of microchips and other state-of-the-art technology, changes are occurring so rapidly in scientific fields that by the time the law is applied to a given area, it is often out of date because technology has moved the field light years ahead. Decision-making in the biomedical field, thus, often occurs in uncharted legal waters. In a legal vacuum, that which is not prohibited is permitted. But merely because something is permitted, however, doesn’t mean it is right.

• Law is political. Law usually is made in a highly charged political environment. Anyone who has ever been involved in the legislative process knows that the merits of the matter are often irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of a proposed law. Money, special interests, partisan politics, procedural shenanigans, and political clout often drive the legislative process. Political expedience frequently prevails over principled decision-making. Because of this, the law is seldom an adequate standard by which to gauge ethical decision making in the biomedical field.

• Law does not rest on a transcendent standard. In the arena of ethics, right and wrong are judged by a transcendent standard. Something is viewed as morally right or wrong based on whether it comports with a “higher” law. That higher law may be deemed the Law of Nature or of Nature’s God; but it is deemed to be, in all events, something that is true and binding on everyone. In the legal arena, however, transcendent standards are frequently jettisoned. Lawmakers and judges often view themselves as the highest authority, and their pronouncements are deemed final and binding. This view of the law is called “legal positivism” and is rooted in the notion that the “law” is what judges and lawmakers say it is.

But this view has not always prevailed. Martin Luther King Jr., reasoned, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.... One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Dr. King’s views mirror those of Augustine, who declared, “An unjust law is no law at all.” Our laws should always be rooted in the higher law binding on all men, but, sadly, sometimes they are not. Therefore, the law is not always a reliable guide for our behavior.

Abraham Lincoln, arguing against the institution of slavery, maintained that “[no]body has a right to do wrong.” His point very simply was that no one has the right to degrade or harm a person and call it their right. In many quarters, Lincoln’s argument would carry little weight in America today. In our “enlightened” secularized society, the relationship between moral truth and the law has been broken. Morals and ultimate values may be deemed to have a place, but only outside the legal arena.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the area of abortion. The “right” to abort a child results from the Supreme Court’s decision to give primacy to so-called “rights of privacy and personal autonomy.” Because of the weight given by the court to the interests an individual has in personal autonomy and privacy, a woman’s right of privacy was deemed by the court to outweigh any claim her unborn child had to a right to life. Nowhere in its decision did the court address the morality of a mother killing her unborn child.

In contrast, the transcendent moral law, spelled out in the Scriptures, recognizes the worth, value and dignity of all individuals, including children. A careful examination of Scripture on subjects relating to the sanctity of life, marriage and the family (all of which are implicated in many biomedical decisions) yields numerous conflicts with our current civil law.

The Psalmist declared, “The law of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” Rarely are there decisions that call for greater wisdom than the life-and-death judgments that are involved in the biomedical field. May God grant us the wisdom to discern not only that which is legal, but also that which is right.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4900]

Plato once remarked that he was grateful to be born a Greek and not a barbarian, a free man and not a slave, a man and not a woman, and most of all, to have been born in the age of Socrates.

Do you feel, like I, a twinge of discomfort in hearing this? For his sentiment reveals two of our perennial struggles: to find a philosophy by which to live and to correct the prejudices with which we live. Yet, hasn't history taught us that we seldom learn from the past or pause to consider what we believe?

I was once asked to speak at a conference on ethics at a certain university I'll leave unnamed. I dared to present the bankruptcy of humanistic theories both rationally and practically and contrasted them with the biblical basis for ethics.

After the presentation, there was silence for a long while. Then one professor said to me, “All this theory sounds good but the real question is, how do I get my students to be ethical; to not cheat on their exams; to tell the truth?” I was thrilled at the question, for, in fact, that was the point of the whole talk. But I was not prepared for what followed.

Following the question and answer session, a student came up to me confronted with a real dilemma. Here's what she said, “I was asked to come to your lecture today by my professor. The expectation was that I would disagree with you and so present my paper. But after listening to your talk, I found myself agreeing with you and now have a serious problem. If I write in defense of your position I will probably be given a very low grade, if not failed. On the other hand, she said if I disagree with you I am sure to get a high grade. My problem is the challenge to tell the truth and risk failure.”

Rather puzzled, I looked at her and I said, “Did your professor come to the forum?” There was silence and then came the answer. “Yes,” rather softly. “Who was it?” I asked. “The one who asked you the question about getting away from the theory to the bottom line of how to get students to not cheat and to tell the truth.”

Do you believe that? I was dumbfounded.

G.K. Chesterton said it well: “What we need is a religion that is not only right where we are right, but right where we are wrong.” You see, God corrects us not because of appearances, but because of His character. Goodness points us not to theory but to the purpose of life. Listen again, not to the theory but to the very purpose of life. What God has joined together let no one put asunder.

__________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number duplicated material at HolwickID #18837]

When Charles Dickens introduces the character Ebenezer Scrooge in his classic tale “A Christmas Carol,” he is a pathetic figure. Self-absorbed and miserly, he has only one interest -- money. However, once Scrooge is forced to take inventory of his life he transforms. When Ebenezer realizes that his life is headed for a dismal and lonely end, he chooses to change.

America desperately needs to experience a Scrooge-like inventory in order to understand the destructive path it is on. While it took three apparitions to jar Ebenezer's thinking about life, we in the United States need only to encounter one “ghost” from the past to realize we are on a path of self-destruction.

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin died in 1936. But he speaks from the grave through research he conducted that was published in 1940 under the title “Hopousia: The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society.”

Unwin, who was likely influenced by Sigmund Freud to some degree, scrutinized the sexual behaviors of 86 cultures through 5,000 years of history. His observations were -- and are -- sobering.

Freud maintained that sexual repression was the root cause of a society's ills. Unwin found the opposite to be true. His findings showed cultures that observed a strict sexual ethic -- especially valuing pre-nuptial chastity and post-nuptial monogamy -- thrived and flourished. However, those societies that rejected sexual restraint withered and died.

“Expansive energy” was the term Unwin used to describe a culture that was growing and healthy. Concerning this reality he observed, “Expansive energy has never been displayed by a society that inherited a modified monogamy or a form of polygamy....” What Unwin discovered is that once a society ceased to value marriage and sexual restraint, it began to decline.

“In human records,” Unwin wrote, “there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.” In other words, once a generation abandons a sexual ethic that values sexual restraint and monogamy the following generation begins to wane culturally. It is then only a matter of time before the society shrivels and dies.

Concerning his study, Unwin made a chilling observation. He wrote, “The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence... I know of no exceptions to these rules.”

“No exceptions to these rules.” Once a society utterly rejects a sexual ethic that values restraint and monogamy, its days are numbered.

America is in the midst of casting off all sexual restraint. Sexual license is celebrated daily in the popular media. While marriage is still practiced, no one can say that it is approached as seriously, en masse, as it once was or as it should be. With the introduction of same-sex matrimony the deconstruction of marriage will be complete. And, while not yet widely accepted, some “elite” academicians are introducing ideas that pedophilia and bestiality are healthy pursuits.

Will this be the generation that throws off all sexual restraint? Will the next inherit a sexual ethic of ambiguity? How long can America last if she rejects a moral compass that points toward sexual purity before and after marriage? Not long, according to Unwin.

