176 Sermon Illustrations on Truth

East Germans are looking into their secret police (Stazi) records. One woman found out her husband had informed on her. She divorced him and warned others, "If you can resist it, don't look in your records."

#1812

*

Kenneth Kantzer writes that falsehood and lying are popular, but Christians cannot justify them. [full text of article at end]

I. A matter of trust.

A. A defensive half-back expects to be deceived by the other side.

B. We don't expect to be deceived by leaders and politicians.

1) "Time" magazine asked if we are a nation of liars.

2) We have trivialized lying.

II. Slide into acceptable deceit has a long history.

A. Some lies are justified.

1) Thomas Aquinas had three categories of lies - jokes, helpful

lies, and malicious lies - but only last is a mortal sin.

2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer said only cynics claim to speak whole

truth at all times. [Wizard of Id cartoon: "You're good!"]

B. Biggest red herring - lies for a good purpose are morally

acceptable.

1) Oliver North - "Lying isn't nice. But sometimes you must

weigh in the balance the difference between lives and lies."

2) But Immanuel Kant once said, "Lying violates the source of

law and destroys the very foundation of our social and

political relationships."

III. A careful definition of a lie.

A. Every statement that is not so, is not necessarily a lie.

1) Simple mistakes are not lies.

2) Jokes are not lies.

3) In war we should expect deception.

a) No one is morally bound to tell the enemy the truth. (?)

B. The Biblical tradition is absolutely against lying.

1) Ten Commandments.

a) Other verses. Mal 3:5; Eph 4:24

2) Augustine took an absolutist position.

a) "One never errs more safely than when one errs by too

much loving the truth."

b) Some lies are understandable, some are worse than others,

but all lies are wrong.

3) John Wesley said, "I would not tell one lie to save the souls

of all the world."

4) Kenneth Kantzer: "I do not know what I would do if I had to

choose between lying or losing my life. But from the

safe confines of my office, I would rather face my Lord

telling the truth than stand before him and have to

explain why I had lied because the truth cost too much."

#3242

ARTICLE:

In my younger days I played football - as a defensive halfback. Sometimes, misled by the clever ball handling of the opposing quarterback, I pulled in too quickly. I never accused the quarterback of lying - I blamed my bad judgment. During a football game, no one expects to trust the other side.

But when people we believe we are supposed to trust mislead us, what are we to think? In recent years Gary Hart, Jim Bakker, John Poindexter, and Oliver North all told huge lies. And as this column is going off to the typesetter, Bakker is having his day in court. In response to the perfidy of these public figures, Time magazine asked if we are not a nation of liars. I worry: Since two of these four are professed evangelicals, are evangelicals in danger of becoming known as a body of liars?

Our society has trivialized lying. But the slide into acceptable deceit has a long history. Some lies, it is argued, are justified. Thomas Aquinas, for example, divided lies into three categories - jokes, helpful lies, and malicious lies. Although the first two are sins, only the last is a mortal sin.

In our own day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer taught us: “It is only the cynic who claims 'to speak the truth' at all times and in all places to all men in the same way. ... It is very difficult ... to say what actually constitutes a lie.”

This attitude toward lying developed into the biggest “red herring” of all: that lies for a good purpose are morally acceptable. Oliver North undoubtedly convinced himself he was lying for the good of the nation. In his own defense North admitted that “Lying isn't nice,” but he added: “Sometimes you must weigh in the balance the difference between lives and lies.”

I admire Oliver North's patriotism, but I believe that he was seriously mistaken. Immanuel Kant once said, “Lying violates the source of law and destroys the very foundation of our social and political relationships.” What North may well have meant for the good of his country represents a serious blow to the mutual trust and integrity that is essential to the life of a nation.

it is true that we must be careful how we define a lie. We cannot condemn as a lie every statement of what is not so. A lie differs from a simple mistake or even a faked pass on the gridiron. Likewise, jokes are not lies. Jokes are momentary deceptions for mutual enjoyment.

Most of us think that in acknowledged warfare, the rules of warfare - like a game - are sufficient warning. All should expect deception; no one is morally bound to tell the enemy the truth.

A lie is a statement or sign intended to lead another to believe what we ourselves do not really believe, except when it is mutually understood that our words are not to be trusted.

Given this definition, there is a tradition absolutely against lying that is every bit as strong as the Aquinas-Bonhoeffer-North quibbling. The Bible unequivocally denounces lies and liars. The sixth of the ten great commandments declares: “Thou shalt not bear false witness ... “ (Deut. 5:20). The apostle Paul writes: “Put away lying, speak the truth” (Eph. 4:24) [should be Eph. 4:25]. And the Book of Revelation sets forth repeatedly the awful reminder that “no one who practices lying” shall ever have any part in the new heavens and the new earth. God “hates” liars (Mal. 3:5).

The greatest Christian philosopher-theologian of the early church, Augustine, argued for an absolutist position. No Christian should ever tell a lie. Some lies are worse than others - lies intended to hurt. Some lies are understandable, and he was loath to condemn those who would lie to save a life. Yet all lies are wrong. John Wesley agreed with Augustine's absolutist position: “I would not tell one lie to save the souls of all the world.”

I must side with Augustine and Wesley. As the ancient theologian said: “One never errs more safely than when one errs by too much loving the truth.”

I do not know what I would do if I had to choose between lying or losing my life. But from the safe confines of my office, I would rather face my Lord after telling the truth than stand before him and have to explain why I had lied because the truth cost too much.

Many are skeptical of the trustworthiness of the Bible and judge the

apostolic writers instead of being judged by them. Longenecker believes the

Bible must take precedence.

#1046

*

When Oprah Winfrey was 13 she decided new, octagon-shaped glasses would make her beautiful and popular. Her mother refused, telling Oprah they couldn't afford such an extravagance. The next day, after her mother had gone to work, Oprah smashed her old glasses on the floor. She pulled down the curtains, knocked over a table and threw things around the room. Then she called the police.

"I decided to be unconscious when they came in and to have amnesia." At the hospital, the doctor brought her mother to her bed, but Oprah pretended not to recognize her. "All we know is that someone broke into the apartment, hit her over the head and broke her glasses," explained the doctor. "Broke her glasses?" asked Vernita Lee. "Do you mind if I'm alone with the child for a few minutes?"

