"There is a book..."

When I first heard the news that Ken Ham and Bill Nye were going to debate, a sense of excitement took hold of me. The subject: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" I can't recall another recent opportunity for a Christian to engage such a well-known public defender of Darwinian Evolution, so I knew this was going to be a big deal. In fact, the week of the debate it was given a good amount of media attention in the secular press. If you have not seen it yet, please take this as my personal recommendation to watch the debate.

There has been some talk about whether this was a real debate or not, and I tend to lean towards those who say it was lacking a key element of a formal debate: namely, cross examination. In any case, I found the debate thrilling and frustrating. I agree with most of the conclusions that James White offered on his webcast, The Dividing Line, where he essentially said that Bill Nye won the debate based purely on debating grounds. I don't mean to dismiss Ken Ham by any stretch, because I thought he did a marvelous job. However, consider for a moment the subject for the debate. From the outset, Ham was at a disadvantage because it put him on the defensive, which left Nye without a burden to defend his own position, and allowed him to attack creationism at will.

Both men were fairly polite and respectful, each giving a captivating presentation. Bill Nye the science guy, with all his charm and nifty-looking bow tie, was openly cavalier in how he spoke of Ken Ham, creationists, and ... Kentucky voters. He made repeated references to "Ken Ham's creation model" in an attempt to make him seem even more distant from the alleged consensus of scientists. To the advocate of Darwinian Evolution who questions this, let me ask you: how would you feel if Ken Ham repeatedly made reference to "Bill Nye's evolution model"? Nye stated a couple times how "We, on the outside [do science this way]" (Brackets Mine), implying that outside of the Creation Museum, and/or outside your non-scientific perspective, is how you do "real" scientific analysis. The implication was made over and over again that if one wants to do "real" science, you must reject the supernatural realm, the Bible, the Christian faith, and any notion of disagreement with the majority of scientists.

"This is very troubling to me," Nye declared numerous times. What was troubling to him? There seemed to be two things: (1) that Creationism departs from the majority opinion of modern academia. And (2) a belief in the supernatural.

I will tell you this much: what was troubling to me was Bill Nye's lack of self-reflection. Ironically, for all the mention of "Ken Ham's Creation Model," Nye was woefully ignorant of Ham's actual beliefs on the most basic elements of his creation model. Nye demonstrated an unwillingness to test his own ideas; and why should he since they are proven facts? Right? There was an attitude of dismissiveness towards those who reject the majority opinion. As Ken Ham pointed out: both creationists and evolutionists have the exact same evidence; it is their interpretation that is different. And what causes a different interpretation of the same evidence? One's worldview is solely responsible for this.

He made many appeals to Kentucky voters, pleading that our schools should stick to teaching "science." Of course, what he meant was strictly teaching Darwinian Evolution. I will hand it to Nye, though - at least he wasn't hiding his belief that only his views should be taught in school. One thing that Ken Ham did very well was to point out that since no one was there to observe our beginnings, what we believe about the past is a matter of faith derived from one's worldview. This may appropriately be called a religion - a set of beliefs and presuppositions that comprise an entire worldview by which we interpret the world around us. Therefore, it shouldn't be a stretch to include theories such as Intelligent Design in our public schools, which would simply be an additional worldview taught alongside an already present one. I'm not naive enough to believe this is likely to happen, considering the stranglehold leftists have on our educational system and academics today. But in a just and fair society, this would be a feasible way to present information on the subject of origins.

All in all, I was very proud of Ken Ham for his involvement in the debate. It takes some guts to stand up to the might of modern science, and to have your beliefs mocked. Not everyone could do what Ken Ham did, and I hope many Christians consider that before harshly criticizing his performance. It is all too easy to criticize, especially behind the power of the keyboard (an instrument that turns everyone into an intellectual giant in their own mind). Do I think Ham could have been more effective in how he approached the debate? Yes, absolutely. I wish he was more direct in responding to some of the attacks made by Nye, and also in challenging his opponent's views. 