Scrooge saw what his future would be if he continued to pursue his self-absorbed, miserly ways. As a result, he embraced change. Like Ebenezer, America has been given a glimpse into its future by a “ghost” from the past.

The message from J.D. Unwin's research is clear: Make sexual purity and marital commitment top priorities or steady decline and slow death are unavoidable. Scrooge saw his future and trembled. For the sake of future generations, may America do likewise.

==============

Version from 7/24/09

SEXUAL ANARCHY -- AMERICA’S DEMISE?

When it comes to all things pertaining to sexuality and sexual expression, liberals advocate for nothing less than sexual anarchy. A litany of the left’s positions affirms that the previous statement is an ironclad truth.

The left views traditional marriage as nothing more than an anachronism, sex outside of marriage as sacrosanct and any and all sexual expression worthy of acceptance. If the left does accept any boundaries in respect to sexuality, the lines are hopelessly blurred by post-modern subjectivity.

Those who embrace a hedonistic ethic of unfettered and unrestrained sexual freedom insist that sexuality belongs to the realm of the private and the personal. Consensual behavior, in which no one is harmed, is simply none of society’s business, they say.

Are liberals correct? Is sexuality simply a private matter with no consequences for society? On this subject, as with most others, the left could not be more wrong. One thing the left rarely considers when delineating their dogma is unintended consequences.

“The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective,” observed Richard Schickel, film critic for Time magazine.

Schickel is correct about the ever-present reality of unintended consequences, which the left continues to miss. However, he is wrong about the inability to gain perspective -- especially when it comes to the impact collective sexuality has on a society.

One of the best ways to gain perspective concerning unintended consequences is through the lens of history. And history has much to say about the impact of collective sexuality on a society.

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied the sexual behaviors of 86 cultures through 5,000 years of history. His findings were published in 1940 under the title “The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society.” Unwin’s observations were -- and are -- sobering.

Unwin’s observations ran counter to one of the most influential thinkers of his day, Sigmund Freud. Freud maintained that sexual repression was the root cause of a society’s ills. Unwin found the opposite to be true. Unwin’s findings showed that cultures that observed a strict sexual ethic -- especially valuing pre-nuptial chastity and post-nuptial monogamy -- thrived and flourished. However, those societies that rejected sexual restraint withered and died.

“Expansive energy” was the term Unwin used to describe a culture that was growing and healthy. Concerning this reality he observed, “Expansive energy has never been displayed by a society that inherited a modified monogamy or a form of polygamy.” What Unwin discovered is that once a society ceased to value marriage and sexual restraint, it began to decline.

He added, “In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”

In other words, once a generation abandons a sexual ethic that values sexual restraint and monogamy, the following generation begins to wane culturally. It is then only a matter of time before society shrivels and dies.

Concerning his study, Unwin made a chilling observation. He wrote, “The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. ... I know of no exceptions to these rules.”

No exceptions to these rules. Once a society utterly rejects a sexual ethic that values restraint and monogamy, its days are numbered.

America is in the midst of casting off all sexual restraint. Sexual license is celebrated daily in the popular media. While marriage is still practiced, no one can say that it is approached as seriously, en masse, as it once was or as it should be. With the introduction of “gay marriage” the deconstruction of marriage will be complete. And, while not yet widely accepted, some “elite” academicians are introducing ideas that polygamy and polyamory, and even pedophilia and bestiality are healthy pursuits.

Will this be the generation that throws off all sexual restraint? Will the next inherit a sexual ethic of ambiguity? How long can America last if she rejects a moral compass that points toward sexual purity before and after marriage? Not long, according to Unwin.

The message from J.D. Unwin’s research is clear: Make sexual purity and marital commitment top priorities or face a steady decline and slow death. While liberals advocate sexual anarchy, they fail, or refuse, to recognize the unintended consequences of such a position -- consequences that will undermine any hope for America’s future.

________

Kelly Boggs is a weekly columnist for Baptist Press and editor of the Baptist Message (www.baptistmessage.com), newsjournal of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.

Frustrated by Catherine of Aragon's inability to produce a male heir, King Henry divorced her and married Anne Boleyn. The church opposed the divorce and delayed approving the new marriage. The king put pressure on Parliament to pass the Act of Succession, which would transfer the royal lineage from Catherine's children to Anne's. The members of Parliament, with various degrees of enthusiasm, ultimately went along - all except Sir Thomas More.

More paid a high price for his faithfulness to principle. One by one the members of Parliament agreed, the will of the king being more important than their own principles. King Henry watched the signatures on the document, hoping to see Thomas More's consent; Mores reputation for integrity was well known. On the other hand, his colleagues were known for compromise. King Henry was not always intent on doing right, but he always wanted to be declared right.

More's approval would have helped to silence the king's conscience. Instead, More's silence pricked the king's comfort and disturbed his peace. The king confined More in a filthy dungeon. His income was cut off. His family were reduced to a mean existence. While the king waited for More's signature to approve the Act of Succession, England watched.

More held out for two years, and his wife lost all patience with his unyielding principles. Finally the duke of Norfolk, knowing that More's days were numbered, tried to save his life.

Norfolk enters the bitter, filthy cell where, surrounded by vagabonds, brigands, thieves, and killers, sits the gentle scholar Thomas More. He is emaciated, clad in rags, shivering from the cold. Norfolk has brought the list of Parliament's signatures, all from friends and companions from law and life. He begs More to sign it to save his life.

“But Thomas, look at these names,” says Norfolk. “You know these men. Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?”

More simply responds, “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”

More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His final words on the scaffold were: “The King's good servant, but God's first.”

__________

Adapted from “A Man for All Seasons”, by Robert Bolt, http://isbn.nu/0413703800; by J. Jerry Davis; source: Adventist Review, ISSN 0161-1119, (c) August 21, 2003, http://www.adventistreview.org/; submitted by Mary Thayne

*

A popular comic strip once held the attention of millions as it chronicled the misadventures of a boy and his stuffed tiger. The infamous pair were inseparable, lingering energetically in topics both adult and childlike.

One day on a walk in the woods, six-year-old Calvin tells Hobbes the tiger that he has decided he doesn't believe in ethics anymore, because, as far as he is concerned, “The ends justify the means.” “Get what you can while the getting is good,” he reasons, “Might makes right.”

At this, Hobbes, who is stuffed in the eyes of all but Calvin, promptly pushes his human friend into a mud hole.

“Why'd you do that?” objects Calvin.

“You were in my way,” Hobbes replies, “and now you're not. The ends justify the means.”

Sitting in the mud, Calvin seems to reach a brief moment of enlightenment, until he uncovers a way to reconcile the conflict with self-interest. “I didn't mean for everyone, you dolt. Just me.”

Francis Schaeffer was a theologian who pointed out what is often our sheer willingness to live a life of contradictions. No doubt he would have applauded Hobbes for his efforts with Calvin. Schaeffer called the cultural phenomenon of living unaware or unconcerned with our inconsistencies the age of non-reason. He saw humans drifting in a sea of irrationality, no longer living as though they had to be reasonable. Yet he also contended that a person's worldview must be livable, that we must be willing and able to live out the reality we profess.