The mother glared at her daughter and counted to three. As Oprah tells it: "She got to two, and I knew she was going to kill me. And so I said, 'It's coming back to me now ... you're my mother!' She dragged me from the bed and we went home. Yes, I got the octagons."

She went to live with her father, Vernon Winfrey, who had married and grown into a respectable member of the community, a barber and pillar of the Baptist church. He taught her honesty. "I never told another lie. I wouldn't dream of making up a story to my Dad. Let me tell you, there is something about people who believe in discipline - they exude a kind of assurance and realism."

At a beauty pageant when asked about her life's ambition, she replied, "I believe in truth, and I want to perpetuate truth. So I want to be a journalist."

Her most valuable lesson: "Just tell the truth. It will save you every time."

When a majority pushes a minority up against the wall, it foolishly forgets Gracian's worldly wisdom expressed three centuries ago: "Never contend with a man who has nothing to lose."

"Quite unlike Hitler or the Stones or Hefner - who also changed the world, simply by intuiting which way the parade was heading and getting in front of it, Jesus did not give us a message we wanted to hear. He came to turn the parade in precisely the opposite direction; he spoke words hard for our canny hearts even to give credence to, much less heed: take the last place (the real parade is heading the other way), forget yourself (even your shortcomings), take up your cross, heal the hateful."

-- William J. O'Malley

William Ramsey was not convinced of the historicity of Luke's writings in the Book of Acts - especially as they pertained to the missionary journeys of Paul - and he spent years of investigation into the matter. His work was so scholarly and commendable that the Queen of England knighted him for his labor. But Sir William Ramsey, instead of finding Luke in error, discovered that the divine amanuensis was completely accurate, and he described Acts as the most perfect historical document of all time. (used 7/28/91)

Lew Wallace, the brilliant general who saved Washington from capture by the Confederates during the Civil War, was challenged by "Boasting Bob" Ingersol to write a book discrediting Christianity, but his research brought him to Christ and he wrote "Ben Hur" instead.

A more recent example is Josh McDowell, the law student who set out to discredit the Bible and ended up one of its most vigorous defenders, writing books, lecturing on university campuses, and debating all would-be challengers.

When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn concluded his Nobel lecture on literature, he closed by quoting a Russian proverb: “One word of truth outweighs the whole world.”

In actions speak louder than verbs, Herb Miller writes: Two Kentucky Farmers who owned racing stables had developed a keen rivalry. One spring, each of them entered a horse in a local steeplechase. Thinking that a professional rider might help him outdo his friend, one of the farmers engaged a crack jockey. The two horses were neck and neck with a large lead over the rest of the pack at the last fence, but suddenly both fell, unseating their riders.

The professional jockey remounted quickly and rode on to win the race.

Returning triumphantly to the paddock, the jockey found the farmer who had hired him fuming with rage. “What’s the matter?” the jockey asked. “I won, didn’t I?

“Oh yea,” roared the farmer. “You won all right, but you crossed the finish line on the wrong horse.”

In his hurry to remount after the fall, the jockey has jumped on his competitor’s horse.

Success is meaningless unless we are in the right.

In his book "INTEGRITY," Ted Engstrom told this story:

"For Coach Cleveland Stroud and the Bulldogs of Rockdale County High School (Conyers, Georgia), 1991 was their championship season: 21 wins and 5 losses on the way to the Georgia boys' basketball tournament last March, then a dramatic come-from-behind victory in the state finals.

"But now the new glass trophy case outside the high school gymnasium is bare. Earlier this month the Georgia High School Association deprived Rockdale County of the championship after school officials said that a player who was scholastically ineligible had played 45 seconds in the first of the school's five post-season games.

"We didn't know he was ineligible at the time; we didn't know it until a few weeks ago," Mr. Stroud said. "Some people have said we should have just kept quiet about it, that it was just 45 seconds and the player wasn't an impact player. But you've got to do what's honest and right and what the rules say. I told my team that people forget the scores of basketball games; they don't ever forget what you're made of."

Exegetical material and sermon outline for Zechariah 8:1-19. The prophet exhorts the people to speak the truth to one another. Peace and truth are woven together.

One page emphasizes statistics on violence in America.

1. Love peace. (8:19)

a. Peace/shalom is complete well-being.

b. The prophet speaks of "sowing of peace."

c. Peace is the end, but is also the means. "There is no way to peace,

peace is the way." A.J. Muste

2. Love truth.

a. Without truth, peace degenerates into greeting card sentimentality.

b. Truth is honesty.

c. Truth as justice.

3. Loving truth and peace brings celebration.

a. Israel was laying a more peaceable foundation for their society.

b. The work of loving truth and peace brings celebration.

c. But the work must continue.

#2626

*

Thielicke said in his native Germany, "The avoidance of one small fib ...

may be a stronger confession of faith than a whole 'Christian philosophy'

championed in lengthy, forceful discussion."

#2767

*

In the classroom setting of one Peanuts comic strip, on the first day of the new school year, the students were told to write an essay about returning to class. In her essay Lucy wrote, "Vacations are nice, but it's good to get back to school. There is nothing more satisfying or challenging than education, and I look forward to a year of expanding knowledge."

Needless to say, the teacher was pleased with Lucy and complimented her fine essay. In the final frame, Lucy leans over and whispers to Charlie Brown, "After a while, you learn what sells."

The temptation to say "what sells," that is, what others want to hear whether it is true or not, is always with us. When we give in to that temptation, what we really sell is the integrity of our soul. When we resist, Christ can say of us as he did of Nathaniel, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47)

(continuation of #3721) Interview with John Stott…

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT CAUSES OF EVANGELICAL FRAGMENTATION?

We fragment over what we regard as issues of principle, but often the real reason is personal, isn’t it? When we’re afraid, we withdraw into our own fellowships and ghettos with like-minded people where we feel secure. I’m aware of that fear in myself; it’s part of our basic human insecurity. We’re looking for contexts in which we can be supported rather than questioned.

I’m afraid that in some cases the cause of fragmentation is worse than that – - it’s a simple matter of ambition. There is a great deal of empire building among us. The only empire in which we should be interested is the kingdom of God, but I fear some people are building their own.