Nevertheless, it was incredibly refreshing to hear him boldly and uncompromisingly defend the Bible as the Word of God, and the Christian view of creation. My favorite part of the debate were the two times that Ken Ham seized the opportunity to explain that the Bible explains our origins: "There is a book, Mr. Nye, that discusses this. It's called the Bible..." I am proud of you, Mr. Ham. Thank you for your work and service to the body of Christ.

Live and Let Live: a World Where Anything Goes

"I support individual liberty, political freedom, and laissez-faire capitalism. I believe government is too big, too intrusive, and the biggest problem facing our nation. I believe that private citizens should have the right to live the way they want to live, in peace, and to be left alone. It's none of the government's business what you do in your private life. I say, live and let live!" ... Or so says the Libertarian.

At face value, I like most of the ideas listed above. Politically, I am a registered Republican, but consider myself significantly more conservative than my own party. I believe in smaller government, the right to privacy, responsible government spending, first amendment freedoms, and in Capitalism. In fact, when I first learned about libertarianism, I considered myself a Republican with libertarian leanings. But the more time libertarians have had to flesh out their ideas, the more they sound like anarchists than like any other political group.

In all fairness, I fully recognize that not all libertarians are the same - although it is difficult to properly define their political philosophy because there isn't a cohesive group aligning all (or most) parties. The closest American group is the Tea Party movement, which has such a loose set of ideas that its umbrella can encompass anarchists on the fringe of the political spectrum.

My biggest beef with libertarianism seems to be the concept of personal liberty taken to a new extreme. "If you want to have an abortion, you should be allowed to have an abortion. If two consenting adult siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to marry - government doesn't belong in the business of marriage anyways. If you want to smoke pot and get high, you should be allowed to get baked out of your mind." In other words, they do their very best to turn a blind eye to moral issues as if by ignoring them they will simply go away.

Stated pointedly, I am firmly opposed to the idea of liberty for everything. Considering the above examples: I don't support the murder of unborn human beings, incestuous relationships, or substances that the American Medical Association deem dangerous, with recreational use being used to get high.

In response, the immediate implication is: "So you basically support a Christian theocracy, forcing your religion on people." I would reply that there is a clear difference between supporting basic human morality and forcing Christianity on people through legal means. A distinction should be made between the state and religion - and this to protect religious and non-religious liberties, not the state. Finally, it doesn't do any good to pretend as if Christians are the only ones who possess a worldview by which the governing authorities pass laws and regulate morality. It is this last point that my libertarian friends do their best to steer clear of. Because no matter how much you wish you didn't have one, everyone has a worldview through which they interpret the world around us. Furthermore, all laws directly or indirectly regulate morality - to purport otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Here's a clear-cut example of what I mean: because murder is immoral, it is legally a crime to commit murder. My libertarian friends are quick to ask: "Aha! But where do you draw the line? Is EVERYTHING immoral to be considered a crime?" To which I respond: Ideally, yes, just not necessarily punishable by the state. The state is primarily responsible for allowing for a safe society that protects the rights and property of others, while also allowing for the flourishing of society. I've asked many libertarians this awkward question: So let's suppose there are 2 consenting adult brothers who want to get married and have a consensual sexual relationship - should the government allow this? In his heart of hearts the libertarian knows that incest is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong, and that marriage is exclusively a relationship between one man and one woman. But his worldview tells him that anything goes, so he faces a conundrum.

A common libertarian response to these sorts of puzzling scenarios goes something like this: "As long as you don't cause physical harm to someone or to someone's property, you should be allowed to do anything." This sounds like wisdom, except that there are 2 glaring shortcomings with this perspective. The first is that many such behaviors do cause physical harm. For example, there is documented evidence demonstrating that the homosexual lifestyle drastically shortens the average lifespan of homosexuals. Second, there are other kinds of harm being done as a direct result of this behavior. Consider the emotional and psychological impact of denying the proper sexual function assigned at birth. Psychological studies have shown the immense changes homosexual behavior has on the human brain.

Going a step further, your behavior doesn't only affect you (which is what we are told), but also has a profound impact on those around you. Let's pretend that I started cursing like a sailor. My speech would have an active affect on those who heard my foul language. Their thoughts would be affected which may lead to changes in their words and actions.