One of the most strikingly relevant things we confront in each of the four Gospel accounts of the life of Christ — besides Jesus himself — is the reactions people had to him. When in his presence, some like Mary and the man with leprosy fell instantaneously at his feet, others like the young rich ruler or the people of Nazareth turned away. In his presence demons cried for mercy, and those who needed a doctor were confronted with the question of whether or not they wanted to be well. In the presence of Christ, choices were made, realities were challenged, worldviews transformed.

I have often wondered if the unrighteous and dishonorable were the ones most responsive to Jesus because they were the ones most willing to see themselves rationally, those most willing to respond to their inconsistencies with fear and trembling. In the presence of Christ, they saw the contradictions they lived with, their unlivable beliefs, their need for direction. They saw that he was speaking truth, that he was truth, that his way was livable and theirs was not. Called into the presence of Christ, Zacchaeus saw the depravity of his existence and the thirstiness of his life. Conversely, the rich young ruler walked away from Jesus' instruction because it was a reality that he didn't want to face.

As a young boy once said to his animated tiger, “Reality continues to ruin my life.” This is certainly one honest way of looking at our inconsistencies exposed; when a worldview is not livable it cannot be true. Finding himself in the mud, Calvin saw clearly that he could not live with the outworkings of his theory (though he proceeded to mend the belief illogically). We, too, must confront the belief system that is in us, lighting our lives and making our way. We must choose to heed or ignore the words of Christ, “See to it, then, that the light that is in you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35).

I believe that the Christian faith alone makes sense of life's most foreboding questions, that it is livable because it is true. Christ gently unearths the dark and fatal inconsistencies of our lives, calling us out of the mud to consistency, pointing us out of darkness to reality and truth — to himself. In him alone we find the promise of John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

__________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate in KeruxID 25837-26027]

As an undergraduate student, I was privileged to sit under an advisor for whom Christian ethics and its application were a vibrant passion. With his careful drawl and smiling eyes, my professor slowly and gladly brought me to an understanding of ethics that would not allow me to ever leave it, as I might have left a stuffy, uninteresting class. Ethics, for the Christian, is no more optional than the scriptures that tell us who we are. In one of Dr. Verhey’s more recent works, he writes, “There is no Christian life that is not shaped somehow by Scripture. There is no Christian moral discernment that is not tied somehow to Scripture. There is no Christian ethic -- no Christian medical ethic or sexual ethic or economic ethic or political ethic -- that is not formed and informed somehow by Scripture.”(1) Christian communities are communities who practice ethics on some real level because we live by a particular identity, because it is who we are.

Now working within the field of Christian apologetics, one of the comments that I hear most often as a reason for rejecting Christianity is that of its followers: “Christians are so hypocritical!” “The problem I have with Christ is that his followers do him more harm than good.” “I am continually disappointed by Christians; why should I consider their religion a viable option?” “The problem I have with Christianity is Christians.” I try appealing to these voices to see the gap in their logic; I try reasoning that the abuse of a religion must never stand in the way of getting at the truth of a religion. But many will not be swayed. I leave these conversations saddened not merely because the obstacles seem immovable, but because I fully understand the grievance. The letter of recommendation written upon the countenance of professing Christians is sometimes a message that deters.

Like ethics, Christian apologetics is a daily activity writ large upon the life of Christians and Christian communities whether we realize it or not. The world hears clearly our message with and without words. The Christian goes about life confessing, commending, defending, and living the gospel, showing the world our ethic and our religion whether we speak of these things or not. Both disciplines then are inherently Christian activities, disciplines that must take seriously the responsibility our identity imparts. We are people of the Book, commanded to remember the movement of God in history, the nearness of the Spirit today, and the promise of Christ’s return in every word we speak, in every thing we do.

In the midst of this reality, Christians need not live as those who hold every answer, but as those who live with the confidence “that is ours through Christ before God” as we grow further into our conversions and the abundant life Christ describes (2 Corinthians 3:4). In this, learning to see our own conversions as a process, salvation as more than a ticket to heaven, and faith as something deeper than sheer preference or unquestionable certainty, will likewise help us see that reaching our neighbors is a lifelong activity. In the meantime, John Stackhouse argues that it is imperative for the apologist and the ethicist to take with her the right questions.(2) Instead of evangelicalism’s favorite foci -- Is he saved? Does she have a personal relationship with Christ? Or, what must I do to convert them? -- a far better question was entertained by the one we follow. Who shall I say is my neighbor? At this question Jesus recounted a story that left everyone asking appropriately, If the world is filled with my neighbors, how then shall I live? If every member of the body of Christ on earth lived an apologetic life that reflected the inherently Christ-like response to that question -- with love, with grace, with truth and humility -- perhaps we would find the distance between Athens and Jerusalem converging, bridged by the glory of the one who rose from the grave.

________

1. Allen Verhey, REMEMBERING JESUS: CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, SCRIPTURE, AND THE MORAL LIFE (Grand Rapids, Eerdman’s, 2002), 54.

2. John Stackhouse, Jr., HUMBLE APOLOGETICS: DEFENDING THE FAITH TODAY (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 84-85.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21570]

When the state of Virginia joined the revolt against the United States, Robert E. Lee sided with the South. Despite fighting on the losing side in the Civil War, this general’s fame has outlived him. Lee is still lauded for his valiant leadership of an out-manned and out-spent Confederacy.

However, far less known is fellow Virginian George Thomas -– like Lee, a graduate of the West Point Military Academy. Soon after Fort Sumter erupted, Virginia’s governor offered Thomas the command of all state artillery forces. Most Virginians assumed he would side with the South. But in the spring of 1861 he announced he would remain loyal to the Union. Declared Thomas: “I took an oath at West Point to defend the Constitution and to serve my country. I do not break my oaths.”

Thomas went on to become a great general, rising to the rank of Union army commander in Tennessee and Georgia. Historians rank him among the top Union generals. Congress passed a post-war resolution in his honor.

However, he paid a high price. Loyalty to his country earned him scorn at home. Not only did he sever ties with his native state, but with his own flesh and blood. When Thomas died from a massive stroke in 1870, nearly 10,000 people attended his funeral in New York. But not a single member of his family attended. Asked later why, one of his sisters replied, “As far as we’re concerned, our brother died in 1861.”

What would drive a man to risk deeply rooted family ties to uphold his nation’s honor? I believe it lies in West Point’s Cadet Honor Code, simply defined as: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.”

On a behavioral level, the Code represents a simple standard. On a developmental plane, West Point expects cadets to live above minimum standards. As leaders, they are to develop a commitment to ethical principles that guides their moral actions.

West Point’s core mission is to develop leaders for the United States Army. A leader of character knows what is right and possesses the moral courage to act on that knowledge. The conduct expected of military cadets ranks far above that demonstrated in recent years in businesses, corporations and government agencies.

In certain business sectors, discussing honesty, integrity or ethics prompts laughter. Worse, I have discovered that in Christian circles keeping your word is not a given. I long ago stopped trying to keep track of broken promises made to me in churches. Given this reality, it is no wonder that Christ’s simple command, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” (Matthew 5:37a) is seldom applied in the business world.

The question is: What can be done about this sad state of affairs? As followers of Christ, whether we are involved in business, education, government or other fields, I believe we all need to adopt a code that we will operate by, regardless of circumstances.