ON ISSUES OF PRINCIPLE, WHAT CONCERNS YOU MOST?

The uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ in an increasingly pluralistic world is one — the debate about whether we go for exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism. Then there’s the homosexual question, and the whole subject of sexual ethics.

So the church must recover its prophetic voice and reject both the idea that ethics evolve and the notion that love obliges us to capitulate to the modernist view of things.

We need a voice that is essentially positive, not just negative — for example, on the family, or the joy of sexual intercourse, and so on.

I don’t know why we are always caught on the defensive and are reactive instead of proactive. I don’t think it is something in our make-up as evangelicals. I sometimes wonder if it is that God has not given us many leaders who are visionaries.

The evangelical renaissance of the last 50 years has really been one of biblical scholarship. What we have lacked is systematic or creative theologians. I believe we have one in Alister McGrath; I am sure in England we had one in Jim Packer before he left the country. But we have very few theologians who are really far-sighted and give us a vision that will unite, inspire, and enthuse us.

DOES THIS LACK OF VISION FOR THE FUTURE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH OUR PERCEPTION OF TRUTH LODGED IN ORTHODOXY? DOES THIS MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO BE CREATIVE AND TAKE RISKS?

Yes, there is something in that. Evangelicalism is fundamentally loyal to a past revelation, and because we are tied forever to what God did and said in the historic Jesus, we look back more often than we look forward.

In my debate with David Edwards [published as “Evangelical Essentials,” InterVarsity], I drew a distinction between the liberal, the fundamentalist, and the evangelical. The liberal, to me, is like a gas-filled balloon which takes off into the ether and is not tethered to the earth in any way. The fundamentalist is like a caged bird, unable to escape at all. To me, the true evangelical is like a kite, which flies high but at the same time is always tethered. This demands a particularly unusual combination of loyalty to the past and creativity for the future.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

YOU HAVE FALLEN AFOUL OF SOME EVANGELICALS. SOME OF YOUR REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT WERE CONSIDERED UNCONGENIAL TO ORTHODOXY BY SOME PEOPLE.

In “Evangelical Essentials”, I described as “tentative” my suggestion that “eternal punishment” may mean the ultimate annihilation of the wicked rather than their eternal conscious torment. I would prefer to call myself agnostic on this issue, as are a number of New Testament scholars I know. In my view, the biblical teaching is not plain enough to warrant dogmatism. There are awkward texts on both sides of the debate.

The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform.

HOW WOULD YOU ADVISE THEOLOGIANS TO THINK CREATIVELY IN THE LIGHT OF ORTHODOXY?

I don’t think any of us is wise enough to express ourselves in a creative or questioning manner without first testing it within the Christian community. It is part of our loyalty to that community that we allow it to criticize or comment on what we may want to say.

DIALOGUE WITH LIBERALS

IN YOUR DEBATE WITH DAVID EDWARDS, YOU BOTH SEEMED TO REACH A GENUINE UNDERSTANDING OF AND RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER’S POSITIONS. DO YOU THINK THAT EVANGELICALS CAN LEARN FROM THE LIBERAL TRADITION?

David Edwards, a self-styled liberal, is crying out for a certain intellectual and academic freedom that can move with the times and respond to what he continually calls “the climate of educated opinion today,” without being tethered to anything more than the love of God manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. I don’t think that’s an unfair summary. But all the time he’s pulling at the tether, and that’s the great difference between us.

He would say that evangelicals have a poor doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because we don’t think the Spirit is continuing to teach and to “lead us into all the truth.” I believe that text, John 16:13, is the most misunderstood and manipulated text in the whole of the Bible, because every branch of Christendom claims it.

It’s a key text for the Roman Catholic Church. “He will lead you into all the truth.” Who is the “you” here? Roman Catholics would claim it refers to the bishops as successors of the apostles. The liberal quotes it, and the charismatic quotes it: “He’ll lead me,” they say. But even the most elementary hermeneutical principle would tell us that the “you” means the apostles. Jesus said, “I have much more to say to you, but you cannot bear it now.” Who is he addressing? The apostles. “But when the Spirit comes, he will do what I have not been able to do; he will lead you into the truth which I wanted to give you but you weren’t able to take it.” It must be the apostles. We cannot change the identity of the “you” in the middle of the sentence.

So the fulfillment of that prophecy is in the New Testament. The major ministry of the Holy Spirit has been to lead the apostles into all the truth and to give us in the New Testament this wonderful body of truth that remains our authority. That does not mean that the ministry of the Holy Spirit has ceased. It means that the role of the Holy Spirit has changed from the revelation of new truth to giving us a profounder perception and application of old truth — from revelation to illumination, if you like.

Although I may be overstating it slightly, I want to say that God has no more to teach us than he has taught us in Christ. It is inconceivable that there should be a higher revelation than God has given in his incarnate Son. But although God has no more to teach us, we have a great deal more to learn. And although he has no more to give us than he has given us in Christ, we have a great deal more to receive.

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS

Some people feel that evangelicals adapt, eventually, to changing circumstances, whereas Catholicism stands firm like a rock. Those who say there is a loss of authority in our world are tending toward Rome…

Or Orthodoxy.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT ROME THAT IS RIGHTLY ATTRACTIVE?

Yes. The true evangelical wants both liberty and authority. We want to ask questions, to think, to pry, to peer, to probe, to ponder. We want to do all these things, but within a framework of submission to an ultimate authority. But we’re asking questions about our authority: what does it mean and how does it apply? So we experience an uneasy tension between liberty and authority.

I couldn’t find a lodging place in either Catholicism or liberalism, because one seems to major on authority with little room for liberty, while the other emphasizes liberty with very little room for authority.

AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY INCLUDES THIS QUOTATION: “THE WORD CHRISTIAN OCCURS ONLY THREE TIMES IN THE BIBLE. BECAUSE OF ITS COMMON MISUSE WE COULD PROFITABLY DISPENSE WITH IT.” SINCE THE WORD EVANGELICAL DOESN’T APPEAR AT ALL AND IS ALSO MISUSED, SHOULD WE DISPENSE WITH IT, TOO?

We could, in theory, for the same reason. The words that are used in the New Testament most frequently are believer, brother or sister, and child of God. There isn’t a word that the Bible itself gives us to which we have to be loyal.