Here is another example: Let's say that I were unfaithful to my marriage, and was proud of this fact. When I arrived at the workplace, I would tell stories about the strip club I was going to, and what a great time I had! Day after day I am telling these stories to my coworkers, who are laughing along, without realizing the influence I'm having on their thinking. In a short amount of time, and with relative ease, my behavior has made an impression on my coworkers that may weaken their understanding of marriage, love, faithfulness, and how they regard human sexuality. Feigning ignorance that one's own behavior affects others is to live in a fantasy world.

What type of society do we really want? Do we want a society where anything goes, where moral standards are so degraded that we have difficulty recognizing good versus evil? Think about a recent case where a biological male identified himself as a female at the age of 2, who is now 16 and goes by Nicole. He was recently caught up in a controversy because his state of Maine has 2 conflicting laws about which bathroom transgendered students ought to use. Think about this for just a moment: a male toddler identified himself as female, his parents encouraged this confusion, and our society is baffled about which bathroom he should use. Is this the type of society that we really want? One where the gift of gender cannot provide a meaningful expression of our identity as human beings?

My point is simply that morality is a good thing. Christian morality is a good thing. "I don't want your morality pushed on me!" cries the Libertarian. You're winning the popularity vote, Mr. Libertarian, so no need to worry any time soon. In any case, I don't have to exhaust my imagination to come up with an example of how Christian principles of morality can be applied to a society without forcing religion on people. In fact, I don't have to use my imagination at all! History records for us that America was founded on such principles, though I don't believe America was or is perfect as a government or a cultural setting. What it does show us is one possible way for how this might be done.

I would also go so far as to say that the insanity we are introducing in our society today can only bring about what insanity produces: further chaos. We will be left puzzled at what bathroom a gender-confused teenager ought to use, and even what pronouns we should use to describe someone! I feel like I've been saying this a lot lately, but worldview matters! If you believe that anything goes, and the ultimate authority for making moral determinations comes from each individual, you will be left without a moral basis to draw any kind of meaningful moral boundary. By contrast, the gospel of Christianity offers something truly unique: a consistent moral framework that is the best way to live life.

Jesus once told a parable of two men who each built a house on different foundations. The wise man built his house on the rock, and it withstood the pounding wind and rain, and the flood waters that crashed against it. The foolish man built his house on the sand, and could not withstand the bombardment, so it fell ... and how great was its fall. What was the difference between these two houses? Was it the materials used? Or how about the way they were built? Was the wise man more skilled at building? No ... the difference was the foundation they chose to build upon. The firm foundation of the rock allowed the house to withstand whatever it faced, while the shifting sand bought the foolish man's house to its destruction.

This parable is a marvelous example of why the foundation we choose to build our beliefs upon are of supreme importance. If your worldview is inconsistent and fails to properly explain and interpret the world in which we live, then your worldview will someday come crashing down upon you. However, if your worldview is built upon the foundation of Christianity, you can rest assured you are safe and secure upon the firm foundation of God's truth. Nothing can shake you.

The Ultimate Free Lunch

"I did it! I stopped!" Molly exclaimed. At least once a month Molly has a moment where her breath is taken away by a new experience. I recently taught her how to use the brakes on her bike, and once she did it on her own three or four times, she looked up and smiled at me, knowing that she accomplished a great feat. Now she can come to a complete stop by herself, look both ways for cars, and cross the street safely.

Do you remember the last time your breath was taken away by an experience? How about by observing the world and the Universe around us? For a few years now I have watched a variety of shows on the History and Discovery Channels about the Universe, and I found myself in awe of how amazing and strange it all seems to be. One scientist in particular was able to spark my imagination when considering the vastness of the cosmos: Alex Filippenko. So what did I do? I decided to read his Astronomy textbook, The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium by Pasachoff and Filippenko. My parents were kind enough to get me the textbook for my birthday, and I completed it just a few weeks ago.