While there are dozens of qualities we should embrace, I think it starts with integrity. Possessing integrity means we will want to integrate truth into everything we do. Ask almost anyone about Enron, WorldCom or other corporate scandals and you are likely to hear responses about how people in these enterprises lacked integrity.

Interestingly, three of the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 20:15-17) are directly associated with integrity:

• Number 8: “You shall not steal” (verse 15).

• Number 9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (verse 16).

• Number 10: “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's” (verse 17).

I like to think of integrity as living on the outside like you think and are on the inside. Integrity is the integration of life into a cohesive lifestyle. With integrity, we act the same at work as we do at a worship service, or the same way at home as we do on vacation.

A glaring problem in many societies is the establishment of different rules for work and home:

• The woman who would never allow her children to lie has developed a lifestyle of lying in order to make sales at work.

• The man who would never cheat on his wife regularly cheats on his income tax returns.

• The church member who professes to believe in Christ thinks nothing of violating copyright laws by burning CDs or copying MP3 files to pass along software or music to friends.

Integrity requires a company to communicate the same message to the general public it does to employees. It requires that a company do for its employees what it promised them at their hiring. Ever felt disillusioned because a raise or other promised perk somehow never materialized? And the explanation of why included the reasonable-sounding explanation of an economic downturn or company restructuring?

The lack of integrity (wholeness) also promotes a compartmentalization of our lives. In other words, we separate our behavior into secular and spiritual realms. If you adopt different rules for your spiritual life than your secular existence, it demonstrates a lack of integrity. Why? Because a person of integrity has integrated his or her values into a pattern of wholeness.

When you think of integrity, do you think of a person who lives up to that standard? I do. And I want others to think of me in that way. Without a doubt truthfulness is part of integrity, but so is living up to one’s commitments.

________

Adapted from “God@Work (Volume 2): Developing Ministers in the Marketplace” by Rich Marshall with Ken Walker. A former pastor, Marshall is a speaker and the founder of ROi Leadership, a corporate training business in San Jose, California.

*

Nearly every major story involving an ethical or moral lapse is soon followed by an explanation of why such failures are inevitable.

These “explanations” do not involve Original Sin or flawed institutions created by fallen people. Instead, they usually invoke materialistic causes rooted in natural selection: People do what they do because such behavior enabled their ancestors to pass on their genes.

This denial of free will is known as determinism.

Determinists insist that their explanations neither justify wrongdoing nor weaken people’s resolve to do the right thing.

A recent study shows just how wrong they are.

Researchers recently published the results of experiments testing the link between the belief in free will — that is the ability to choose right and wrong — and honesty. Kathleen Vohls of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia gave college students a math exam in which students would be paid for each correct answer.

They told the students that “a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen” and that they should press a key to keep from seeing the answers. Students were told that failure to press the key was cheating, although no one would know who had cheated.

Prior to taking the exam, some of the students were asked to read a piece that said that “most educated people do not believe in free will.” Another group read a piece affirming free will, and a third read about sugar. Really.

You can probably guess what happened: The “no free will” group was “more likely to let the answer appear" — that is, to cheat.

This pattern held up in another test involving self-grading: Students in the “no free will” group were, again, significantly more likely to cheat.

Vohls told Mercatornet Magazine that these findings tie “in with evidence that cheating is on the increase” among college students. While there “are many possible reasons for this,” the erosion in our belief in free will and conscience is almost certainly one of them.

Thus, according to Vohls, it is important to understand the “dangers” posed by the “links between determinism and unethical behavior.”

She is right, and what is more troubling is that one piece was all it took to alter student’s behavior. Imagine what a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination can do.

It is difficult to imagine a better example of why worldview matters. The issues we discuss here at “BreakPoint” are not abstractions unconnected to real life. What our kids — and we — are being taught about who we are and why we are here shapes our worldview. It determines the kind of people we will become.

The belief that we are the product of random and impersonal forces makes it absurd to see ourselves as moral agents. So it is not hard to see why so many people take a “why bother” attitude toward moral issues.

Of course, Christians are not determinists. We know that things like compassion and valor and honesty are more than electrical impulses in the brain. Thus, not only can we explain why people do evil, but also we can explain why it is reasonable to expect them to do good as well.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Sermon in Exodus series, #12. Exodus 20:12-17

GOD'S RULES FOR LIVING

======================

I. Commandments aren't what they used to be.

II. More dangerous is those who think they have them mastered.

A. Jesus and the rich young ruler. Luke 18:18-23

B. We must know God's law - and its intention.

III. The regulations of relationships.

A. Honor your parents.

B. Don't murder.

C. Don't commit adultery.

D. Don't steal.

E. Don't give false testimony.

F. Don't yearn for other people's stuff.

IV. Really radical morality.

A. Newsman Ted Koppel says the Ten Commandments apply now.

B. We are called to go beyond the Ten Commandments.

V. The Ten Commandments are not just for society.

A. They are meant for us.

B. Skeptic Mark Twain got it right.

Today's readers of the Bible might have problems with the religious wars of the Old Testament. According to international laws of war, civilians and inactive members of engaged forces have a right to protection. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 says, "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed (outside of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely."

Yet the God of the Old Testament seems to live below these common standards of human decency. By ordering the armies of Israel to destroy not only opposing forces but women, children, and animals, this God appears to be out of step with some of the most basic rules of war.

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to

Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt.

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and

do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing

child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

QUESTION #1

If the God of the Old Testament is good, how could He require the destruction of women, children, and animals?

How does a slaughter of infants and civilians square with a Lord who later urged His followers to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies, and to pray for those who had wronged and spitefully used them?

While admitting that such facts are troubling, let's see how the Bible itself might answer a question that questions the ethics of this God.

TOXIC CULTURE

Archeological discoveries in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria confirm the Bible's descriptions of ancient Mid-East society. The countless gods of the land reflected the dark side of human nature. Fertility cults institutionalized male and female prostitution. Child sacrifice was used as a way of pleasing the gods, the chief of which was the sun-god, generally known as Baal or "lord."

Such idolatrous conditions had persisted for centuries, even though the God of Israel had made His existence known through the miracles surrounding the Exodus from Egypt. Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho, acknowledged that her people had known the reputation of the God of Israel when she said:

I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you

has fallen on us .... For we have heard how the LORD dried up the

water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you

did to the two kings of the Amorites .... And as soon as we heard

these things, our hearts melted; ... for the LORD your God, He is

God in heaven above and on earth beneath (Josh. 2:9-11).

The Canaanites had rejected an opportunity for mercy. Although they knew that the God of Israel had revealed Himself and had worked miracles on behalf of His people, they had not embraced Him as the God of creation.

CONDITIONS OF CONQUEST

Old Testament records show that God did not, from the beginning, command Israel to kill all the inhabitants of Palestine. Instead, He promised that if His people trusted Him, He Himself would give the Canaanites reason to gradually leave the land.

I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the

people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their

backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive

out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. I

will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land

become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for

you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until

you have increased, and you inherit the land (Ex. 23:27-30).