But the reason I want to stick with evangelical is a historical one. It has expressed a recognizable tradition, to which I still belong (and am proud and thankful to belong), and I want to take my stand not only on Scripture but in that tradition.

DOES IT ALARM YOU TO HEAR PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES “POSTEVANGELICAL”?

Yes. I don’t know what they mean, but it does alarm me. If you are “post” anything, you are leaving something behind, and I want to know what it is. If it’s our many faults and failures, fine, but that’s not postevangelicalism, it’s post-twisted-evangelicalism.

WHAT ARE THE WEAKNESSES OF EVANGELICALISM?

We’ve discussed our rugged individualism and the difficulty we have in cooperating with one another. Another weakness is our dogmatism. Instead of remembering Deuteronomy 29:29, we are dogmatic about even the things that God has kept secret. We’re often not prepared to admit a certain agnosticism, which is a very evangelical thing, if we are alluding to what God has not revealed.

We have many weaknesses. I’m sure there are plenty more if I were to go on.

DO YOU THINK THAT OUR EMPHASIS ON “THE CHRISTIAN MIND” MAY HAVE PREVENTED US FROM FULLY AFFIRMING THE WISDOM TO BE FOUND OUTSIDE THE CHURCH?

What you mean is: Should we pay attention to the wisdom literature of other religions?

AND THE WISDOM OF PEOPLE WITH NO RELIGION?

Yes, we certainly should, even if with reservations and a desire to bring their thinking to the ultimate touchstone of biblical authority. The key text is John 1:9, which says that the logos, the Son of God before the Incarnation, is the true light coming into the world and giving light to everybody. I believe that is the right translation — that he is constantly coming into the world. Indeed, he has never left it, because the world was made by him, and so he is in the world. He was in the world even before he came into it in the Incarnation, and as the logos he is giving light to everybody.

So, there is a certain light of common sense, reason, and conscience that everybody has, because they’re also made in the image of God. To be sure, reason is fallen and fallible; nevertheless, it still operates.

For those two reasons, the divine logos and the human logos, if you like, we should listen respectfully to what other people are saying, even if at the end of the day we have the liberty to say, “No, that is wrong, because the Bible teaches otherwise.”

GOD AND THE POOR

Authentic Christianity records you saying in 1981: “What will posterity see as the chief Christian blind spot of the last quarter of the twentieth century? I do not know. But I suspect it will have something to do with the economic oppression of the Third World and the readiness with which Western Christians tolerate it, and even acquiesce to it.”

I did, I think, mention three blind spots. The nuclear horror was another one: evangelicals were the last people to make a statement about the immorality of weapons of indiscriminate destruction. I think the third one was the environment.

There is a great deal in the Bible about God’s concern for the poor.Poverty – not poverty in the sense of simplicity, but in the sense of lacking the basic wherewithal for survival — is not really on our evangelical conscience yet. Partly because many people have not traveled and seen oppressive poverty with their own eyes, although they have seen the pictures on television.

ARE WE TOO READY IN THE WEST TO ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT A SUCCESSFUL CHURCH IS ALSO AN AFFLUENT ONE?

Because some people see prosperity as a mark of God’s blessing, even today, they can’t come to terms with poverty. We have to have the courage to reject the health-and-wealth gospel absolutely. It’s a false gospel.

DO YOU THINK THE IDEA THAT GOD WANTS US TO BE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE HE LOVES US PRESENTS A THREAT TO A CUTTING-EDGE SPIRITUALITY?

Well, we’re sitting in a very comfortable flat as we talk, and it’s easy to say! But I do think that comfort is dangerous, and we should constantly be re-examining our lifestyle.

The New Testament is beautifully balanced on this. Paul avoids both extremes, not least in 1 Timothy 4 and 6. Asceticism is a rejection of the good gifts of the good Creator. Its opposite is materialism — not just possessing material things but becoming preoccupied with them. In between asceticism and materialism is simplicity, contentment, and generosity, and these three virtues should mark all of us.

It’s not a question of rules and regulations about our income and how many rooms or cars we have. It’s these principles of simplicity, contentment, and generosity over against covetousness, materialism, and asceticism that we have to apply to our living all the time. We need to give away what we are not using, because if we don’t use it, we don’t need it.

(continued in later article)

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine — ctcurrmrj6T124b612g

#3722

*

There’s a tug-of-war taking place in American society between absolute truth and moral relativism, and too often the latter is winning.

That’s what more than 700 college students and their leaders attending 1995 Student Week Aug. 5-10 learned before being challenged to “reclaim the higher ground” of morality on their campuses.

“There are some real problems in our society today, some cracks in the foundation and my generation let them form,” Sam Douglass, pastor of Yorktown Baptist Church, Corpus Christi, Texas, said during a morning Bible study at the meeting, which was held at the Gatlinburg (Tenn.) Conference Center. “My challenge to you as a new generation is to reclaim the high ground because my generation gave it away.”

The theme for the conference, tied in closely to Josh McDowell’s “Right from Wrong” campaign, was “Absolutes? Absolutely!” It was designed to point students to the absolute truth of God’s Word.

The basic struggle society faces, Douglass said, is choosing between two models of truth. The first, a theocentric (God-centered) model, says truth is defined by God for everyone; it is objective and absolute. The second is anthropocentric (man-centered), and says truth is defined by the individual; it is subjective and situational.

Douglass told students they will find peers on their campuses who live according to all kinds of standards, from “if it feels good do it” to “the latest thing they’ve seen on TV.

“A whole generation of people are grasping at straws, looking for truth in pagan deities, Eastern religions and crystals,” he said, pointing out 126 new cults formed last year in California alone.

But absolute truth, he said, is “that which is for all people, for all time, for all places… God himself is the standard.”

But “openness” and “tolerance” are the cardinal virtues in education today, Lamar Cooper, director of denominational relations for the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, said in a seminar on “Making Moral Choices.” Students are taught to fear anyone who teaches or says they have absolute truth, he said, adding “they are considered to be a danger.”

The problem, Cooper said, came when society began placing human reason above divine revelation.