The first thing I discovered in my reading was just how massive the Universe is. To set the stage, it is important to know that light travels at the speed of 300,000 km/s - or 186,000 miles per second - (pg. 2), and our own Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across (pg. 285)! Our galaxy contains "perhaps a few hundred billion stars" (pg. 384) and is one of 100 billion galaxies detectable by our best telescopes. Some stars called Neutron stars are only about 20 or 30 km across and yet a teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons (pg. 349). It is theorized that super massive black holes exist at the center of galaxies.

"As of 2013, the record mass of a supermassive black hole is 9.7 billion solar masses [one solar mass is equivalent to the mass of our sun], in an elliptical galaxy 320 million light-years from us in the constellation Leo, with a contender in Coma Berenices perhaps even more massive" (pg. 373, Brackets Mine).

Next in importance is the strangeness of the cosmos. Black holes, mysterious substances called dark matter and dark energy, and Quantum Physics force me to imagine the abstract in a bizarre new way. Surrounded by such aberrant and uncanny theories and possible discoveries, the textbook was compelled to discuss a recognition long understood by Christians: the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle basically states:  

"We exist, hence the Universe must have certain properties or we wouldn't be here to see it. ... In a few cases, apparently "mysterious" relationships between numbers were explained with anthropic reasoning. The values of the physical constants (not to mention the laws of physics seem to be spectacularly "fine-tuned" for life as we know it - indeed, almost "tailor-made" for humans. In many cases, if things were altered just a tiny amount, the results would be disastrous for life, and even for the production of heavy elements of molecules." (Pg. 535)

Makes sense, doesn't it? There is obvious complexity in the Universe, not limited to the complex life that we see on Earth, but also in the very composition of elements and the Laws of Physics. Complexity implies there exists design, which then implies a designer. Recognizing this is the reason this university science textbook felt obligated to briefly discuss the Anthropic Principle. I knew before reading this textbook that the authors were most likely coming at the subject from a purely secular and naturalist perspective. They presuppose that there is no god ... no designer ... and that all that is exists as the result of happenstance. Try as they might, one cannot escape the impact of one's worldview even in the realm of scientific analysis. For example, it is unsurprising why scientists who approach the study of the Universe from a naturalist angle interpret the evidence differently than one approaching it from a supernaturalist angle.

Like any good science book, this one began with a discussion of the Scientific Method, and the process by which they discern facts, create and test theories, arrive at scientific laws, and ultimately make conclusions. But the Scientific Method is also in bondage to one's worldview. Throughout the pages of The Cosmos are my annotations in the margins, highlighted sections, and scribbles intended for later use. What I was primarily looking for were the authors' presuppositions, which were surprisingly frequent. Don't get me wrong: presuppositions are not a bad thing - we all have presuppositions. But being unaware of them tends to make you a slave to them, because when unaware you lack the proper recognition to test your own traditions and consider alternate possibilities.

Contrary to what Astronomers previously thought, the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down but is expanding at an accelerating rate (pg. 341)! A mysterious Dark Energy is repelling the Universe further and further apart (pg. 341). It is believed that space itself is being created with the continuing expansion. Logically, if the Universe has been and continues to expand, then as you go further and further back in time we can conclude that the Universe was once very compact and had a beginning, or starting point: "The Universe had a definite beginning in time, called the Big Bang. The Universe isn't infinitely old" (Pg. 483). This begs the question: how did the Universe start? Here is the answer we're given:

"The Universe came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. Physicists are attempting to come up with ways to test this idea in principle, but no method has emerged yet; thus, in some respects it is not currently within the realm of science, which requires hypotheses to be experimentally or observationally testable ... If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is indeed correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is, in the words of Alan Guth, that the Universe is 'the ultimate free lunch!'" (Pg. 533)

We are told that the Universe came out of nothing, that in its first moment was very compact when the Big Bang occurs, thus forming all elements and the Laws of Physics. Something came from nothing, complexity came from non-complexity, life came from non-life, complex life came from non-complex life, and intelligence came from non-intelligence. I hope it is apparent to you that at the root of each of these conclusions lies an underscoring presupposition.