As we have already seen in the quote of Rahab, from the very beginning of Israel's campaign to conquer the land, God gave the Canaanites reason and opportunity to flee. He made sure they heard about the coming of the Israelites and filled them with terror. Even though, from God's point of view, they had polluted the land and forfeited their right to live in that region, the Lord of the Old Testament gave them an opportunity to retreat. When they chose to resist the God of the armies of Israel, only then did God demand the destruction of entire communities.

A NEW SOCIETY

Had Canaanite society remained undisturbed, its idolatrous culture would have continued to influence and even shape the region. Yet the God of the Old Testament chose the Canaanite homeland -- the crossroads of the ancient world -- to promote the values of a new social order. These descendants of Abraham, to whom God had promised the land 400 years earlier, would by their example be "light" to the surrounding nations (Ex. 34:10-17; Dt. 7:1-11; 20:16-18). As no other nation in the history of the world, this land, its people, and its God were to be a source of blessing for all the nations of the earth.

SHOCK VALUE

The mission of destroying communities who resisted should have instilled in Israel a shuddering realization of the consequences of idolatry -- especially when that idolatry resisted the truth about God. Fulfilling the role of executioner should have formed in them a healthy fear of God and a hatred of false religion. They themselves would not be exempt from such judgment. They were not "chosen" because God had a favorite family, but to show the whole world the wonderful benefits of knowing the God of gods and the terrible consequences of ignoring Him.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME AND ETERNITY

Because we're 3,000 years removed, we are troubled and even offended at the thought of Jewish soldiers executing the wives and children of frightened and helpless landowners. But the inevitable conditions of time and eternity have their own perspective. If the lifeless idols of Canaanite culture were at war with the living God, if they were robbing whole communities of the knowledge of life and goodness, then the death of resisters would have sent a message. Without that message, Canaanite culture would have been like an unchecked cancer infecting all who came into contact with this important landbridge to the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Everyone dies. Some pass suddenly with little pain, and some gradually with much pain. Some die young, and some die in old age. If the Bible's perspective on eternity is true, we can look upon the death of the children of Canaan as better than a long life shaped by the idols of Canaanite culture. Early death kept them from adding one day at a time to the load of guilt for which they would one day be judged (Rom. 2:5).

Even after seeing why God might have required the death of the Canaanites who chose to resist, we may not like what He did. That's understandable. God isn't looking for our full-hearted approval. He knows we can't see the whole of life as He does.

REASONS TO TRUST

Although God does not demand our approval, He does call for our trust. Any honest reader of the Bible finds overwhelming evidence of His trustworthiness. He keeps His promises. He makes Himself real to those who seek Him. He has given us reason to believe that in the end He will right the wrongs of the ages and be fair to all -- even with His enemies. His incomprehensible grace and perfect justice will prevail.

ACCEPTING GOD'S RIGHT TO BE GOD

God also calls on us to accept His authority. As the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists, He has a right to declare, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Ex. 33:19). If He is Lord of lords, then it was His divine right to say to the pharaoh who refused to allow the Israelites to leave his country, "For this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth" (Ex. 9:16).

God could have delivered the Israelites without being so severe. But the path He chose gave merciful and fair warning to all. In His love, He created an example that was designed to alert every generation of their ultimate accountability to Him. We may not fully understand just why He did what He did, but we have many reasons to acknowledge His right to be God.

A Good Question. But is this also the God of the New Testament? Doesn't Jesus reveal a God who is gentler and kinder? No, the truth is that Jesus simply gave us a clearer picture of the love and gentleness that have always been evident in God's dealings with man.

Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Mt. 11:28-30). His statement echoed the same sentiment as the invitation of the God of the Old Testament who issued the plea, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die?" (Ezek. 33:11).

Yet when the patience of God has run its course, and when a rebel world shows its determination to live apart from submission to His love, the very last book of the Bible reveals once again the judgment of the God of the Old Testament. In close connection with frightening judgments that kill more than two-thirds of earth's population is this awesome end-time scene:

Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every

mountain and island was moved out of its place. And the kings of the

earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men,

every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in

the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks,

"Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne

and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has

come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:14-17).

God always was and always will be a God of both incomprehensible love and fearsome wrath.

Frustrated by Catherine of Aragon's inability to produce a male heir, King Henry divorced her and married Anne Boleyn. The church opposed the divorce and delayed approving the new marriage. The king put pressure on Parliament to pass the Act of Succession, which would transfer the royal lineage from Catherine's children to Anne's. The members of Parliament, with various degrees of enthusiasm, ultimately went along - all except Sir Thomas More.

More paid a high price for his faithfulness to principle. One by one the members of Parliament agreed, the will of the king being more important than their own principles. King Henry watched the signatures on the document, hoping to see Thomas More's consent; Mores reputation for integrity was well known. On the other hand, his colleagues were known for compromise. King Henry was not always intent on doing right, but he always wanted to be declared right.

More's approval would have helped to silence the king's conscience. Instead, More's silence pricked the king's comfort and disturbed his peace. The king confined More in a filthy dungeon. His income was cut off. His family were reduced to a mean existence. While the king waited for More's signature to approve the Act of Succession, England watched.

More held out for two years, and his wife lost all patience with his unyielding principles. Finally the duke of Norfolk, knowing that More's days were numbered, tried to save his life.

Norfolk enters the bitter, filthy cell where, surrounded by vagabonds, brigands, thieves, and killers, sits the gentle scholar Thomas More. He is emaciated, clad in rags, shivering from the cold. Norfolk has brought the list of Parliament's signatures, all from friends and companions from law and life. He begs More to sign it to save his life.

“But Thomas, look at these names,” says Norfolk. “You know these men. Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?”

More simply responds, “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?”

More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His final words on the scaffold were: “The King's good servant, but God's first.”

__________

Adapted from “A Man for All Seasons”, by Robert Bolt, http://isbn.nu/0413703800; by J. Jerry Davis; source: Adventist Review, ISSN 0161-1119, (c) August 21, 2003, http://www.adventistreview.org/; submitted by Mary Thayne

*

When the state of Virginia joined the revolt against the United States, Robert E. Lee sided with the South. Despite fighting on the losing side in the Civil War, this general’s fame has outlived him. Lee is still lauded for his valiant leadership of an out-manned and out-spent Confederacy.

However, far less known is fellow Virginian George Thomas -– like Lee, a graduate of the West Point Military Academy. Soon after Fort Sumter erupted, Virginia’s governor offered Thomas the command of all state artillery forces. Most Virginians assumed he would side with the South. But in the spring of 1861 he announced he would remain loyal to the Union. Declared Thomas: “I took an oath at West Point to defend the Constitution and to serve my country. I do not break my oaths.”

Thomas went on to become a great general, rising to the rank of Union army commander in Tennessee and Georgia. Historians rank him among the top Union generals. Congress passed a post-war resolution in his honor.

However, he paid a high price. Loyalty to his country earned him scorn at home. Not only did he sever ties with his native state, but with his own flesh and blood. When Thomas died from a massive stroke in 1870, nearly 10,000 people attended his funeral in New York. But not a single member of his family attended. Asked later why, one of his sisters replied, “As far as we’re concerned, our brother died in 1861.”

What would drive a man to risk deeply rooted family ties to uphold his nation’s honor? I believe it lies in West Point’s Cadet Honor Code, simply defined as: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.”