To determine right from wrong in an increasingly complex world, Cooper said Christians must learn to develop spiritual discernment. Four things are necessary:

1. Personal salvation through faith in Christ.

2. Leadership of the Holy Spirit.

3. Knowledge of the Word of God.

4. Putting that knowledge into action.

Students met in discussion groups throughout the week to discuss how they can confront moral relativism on their campuses and in their own lives. Drawn from the new collegiate workbook, “Out of the Moral Maze,” compiled by McDowell, they learned to “consider the four C’s” when determining right and wrong:

— Consider the choice;

— Compare it to God;

— Commit to his way;

— Count on his protection and provision.

Speaking during an evening worship celebration, Rene Rochester told students the best defense against moral relativism is knowledge of the Word of God.

“The problem in the church today is that we’re not hiding the Word of God in our heart,” Rochester, women’s director of Kids Across America Ministries, said. “I don’t read God’s Word because it’s the right thing to do; I read it because I’m in love with the author. I want to read the love letters he wrote to me.”

In a session with student ministers, Rochester said God is looking for leaders with a “shepherd’s heart. You can’t lead someone where you yourself can’t go. Your public ministry will be no more powerful than your time alone with God.”

Dan Yeary, pastor of North Phoenix Baptist Church, Phoenix, Ariz., told students the “ultimate absolute” of the Christian faith is the Great Commission. “It gives us direction to who we are and what we do in our lives. It is the purpose of the church and every individual believer,” he said. The question every Christian must ask, Yeary said, is, “Will we share what we have? Some people are spiritual sponges. They absorb all this stuff and never share it by squeezing themselves out. … Are you going to sit and soak or are you going to go and give?” he asked.

Student Week was sponsored by the Baptist Sunday School Board’s national student ministry.

Copyright (c) 1995 Baptist Press – RNbp5810mrjB5810f5824 #3515

*

Although the conflict between objectivity and relativity is old, it's not hopeless. There is a way of defining the conflict that can win some converts to the cause of objectivity.

[There is] a view currently popular in our universities, claiming that every value judgment or assertion that one statement is more objective or true than another (such as that science provides our most reliable account of the universe) is merely a subjective expression of personal bias.(1) This view is usually attributed to deconstructionism, postmodernism, feminism, or some other recent movement. It is older than these.

I taught literature in universities for many years. I retired before postmodernism and its ilk became fashionable. From the beginning of my career, I heard views like those above, usually from students trying to persuade me to raise their grade on a test or critical essay. Typically they argued the view right after I said that their evidence did not support their conclusions. If I questioned the validity of their reasoning, they usually responded, "IT'S VALID FOR ME."

Many of them were merely trying to justify sloppy work. (Paradoxically, they justified it by denying the need for justification.) But sometimes I heard similar arguments from students whose sincerity I respected. One year I taught a small graduate seminar on Contemporary American Fiction. Each week we read a novel by a different modern author [and then we would discuss it.] But sometimes the students bogged down in an impasse they couldn't resolve. Some would still be trying to uncover the central core of the work, but others would argue that this effort was pointless because, they said, every reader experiences a work differently.

I thought about this impasse but couldn't find a way past it. Finally, in the hope that even stating the problem might help, I defined for the class what seemed to me to be the two opposing points of view. I admitted that I favored one of these, so I expected objections. To my surprise, there were none. More to my surprise (since I wasn't trying to be persuasive), I had the impression that I had won the class over to my view. Still more to my surprise, the impasses seldom occurred during the rest of the term. When similar problems occurred in other courses, I told those students about my experience in the seminar, and again, the explanation usually seemed to reduce the conflict.

[My argument ran as follows]:

We all agreed that a basic difference between the two positions was that one group believed that there are MANY REALITIES, whereas the other group believed that there is ONLY ONE. I called these groups "pluralists" and "monists" and described the pluralists' position like this:

"The only reality we know is what we experience. Since your

experience differs from mine, your reality is different from

mine. Hence there are as many realities as there are people.

Those multiple realities are the only reality there is." I

think the pluralists agreed with this description. At least,

they nodded. (Maybe they were just sleepy.)

The disparity appeared in our respective notions of what the monists believed. Apparently the pluralists assumed that monists - by definition, people who believe in only one reality - must also believe that they (and only they) know exactly what reality is. To the pluralists, monism sounded like bigotry.

But the monism I described, which I and the other students seemed to share, was this:

There is only one reality. We don't know it completely or perfectly.

We can't know it completely because it's too big. Our spacecraft can

never investigate every planet. We can't know it perfectly because

our instruments aren't good enough. Besides, according to relativity

and modern quantum physics (which most of us currently consider the

most reliable descriptions), the universe is so weird that our minds

cannot possibly form a clear image of it.

We can't even see our immediate environment directly. Instead, we construct a mental image of it and "see" that. Although there's an image painted on our retina by light rays, we're not like cameras. We ourselves don't see an image until our optic nerves have sent their individual little bits of data up to and through a series of centers in our brain that combine and interpret these bits with the aid of knowledge stored in our memories. Our feelings help us to construct the image, but also distort it. Our emotions and cultures make some things beautiful and important, other things ugly and trivial. We continually make mistakes.

BUT THE VERY FACT THAT WE KNOW THAT WE MAKE MISTAKES AND CAN DETECT AND OFTEN CORRECT THEM SHOWS THAT THERE'S A REFERENCE REALITY OUT THERE, A "REAL" REALITY, AND THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR IMAGE OF IT. We can learn by experience and history and knowledge we get from others. None of us is always right, but some people are right more often than others (at least within their "fields"), and the rest of us would be wise to consult these people and respect and weigh their advice. ... We have assembled a large and generally (though not perfectly) reliable body of information. If it is contaminated with bias, we can reduce the contamination.

I didn't say all this in the literature seminar. I didn't even explicitly connect these philosophical abstractions to the study of literature. It didn't seem necessary. Probably the students saw for themselves that one purpose of their literary analysis was to improve their image of the author's image of reality. Anyway, it was clear that THE CENTRAL IDEA OF OUR MONISM WAS THAT OBJECTIVITY, TRUTH, AND REALITY EXIST, even though we can't master or define or know them perfectly.