On a behavioral level, the Code represents a simple standard. On a developmental plane, West Point expects cadets to live above minimum standards. As leaders, they are to develop a commitment to ethical principles that guides their moral actions.

West Point’s core mission is to develop leaders for the United States Army. A leader of character knows what is right and possesses the moral courage to act on that knowledge. The conduct expected of military cadets ranks far above that demonstrated in recent years in businesses, corporations and government agencies.

In certain business sectors, discussing honesty, integrity or ethics prompts laughter. Worse, I have discovered that in Christian circles keeping your word is not a given. I long ago stopped trying to keep track of broken promises made to me in churches. Given this reality, it is no wonder that Christ’s simple command, “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” (Matthew 5:37a) is seldom applied in the business world.

The question is: What can be done about this sad state of affairs? As followers of Christ, whether we are involved in business, education, government or other fields, I believe we all need to adopt a code that we will operate by, regardless of circumstances.

While there are dozens of qualities we should embrace, I think it starts with integrity. Possessing integrity means we will want to integrate truth into everything we do. Ask almost anyone about Enron, WorldCom or other corporate scandals and you are likely to hear responses about how people in these enterprises lacked integrity.

Interestingly, three of the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 20:15-17) are directly associated with integrity:

• Number 8: “You shall not steal” (verse 15).

• Number 9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (verse 16).

• Number 10: “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's” (verse 17).

I like to think of integrity as living on the outside like you think and are on the inside. Integrity is the integration of life into a cohesive lifestyle. With integrity, we act the same at work as we do at a worship service, or the same way at home as we do on vacation.

A glaring problem in many societies is the establishment of different rules for work and home:

• The woman who would never allow her children to lie has developed a lifestyle of lying in order to make sales at work.

• The man who would never cheat on his wife regularly cheats on his income tax returns.

• The church member who professes to believe in Christ thinks nothing of violating copyright laws by burning CDs or copying MP3 files to pass along software or music to friends.

Integrity requires a company to communicate the same message to the general public it does to employees. It requires that a company do for its employees what it promised them at their hiring. Ever felt disillusioned because a raise or other promised perk somehow never materialized? And the explanation of why included the reasonable-sounding explanation of an economic downturn or company restructuring?

The lack of integrity (wholeness) also promotes a compartmentalization of our lives. In other words, we separate our behavior into secular and spiritual realms. If you adopt different rules for your spiritual life than your secular existence, it demonstrates a lack of integrity. Why? Because a person of integrity has integrated his or her values into a pattern of wholeness.

When you think of integrity, do you think of a person who lives up to that standard? I do. And I want others to think of me in that way. Without a doubt truthfulness is part of integrity, but so is living up to one’s commitments.

________

Adapted from “God@Work (Volume 2): Developing Ministers in the Marketplace” by Rich Marshall with Ken Walker. A former pastor, Marshall is a speaker and the founder of ROi Leadership, a corporate training business in San Jose, California.

*

Is it necessary to believe in God in order to have solid personal values? A new survey seems to answer that question with a “yes.”

The survey by a pollster at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, found that adults who profess a belief in God are significantly more likely than atheists to say that forgiveness, patience, generosity and a concern for others are “very important.” In fact, the poll found that on 11 of 12 values, there was a double-digit gap between theists and atheists, with theists more likely to label each value “very important.”

The survey by sociologist and pollster Reginald Bibby examined the beliefs of 1,600 Canadians, 82 percent who said they believed in “God or a higher power” and 18 percent who said they did not.

The poll was released as an aggressive branch of atheism is getting increasing attention. Led in part by authors Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as well as by the so-called Blasphemy Project, the new combative form of atheism argues that society would be better off in a “God-less world.” The research -- while not addressing any specific authors or groups -- seems to claim otherwise. The poll was conducted in 2005 and released Oct. 8.

“To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price,” Bibby said in a press release.

According to the survey, there is a:

• 32-point gap between theists and atheists on whether forgiveness is “very important” (84 percent vs. 52 percent).

• 33-point gap on patience (72 percent vs. 39 percent).

• 30-point gap on generosity (67 percent vs. 37 percent).

• 19-point gap on concern for others (82 percent vs. 63 percent).

• 23-point gap on family life (88 percent vs. 65 percent).

Among the poll’s other findings, there was a 13-point gap between theists and atheists on kindness, 16-point gap on “being loved,” 11-point gap on friendship, 10-point gap on courtesy, 12-point gap on politeness, 13-point gap on friendliness and 5-point gap on honesty.

If the poll is correct, Canada has a higher percentage of atheists than does America. A Gallup poll of American adults this summer found that 6 percent consider themselves atheists. Also, most polls find that roughly nine in 10 Americans profess a belief in God, a higher percentage than in Canada.

The Ottawa Citizen took the poll results seriously, asserting in an editorial that “declining religious affiliation could be accompanied by a decline in civility.”

“Clergy and theologians have long argued something similar, namely, that without formal religion it is hard for society to maintain and perpetrate ethical behaviour,” the editorial stated. “Of course, clergy are not the most objective analysts in these matters. Bibby, however, speaks as an academic. ...

“Bibby’s research suggests that as religiosity declines, we start to travel blind -- and society pays a price,” the editorial continued. “Religious affiliation, apparently, has a civilizing function. We become socialized at church. The fear, then, is that as we separate ourselves from these institutions, social harmony could suffer.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20870]

As an undergraduate student, I was privileged to sit under an advisor for whom Christian ethics and its application were a vibrant passion. With his careful drawl and smiling eyes, my professor slowly and gladly brought me to an understanding of ethics that would not allow me to ever leave it, as I might have left a stuffy, uninteresting class. Ethics, for the Christian, is no more optional than the scriptures that tell us who we are. In one of Dr. Verhey’s more recent works, he writes, “There is no Christian life that is not shaped somehow by Scripture. There is no Christian moral discernment that is not tied somehow to Scripture. There is no Christian ethic -- no Christian medical ethic or sexual ethic or economic ethic or political ethic -- that is not formed and informed somehow by Scripture.”(1) Christian communities are communities who practice ethics on some real level because we live by a particular identity, because it is who we are.

Now working within the field of Christian apologetics, one of the comments that I hear most often as a reason for rejecting Christianity is that of its followers: “Christians are so hypocritical!” “The problem I have with Christ is that his followers do him more harm than good.” “I am continually disappointed by Christians; why should I consider their religion a viable option?” “The problem I have with Christianity is Christians.” I try appealing to these voices to see the gap in their logic; I try reasoning that the abuse of a religion must never stand in the way of getting at the truth of a religion. But many will not be swayed. I leave these conversations saddened not merely because the obstacles seem immovable, but because I fully understand the grievance. The letter of recommendation written upon the countenance of professing Christians is sometimes a message that deters.

Like ethics, Christian apologetics is a daily activity writ large upon the life of Christians and Christian communities whether we realize it or not. The world hears clearly our message with and without words. The Christian goes about life confessing, commending, defending, and living the gospel, showing the world our ethic and our religion whether we speak of these things or not. Both disciplines then are inherently Christian activities, disciplines that must take seriously the responsibility our identity imparts. We are people of the Book, commanded to remember the movement of God in history, the nearness of the Spirit today, and the promise of Christ’s return in every word we speak, in every thing we do.

In the midst of this reality, Christians need not live as those who hold every answer, but as those who live with the confidence “that is ours through Christ before God” as we grow further into our conversions and the abundant life Christ describes (2 Corinthians 3:4). In this, learning to see our own conversions as a process, salvation as more than a ticket to heaven, and faith as something deeper than sheer preference or unquestionable certainty, will likewise help us see that reaching our neighbors is a lifelong activity. In the meantime, John Stackhouse argues that it is imperative for the apologist and the ethicist to take with her the right questions.(2) Instead of evangelicalism’s favorite foci -- Is he saved? Does she have a personal relationship with Christ? Or, what must I do to convert them? -- a far better question was entertained by the one we follow. Who shall I say is my neighbor? At this question Jesus recounted a story that left everyone asking appropriately, If the world is filled with my neighbors, how then shall I live? If every member of the body of Christ on earth lived an apologetic life that reflected the inherently Christ-like response to that question -- with love, with grace, with truth and humility -- perhaps we would find the distance between Athens and Jerusalem converging, bridged by the glory of the one who rose from the grave.

________

1. Allen Verhey, REMEMBERING JESUS: CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, SCRIPTURE, AND THE MORAL LIFE (Grand Rapids, Eerdman’s, 2002), 54.

2. John Stackhouse, Jr., HUMBLE APOLOGETICS: DEFENDING THE FAITH TODAY (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 84-85.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21570]

The apostle Paul once wrote, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.” The bold propagator of early Christianity lived his life with the understanding that he was free to engage in most any pursuit. However, he regulated his behavior by two criteria. Number one, would the activity be beneficial to his spiritual, intellectual, social or physical well-being? Number two, was the proposed pursuit potentially addicting?

Given the admired apostle's behavioral philosophy, I have to wonder how he would approach the subject of television in general and so-called “reality” programs in particular. I bring this up due to the seeming sustained popularity of television fare such as “Joe Millionaire” which has the distinction of the being one of the most-watched programs in recent TV history.

If Paul were presented with the opportunity to view any one of the glut of recent programs involving real people in contrived situations, his first question would be, “Is watching this program going to benefit my life in some shape, form or fashion?” I have to admit that I find little or no value in any of the “reality” programs, so of course I believe Paul would reply that the only profit in watching Joe Millionaire, “The Bachelorette,” “Fear Factor,” “Survivor,” ad nauseam would be in observing people make fools of themselves, which Paul would probably not deem to be profitable.

What do all reality programs have in common? From what I can tell, they all encourage greed and selfish ambition as noble motivations, with ethics being irrelevant. Does anyone really believe that any of the young ladies who vied for the attention of Joe Millionaire would have done so if they knew he was really “Joe $19,000-a-year Construction Worker”?

When the first reality television programs were introduced, I was reminded of a joke I once heard. It seems a lovely young woman was seated on an airplane next to a distinguished gentleman. Once airborne, the pair engaged in polite conversation. Suddenly the man changed the course of the conversation by asking the young lady if she would spend an intimate evening with him for $1 million dollars. Flattered, she blushed but quickly agreed that she would. Immediately the man shot back, “What about for fifty bucks?” The woman responded indignantly, “Sir, just what kind of lady do you take me for?” He replied, “We have already established the kind of woman you are, now we are haggling over the price.”

The only ethical standard on reality television is that there is no ethical standard. Deceit and manipulation are standard operating procedure. I understand that some reality shows require some semblance of cooperation. However, it is understood that the eventual winner is going to betray and/or discard those who have helped him or her in their pursuit of the prize. Reality television is a case study in “the end justifying the means” philosophy.

Paul's first criteria for deciding to pursue any activity was profitability. His second was the potential of being mastered by it. Is reality television addictive? I don't know if it is the programming or the medium of itself that is so alluring. No doubt Americans spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the boob tube. Writing in his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman observes that America has a “consuming love affair with television.” Of late, many Americans -- some 40 million tuned in for the most recent episode of Joe Millionaire -- seem to be overtly enamored by reality programs.

Personally profitable or not, addictive or not, reality television has found a loyal audience in America. What would the apostle Paul say about reality television, or for any TV program for that matter? I think he might ask a couple of questions: How does it enhance your life and can you turn it off? Then he would probably step back and say, “You be the judge.”

_____________

Boggs is pastor of Valley Baptist Church, McMinnville, Ore.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #5593]

Even if God’s existence could be proven, Niezsche writes in THE ANTICHRIST, we would still refuse to accept him. When I read atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, I don’t get the impression that they are motivagted by mere unbelief. I don’t believe in unicorns, but I don’t go around writing books full of rejection and bile about unicorns. When I read THE GOD DELUSION and GOD IS NOT GREAT, I see that their authors do not so much disbelieve in God as they hate Him.

Consequently, the arguments spelled out in these atheist books are out of sync with the actual vehemence of their authors.

Dawkins and Hitchens contend that God is not demonstrable according to the scientific method. But then, lots of things are not demonstrable according to that method. Can Dawkins and Hitchens give a scientific account of consciousness? Can they locate free will under a microscope? What about “equality” and “justice” and “rights”: none of these things have any material existence, so does that make them illusions? Since even Dawkins and Hitchens have no problem accepting the existence of lots of immaterial things, they never explain why God is the one immaterial entity that stirs up their skeptical indignation. Somehow the scientific case against God seems to be an inadequate explanation for their belligerent atheism.

Enter the French atheist Michel Onfray, whose ATHEIST MANIFESTO is a bestseller in Europe. Onfray comes out of a different tradition than Dawkins and Hitchens, one that he describes as stretching from the Baron d’Holbach to Nietzsche. This is Continental atheism, and it makes its case against God in an entirely different way than do the Anglo-Saxon atheists we encounter in the United States. Onfray, like Nietzsche, regards Anglo-Saxon atheists like Dawkins as representing a low, brutish type, widely found in England.

But here’s one key difference between Anglo-Saxon atheism and Continental atheism. While Dawkins and Hitchens insist that we can be moral without God, Onfray with astonishing frankness concedes Nietzsche’s point that the death of God also means the death of Western morality and Western values. So if God goes, that means that “equality” and “rights” go too. This is a possibility that Dawkins and Hitchens have not even considered. In many ways I think Onfray’s atheism is more honest, more darkly appealing, and more dangerous than the atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens.

[see also HolwickID #24852]

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5579]

A midwestern girl from a working class background worked her way through Harvard by cleaning dormitory rooms. She never graduated, however, but dropped out due to the poor treatment and putdowns she received from other students.

Before she left she spoke with Robert Coles, Harvard’s noted professor of psychiatry and medical humanities. After going over not only the behavior of her fellow students, but also the long list of highly educated people who have perpetrated the atrocities for which the twentieth century is famous, she concluded by saying to him, “I’ve been taking all these philosophy courses, and we talk about what’s true, what’s important, what’s GOOD. Well, how do you teach people to BE good?” And, she added, “What’s the point of KNOWING good if you don’t keep trying to BECOME a good person?”