I believe that the pluralists in the seminar decided that their position was not so different from ours after all. What they called personal realities, we called mental images. What they experienced as different realities, we experienced as limitations in our images, streaks on our windows. All (!) we were adding was that OUT THERE BEYOND THE WINDOWS EXISTS THE REAL THING. We'll never see it directly or wholly, just as we'll never see Mt. Rainier or Mt. Fuji from all sides at once. But we can get closer and closer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Emphases by Holwick]

REFERENCES

1. Is science concerned with truth? Estling 22(4); Science, scientism, and anti-science in the age of preposterism, Haack 21(6); Antiscience in academia, Gross and Levitt 19(2); The antiscience threat, Kurtz and Holton 18(3); Science: The feminists' scapegoat? Walker 18(l).

Robert Stanton is an associate professor of English emeritus who has taught at the University of Washington, Seattle (195682); Northwestern University (19531956); and universities in Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Germany. He lives in Seattle.

Most people do not usually find Jesus in a Harvard University lecture hall. But Tricia Lyons became intrigued by an "Is God Dead at Harvard?" poster on campus during her sophomore year and attended a lecture by apologist Ravi Zacharias. She emerged a changed woman. "It was a complete road-to-Damascus experience for me," she says.

Students in today's universities are accustomed to difficult questions. But a growing number of universities are hosting an apologetic Christian outreach program with a much different flavor, asking perhaps the hardest questions of all: Does truth exist? And is it worth seeking?

This program, called the Veritas Forum after the Latin word for truth found on Harvard's seal, is built around an intensive period of on-campus events, discussions, and lectures. The goal is to target "the thinking seeker or skeptic, to help them see the presuppositions behind their beliefs," according to Kelly Monroe, Baptist chaplain of the Harvard-Radcliffe United Ministry and cofounder of the Veritas Forum. "We want people to see the beauty of truth in the person of Jesus Christ and his relevance to all of life."

Birthed by Monroe and friends at Harvard University in 1992, a dozen Veritas Forums have taken place across the country, with 25,000 people attending. Another 15 forums are planned this year.

The transmigration from Harvard resulted in large part from the support of cofounder Jerry Mercer, a Columbus, Ohio, businessperson whose New Creations Foundation gives money toward the first forum a school holds. "The church needs to stop hiding from rigorous questions," he says. "The Veritas Forum is trying to destroy the false paradigm that you have to shatter your brain to follow Jesus."

TAILORED TO SCHOOL NEEDS [below not used 12/15/96]

While certain speakers such as Zacharias, sociologist Os Guinness, law professor Phillip Johnson, and philosopher Eleanor Stump have made repeat appearances, the actual presentation differs from school to school. Monroe notes that the mission statement of the Veritas Forum is "intentionally vague." She says, "Wherever the Veritas Forum is, we want it to represent a co-mission of Christian and kindred spirits" that contextualizes its presentation based on the history and heritage of the school.

For example, Harvard's 1994 forum featured an "alternative historical tour" of the school, designed to enlighten listeners about the original Christian purposes of the institution. On the other end of the programmatic spectrum, nearly 1,000 people gathered to hear Johnson discuss his case against naturalism at the University of Michigan's forum in Ann Arbor. "Often, our outreach misses the faculty and the graduate students," says Charles Roeper, a field director with Campus Crusade for Christ's Christian Leadership Ministry and codirector of the Veritas Forum at the University of Michigan. "For this audience, I thought integrating faith and scientific disciplines was a great idea."

Between one-fifth and one-half of forum attendees are unchurched students, faculty, or community residents. Bob Fryling, of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, says that "if you want a huge attendance, you plan a concert and talk about sex. But the Veritas Forum will attract those who are interested in truth. It may be a smaller minority, but those people will be a galvanizing force on campus."

In addition to raising the credibility of Christian witness on campus, forum organizers single out another significant byproduct of hosting such an event: the gelling of the Christian community, which must come together to organize and raise funds to host a forum on campus. In some cases, this proves to be the most painstaking part of the process.

Mercer hopes that these partnerships and the growing visibility of Christians on campuses will not cease after the meetings end. "I don't think of the Veritas Forum as a one-time event," he says. "I think of it as a way to systematically change the campus." He is also planning a one-week summer "Veritas Institute" for Christian faculty and professionals.

THE TIME IS NOW

While some Christians advocate withdrawing from the "battleground" of the modern secular university, Guinness believes now is the best time for students to be challenged with the truth claims of Jesus Christ. "There is no strong post-Christian rival to the gospel. This is the greatest evangelistic opportunity the church has had in 500 years," he says. "Sometimes, Christians are too preoccupied with perceived persecutions."

Harry Stout, professor of church history at Yale University, agrees. "Some evangelicals have a tendency to focus only on the negative on our secular campuses, to create an embattled rhetoric of 'us against them,' which is unfortunate, and in the long run, unproductive."

In the meantime, some students who attend Veritas Forum events continue to further the cause of Christian truth. Lyons, for example, is now a graduate student in theology at Harvard Divinity School; she plans to get her doctorate in theology and teach at the university level. As a result of her Veritas Forum experience, she says, "I want to communicate to others that you don't have to be crazy to be a Christian intellectual."

------------------

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

ctcurrmrj6T1061612g

#3944

*

Sermon in Big Questions series. Truth, as evidenced by Jesus. John 1:9-14

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

DO WE HAVE A MONOPOLY ON TRUTH?

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

I. A politically-incorrect Christmas.

A. "Merry Christmas" is taboo.

B. Satellite dish religion.

II. The need for toleration.

A. There is much good in other faiths.

B. Inadequacies in our own faith.

C. Tolerance doesn't mean agreement.

III. Is there any such thing as objective truth?

A. Modern society is hungry - for something.

B. The gospel avoids asking for mere intellectual agreement.

C. What is demanded is conversion, detoxification, being born again.

IV. The real meaning of Christmas. John 1:9-14

A. Most don't recognize Jesus.

B. Truth became a man.

C. "Peace on earth" was not for everyone. Luke 2:14

V. Truth doesn't convert, but it can lead to Jesus.

A. Our problem with the gospel is moral more than intellectual.

B. Love works better than arguments.

#4013

*

From Robert L. Dabney, Professor of Theology, Union Seminary; Chief of Staff, Corp of Lt. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, Army of Northern Virginia; and Professor of History, University of Texas:

"The sin of perjury is the most enormous that can be committed

against truth. It is a lie, a breach of promise, a shocking

profanity near to blasphemy of God, and a sin against society

little short of murder and treason."