Sermon in Exodus series, #12. Exodus 20:12-17

GOD'S RULES FOR LIVING

======================

I. Commandments aren't what they used to be.

II. More dangerous is those who think they have them mastered.

A. Jesus and the rich young ruler. Luke 18:18-23

B. We must know God's law - and its intention.

III. The regulations of relationships.

A. Honor your parents.

B. Don't murder.

C. Don't commit adultery.

D. Don't steal.

E. Don't give false testimony.

F. Don't yearn for other people's stuff.

IV. Really radical morality.

A. Newsman Ted Koppel says the Ten Commandments apply now.

B. We are called to go beyond the Ten Commandments.

V. The Ten Commandments are not just for society.

A. They are meant for us.

B. Skeptic Mark Twain got it right.

The citizens of a democratic republic get the leaders they deserve because, after all, they choose them. Elected officials, then, are merely a reflection of the majority of those who voted to place them into office.

In the wake of sex scandals involving President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, the mantra among many in society became, “Character does not matter when it comes to political leaders.”

Those who espoused this view insisted that private behavior has no bearing on public leadership.

Many in the American electorate bought the premise that leaders can privately be selfish, greedy, dishonest and even perverted, all the while making altruistic decisions that are in the best interests of those who elected them to office.

Believing someone can be vile in private while virtuous in public has resulted in a U.S. Congress with an approval rating, according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, that currently stands at 12 percent. Additionally, a 2012 Gallup poll found that politicians were among the least trusted professionals in America.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” observed Benjamin Franklin. What one of America’s most well-known founders understood is that a truly virtuous people would elect as leaders those individuals who possessed integrity and virtue.

While definitions and understandings of virtue and integrity may abound, I recently heard a simple explanation offered by Bob McEwen. The former U.S. congressman from Ohio spoke at an event I attended and he shared that integrity and virtue consist of two concepts, morality and character.

“Morality is not engaging in behavior that is wrong,” according to McEwen. Though many in contemporary America reject the authority of the Bible, it does contain prohibitions that our society embraces. Stealing, murder, lying and infidelity are still viewed as behaviors that are wrong.

Moral people, simply put, sincerely seek to not do that which is wrong. Morality is good and noble. However, according to McEwen, integrity and virtue require more than morality. In order to be considered a person of integrity, a person of virtue, one must also pursue character.

“Character is doing that which is right,” McEwen said. It is not just enough to not do wrong. A person must do what is right.

McEwen said that if your child came home and told you the kids at school were calling a little girl names and added that he or she did not participate in the name calling, you would be happy. Your child did not do something wrong. He or she acted morally.

But a question remains, McEwen said: Did your child do what is right? Did he or she exhibit character by standing up for the little girl?

The two wings of morality and character are necessary for integrity and virtue to take flight. Both concepts are required. “You can’t do what is right if you are at the same time doing what is wrong,” McEwen said.

If Americans do not start electing men and women of integrity, people of virtue, who care more about the condition of the country than about their own fortunes, I fear the future of the United States is bleak.

In order for Americans to start electing people of virtue, it will require the realization that the electorate is the real problem, not those who have been elected. “We have met the enemy and he is us,” is a famous line from the comic strip character Pogo created by Walt Kelly.

Those who occupy elected positions are nothing more than a reflection of the majority of people who voted for them. If we don’t like what we see, we must start with our own integrity and then select and elect those who represent our morals and our character.

Recent developments in New York City might be a glimmer of hope that some citizens are coming around.

Anthony Weiner, a candidate in the New York City mayoral race, has plunged in the polls as a result of revelations he has engaged in at least three online affairs since resigning from Congress for the same sin. His actions have included explicit conversations and lewd photos shared with women, despite the facts that he is married and has a child.

Weiner’s behavior is so perverse that it has gotten the attention of some New York voters. As a result, quite a few are saying enough is enough. Some are saying they are not going to vote for a man void of morals and bereft of character.

I have a voting litmus test for those who want to excuse the behavior of politicians like Weiner and still maintain that elected leaders don’t need morality and character.

First, would you be comfortable leaving your daughter or your wife alone with the candidate for an extended period of time? Second, would you buy a used car from them? If you can’t answer either question with an unqualified yes, perhaps you should consider another candidate.

“The States [the government] are as the men are; they grow out of human character,” observed Plato. It is past time for integrity and virtue to matter again.

If our elected officials are to possess morality and character, the attributes must first be embraced by the electorate.

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” said John Adams, America’s second president. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I had been in the principal’s office before, but never like this. We were gathering our things to leave for an afternoon math competition when my friend realized she had left her permission slip on the kitchen counter at home. We called her mom, but there was no answer and no time to track her down before the bus left with or without us. So we went into the girl’s bathroom and forged her mom’s name on another slip. I was making the last cursive loop when the high school administrator walked in, realized what we were doing, and sent us both to the principal’s office.

This strange series of events still holds together in my mind like a rolling film strip of a day in the life of a high school student. I discovered that waiting for the principal is just as frightening as standing accused before him, even as I silently prepared my convincingly innocent rationale for this seemingly guilty-looking misdeed. At the top of my list was the simple fact that my friend’s mom had already given her permission to go! It wasn’t as if we were lying about anything -- per se. No one got hurt; no parental rights were trumped. For all practical purposes, I was convinced -- and ready to convince the principal -- that I didn’t technically do anything wrong, that it was really only a matter of a dislocated piece of paper. But he came in without a desire to hear my defense. He simply said, “I know you know the meaning of the word integrity. What does it mean to you?”

My day in the principal’s office stands out as the day I realized that identity is not something we create for other people, but something given and entrusted by God, something we mold with every decision before us. Before his question, I had never considered my integrity to be something I had a role in creating or shaping, nor did I see it as something that shaped me. It was always in my mind an either/or kind of thing: either you followed the rules, or you did not. But here, something beyond obedience and technicalities was placed before me. Integrity had a definition, yes, but what it became in my hands was something else entirely. Would I mold it -- and myself -- into a checklist of rationalized rules of thumb, where so long as “no one got hurt” I have made a fine decision? Or would integrity be forged in such way, as if shaping metal in the fires of decision, that in turn I myself am changed, forged by the very decisions I have made?

C.S. Lewis writes in MERE CHRISTIANITY, “People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, ‘If you keep a lot of rules I’ll reward you, and if you don’t I’ll do the other thing.’ [...] I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before.”(1) In other words, the decisions we make that define our integrity simultaneously define -- and refine -- us. Such a description posits a perspective similar to the psalmist’s on choosing the laws of God. Singing of these laws, the psalmist describes something less like a proper collection of do’s and don’ts and more like the choosing of light and life -- things we claim and foster, and by which find ourselves changed by the one who first called light into existence. Writes the psalmist, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes” (19:7-8). Whatever the choice we make, we are left differently than we were before.

There is a transformational quality to the time we are given, to the decisions we make, and the kingdom we are either walking further into or farther from. Lewis continues, “[W]ith all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to one state or the other.”(2) In this world of choices, we are forging in the fires of earthly decision an identity that is either storing up the treasures of heaven or hoarding away the qualities of something far less.

What if you were to determine that what you are fostering here on earth, you will discover more of in heaven? Would it change the way you make decisions today?

________

1. C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 87.

2. Ibid.

________

Copyright © 2008 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #27111]