A more complete quote from Dr. Dabney concerning 'Rules for Promises, Vows, and Oaths':

"... The oath is a promise made to a fellow, the commonwealth, or

God, sealed by a distinct, deliberate appeal to the infinite

attributes of God to act as umpire between the promiser and

promisee, and as retributor in case of breach. It is a solemn act

of worship. Hence, as our Saviour teaches, only to be used in

grave cases and when called for by God or the civil or

ecclesiastical magistrate. The sin of perjury is the most

enormous that can be committed against truth. It is a lie, a

breach of promise, a shocking profanity near to blasphemy of God,

and a sin against society little short of murder and treason.

"... The sanctity of oaths is the final barrier which society has

erected around all our rights and welfare. He who practices to

weaken this barrier is setting at work tendencies toward universal

wrong and wholesale destruction. Is any outlaw or murderer, then,

a worse enemy of mankind than the perjurer? The supreme

aggravation of his crime is the profane attempt to involve God in

it. It is a sin so enormous that none but a practical atheist

could commit it."

In 1991 James Patterson and Peter Kim released The Day America Told the Truth. Only 13% of Americans see all Ten Commandments as binding and relevant; 91% lie regularly, both at work and in their homes; most American workers admit to goofing off for an average of seven hours, almost one whole day per week; and half of our work force admits that they regularly call in sick when they feel perfectly well.

One particular question on the survey really grabbed me: "What are you willing to do for $10 million?" (Are you sitting down?) -

25% would abandon their families;

23% would become a prostitute for a week;

7% would murder a stranger!

Your organist has bad breath, but you're certain of the consequences if you tell her, your deacon chairman hugs the ladies a little too enthusiastically, but to tell him is one step away from updating your resume. Well, finally there's a way to tell them without all of the potential conflict.

Several Internet companies will anonymously inform anyone about anything, for a price. The put-downs come in plain envelopes with phony return addresses. [Gillmartin's note: You'll have to search out the URLs yourself, since I don't agree with this approach to problem solving.]

APPLICATION: Few things are more painful among members of the Body of Christ than anonymous criticism.

It comes in all forms and sizes: "Well, John, I'd love to tell you who told me but they asked not to be identified." Or: "I'm sorry, pastor, but I just can't remember who told me you were having an affair." Or: "Ordinarily I wouldn't pass on stuff like this, but we're such good friends I just had to tell you." Or: "I assure you, several people told me. And, no, I can't remember who!" Or: "Pastor, you really ought to give this some thought. After all, I've heard EVERYBODY is talking about it." Or: "Personally, I think you're a fine teacher. I just thought you'd like know a lot of others don't agree."

Nevertheless messages clothed in the armor of anonymity are stealth pipe bombs, intended to inflict the greatest damage at the least cost by a cowardly enemy.

The evil foundation of such criminal communication is the bedrock of Hell itself. People involved in rumor mongering, backbiting and gossip are misguided missiles from Satan himself.

We must not only abstain from evil [1 Thessalonians 5:22] but avoid even the hint of it [Ephesians 5:3].

Source/Attribution: John Gillmartin

En boca cerrada no entran moscas (A closed mouth catches no flies.) [Spanish Proverb]

From: Jim Hopkins, Hopkins@snowhill.com

Subject: What if Bill Clinton was King David?

Message-ID: 3611ABC2.F30BEFF3@snowhill.com

What if Bill Clinton was King David? (2 Samuel 11-12)

His Address to the nation:

My fellow countrymen, I have requested this air time on ISRL to speak to you about questions regarding my relationship to a woman you've heard a lot about in recent months. I mean of course, my newest wife Bathsheba.

You may have wondered about our marriage so soon after the death of one of our national heroes, her late husband Uriah.

Many rumors have been spread concerning the tragic death of our son shortly after his birth. As you can well imagine, this has been a painful time for my family and me.

I acknowledge that there was something inappropriate about my relationship with this woman before our marriage.

I realize that my silence coupled with my previous statements may concern you. My assertion that I did not have sexual relations with my wife before our marriage was technically correct (for she was not my wife before our marriage). I was also correct when I affirmed that when Uriah was killed in battle I had nothing to do with it, because General Joab issued the battle orders. I, however, did not volunteer to reveal any information. You may feel you have been misled.

There are reasons for my silence and my previous statements. For one thing, I did not see any reason I should suffer public embarrassment by revelations about one of my personal relationships. I have also been concerned about the impact of this information on my other wives and children.

And I did not feel it proper for anyone to cast a shadow over my latest marriage or the sorrow of a recently widowed woman I have tried to comfort.

But there is another reason, and it is the cause of the anger you discern in my voice and demeanor tonight. I have had enough of that meddling investigative and judgmental prophet Nathan. What happened between Bathsheba and me should have remained a matter to be handled within the royal family and it would have if Nathan had not burst uninvited into my palace and tricked me, by taking advantage of my compassionate nature, into saying things better left unsaid.

You need to know that this prophet Nathan is mean-spirited. In addition to exposing my private life, he has heartlessly announced "judgments", short-term and long-term, for my mistake. You won't believe this, but he says the death of our son was the result of what he calls "my sin". Can you imagine the anguish this has caused grieving parents?

He also has the audacity to predict that, while I may be forgiven, I must live with the consequences of my actions the rest of my life. He says my family will always experience conflict and that I will be humiliated "in broad daylight" for what I did "in secret". All this after I replaced a failed king, united the country, defeated its enemies, and moved the ark to Jerusalem. What kind of man is this?

Enough is enough. This matter is between me and my family and our God. It is not the business of the prophet or anyone else. It will be settled within our family and in the privacy of our personal consciences.

I'm sure you agree. Which of the elders of Israel or which of you could stand up under the scrutiny of a prying prophet like Nathan? Citizens, and yes, even kings, have a right to privacy.

It is time to move on. My family and I need time to heal from the tragedies we've experienced and from the unmerciful probing of this prophet. As a nation we need to deal with the current threats of the Philistines and Ammonites, to deepen our national unity, and to build on the prosperity I've brought you during my reign.

I am confident of your understanding and support. You and I are flawed people. What we need is not confrontation and condemnation by priggish prophets. Let us forgive each other, feel each other's pain, and sympathetically help each other deal with the many arbitrary and unwelcome providences that disturb our personal peace.

Good night. And God bless us, as we so richly deserve.

As a way of keeping up with what’s happening around the world, I read the NEW YORK TIMES every day, sometimes through clenched teeth. I’ve often thought its legendary slogan should be “All the news that fits OUR BIAS we print.” It is unashamedly liberal, but in my mind a great paper nonetheless.

To its credit, the TIMES has exposed and acknowledged an incredible breach of trust. Reporter Jayson Blair repeatedly misled editors and readers with fraudulent dispatches and plagiarism. Grievous problems were found in thirty-six of the seventy-three columns he has written since last fall.

The TIMES reported all of this in an agonizing page-one story in which it acknowledged its own failings and raised serious questions about the supervision of reporters and ethical standards followed by its reporters and editors.

The TIMES said that it must trust its employees to “uphold central principles” and that “Mr. Blair repeatedly violated the cardinal tenet of journalism, which is simply truth.” The TIMES statement is admirable. I agree with it 100 percent. The cardinal tenet of journalism is truth.

The problem is that the TIMES doesn’t believe there is such thing as truth — that is, absolute reality. In fact, probably no newspaper in America has been harsher on evangelicals and conservative Catholics for making truth claims or, as it has disparagingly called them, “moral absolutes.”

Truth is, by its very nature, an exclusive claim — that is, if what is being stated is true, something else cannot also be. And truth is true even if no one believes it, yet the TIMES and much of the academic establishment in America reject this proposition. In fact, so widespread is the postmodern philosophy today that 64 percent of Americans believe that there is no such thing as moral truth.

But now the TIMES finds itself caught in what has been called “the postmodern impasse.” It may be fashionable to dismiss moral truth claims, but the absence of truth leads to chaos, and we find we can’t live with it. The TIMES can’t live with a reporter carrying its own philosophy to its logical conclusion. The editors want their people to report only truth, but they don’t believe absolute truth exists.

Should we then be surprised that a twenty-seven-year-old journalist steeped in postmodernism and multiculturalism — points of view vigorously defended in the pages of the NEW YORK TIMES — doesn’t believe “the cardinal tenet of journalism, which is simply truth”? If we say there is no truth, we shouldn’t be surprised when people make up stories and pass them off as if they actually happened.

And this is one of those issues that we can use with our secular friends to show that the position of the secular world today, its belief system, is philosophically untenable. You cannot live with the logical conclusion of what they say they believe.

I respect the TIMES and its handling of this crisis. The problem is that the TIMES can’t possibly solve its own problem. This is a crisis of truth that will be solved only when our elites, like the NEW YORK TIMES, reject postmodern relativism and once again commit themselves to the honest pursuit of THE truth.

_______________________________

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

“TIMES REPORTER WHO RESIGNED LEAVES LONG TRAIL OF DECEPTION,” NEW YORK TIMES, May 11, 2003 (free registration required).

Jacques Steinberg, “EDITOR OF TIMES TELLS STAFF HE ACCEPTS BLAME FOR FRAUD,” NEW YORK TIMES, May 15, 2003 (free registration required).

William Safire, “‘HUGE BLACK EYE,’” NEW YORK TIMES, May 12, 2003 (free registration required).

“THE SULZBERGER STANDARD,” NEW YORK SUN, May 12, 2003, 6 (thanks to Jonah Goldberg for the link in NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE’S “THE CORNER”).

Howard Kurtz, “N.Y. TIMES UNCOVERS DOZENS OF FAKED STORIES BY REPORTER,” WASHINGTON POST, May 11, 2003.

Howard Kurtz, “TENSION, ANGER AT NYT STAFF MEETING OVER HANDLING OF REPORTER BLAIR,” WASHINGTON POST, May 15, 2003.

Al Hunt, “THE NEW YORK TIMES SCANDAL: ABOUT VALUES, MORE THAN RACE,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 15, 2003 (available only to subscribers).

Heather MacDonald, “L’AFFAIRE BLAIR,” CITY JOURNAL, May 13, 2003.

Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley, “TIMES AND AGAIN,” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, May 15, 2003.

John J. Miller, “BOOK BURNER?” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, May 15, 2003.

In Sources No. 11, CREATING THE GOOD SOCIETY: BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR A SAFE AND ORDERLY COMMUNITY, Charles Colson addresses how we can achieve the virtue necessary to maintain a good society and to preserve liberty. Also addressed are natural law; relativism; naturalism; personal and public morality; ethics; and personal responsibility. (See also Sources No. 5, THE CRISIS OF TRUTH, and Sources No. 3, CHRISTIANS AND THE MEDIA ELITE.)

The WORLDVIEW RESOURCE DIRECTORY and WORLDVIEW FOR TEENS: A RESOURCE GUIDE contain information on valuable resources that will help you strengthen your biblical worldview.

________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. “BreakPoint with Chuck Colson” is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4729]

Penny Baxter in THE YEARLING wanted to get rid of a worthless bear dog he had. Custom was to brag on dog. More you bragged more everyone knew you were lying. Penny took dog to Lenn Forrester and went on telling what a lousy dog. Sorriest dog I ever owned ..." Man thot: Never heard a man talk about his OWN dog that way. Next day man came and demanded a trade. Conscience bothered Penny. Son: "You told the truth, Pa." "Yes," said Penny, "my words were straight, but but my intention was as crooked as the Ocklawaha River."

"Is truth in the eye of the beholder?" asked University of Richmond senior Larina Orlando, of Warrenton, VA. That's a good question, replied a committee of "Richmond Quest" contest judges. Good enough to win Orlando $23,900.

Richmond Quest was a promotion of the University of Richmond. What the committee was looking for was a question worthy of launching a one-year, campuswide pursuit of answers, ideas and new questions. The winner would receive a year's tuition, plus room and board.

She's not so ready with an answer to her $23,900 question. "I'm tempted to say in the 20th century that the answer is `yes,' Orlando said. "But I would like to say `no.' I think it is difficult to live without clear standards of right and wrong."

Story by Tom Campbell

Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, April 6, 1999