Conversely, here are the conclusions Christianity brings to the table: God created the Universe by His sheer will and power, He sustains it, He designed all the elements and the Laws of Physics, He is the designer and the intelligence behind all things, and He is the reason we and the Universe exist. To be fair, I'm demonstrating that I have my own set of presuppositions. The question then becomes: after testing each set of presuppositions, which worldview can consistently explain such things as the uniformity of nature, the laws governing the Universe, how and why we exist, and human dignity and morality? The worldview that proves to be internally inconsistent demonstrates its own fatal flaw. It is my contention that the Christian worldview, and only the Christian worldview, can properly interpret the world around us, and do so consistently.

Filippenko and Pasachoff impressed me by their willingness to scrutinize the historic view of the Big Bang Theory. They offered two primary problems: (1) The Horizon Problem - the Universe is so uniform, which you wouldn't expect if it were the result of the Big Bang. For example, cosmic background radiation is essentially identical in all directions. (2) The Flatness Problem - the Big Bang theory has no way of explaining "why the overall geometry of the Universe is so close to being flat" (Pgs. 526-527).

But they also offered the predominant theory to help answer both objections: inflation. Developed in the 1980's, the theory of inflation basically states that in the first moments of the Universe, it was much smaller than previously thought. Because the Universe was so compact it could explain how the temperature is so uniform. Then it may have inflated (expanded really fast) at an exponential rate during its first moments. This also could explain how the Universe is so flat (though they don't explain how inflation flattens it out) (pgs. 527-528).

I will admit that I wanted to (and needed to) read the section outlining the theory of inflation multiple times to fully comprehend the argument. One apparent problem is that since the cause of inflation is unknown (whether it is a certain element, or physical force), it is purely theoretical and therefore untestable. Even as an amateur, my initial thought was that since the Universe expanded at a rapid exponential pace, it seems possible within the framework of inflation that if inflation were true the Universe may be significantly younger than supposed. For example, if the Universe expanded so rapidly at the beginning, perhaps stars are as far away due more to inflation than the presupposed speed and time considered under current models. This could drastically (and exponentially) reduce the time it took for the Universe to be as spread out. It seems only logical that this remains a possibility ... again, all within their own framework.

So the theory of inflation is one possible solution to the problems associated with the historic view of the Big Bang theory. But what about the origin of the Universe? Above I cited the authors' acknowledgment that the Universe was created out of nothing, and yet, that is extremely unsatisfying, even to naturalist astronomers. Keep in mind that the law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which poses a contradiction to the Big Bang theory (pg. 510). 

One answer to how something can come from nothing involves the theories of quantum mechanics:  

"Quantum theory provides a natural explanation for how that energy [the energy that caused the inflation of the Universe] may have come out of nothing. It turns out that particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other, microscopically violating the law of energy conservation" (pg. 532, Brackets Mine).

 They continue... 

"Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our Universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one of them lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic Universe was born" (Pg. 532).

What concerns me most about this theory is that it is one thing to say that Quantum Physics exists in an already existent Universe, but you're asking me to believe that Quantum Physics may have had an impact in the creation of the Universe before there were Physics ... or the Universe? I'm gullible but not that gullible.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any more strange, another leap is made in attempt to explain all this. Enter: the multiverse.

"Is our Universe the only universe, or could it be one of many? The entire history of our Universe might be just one episode in the much grander multiverse consisting of many (perhaps infinitely many) universes" (pg. 533). 

This recognizably eccentric theory might encompass theories such as parallel universes, and even a "hyperspace" plane containing ours and other universes (Pg. 534). They continue:  

"There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes. For example, distinct quantum fluctuations could arise out of "nothing," some of which give rise to a universe. This "nothing" might be the vacuum of our Universe, or the "nothing" outside our Universe, in some sort of a larger "hyperspace." If a quantum fluctuation out of "nothing" created our Universe, it seems reasonable that such a process may have occurred many times (thereby making the hyperspace a multiverse), perhaps even infinitely many. We do not yet know whether this is a viable process. To find out, we need a fully self-consistent quantum theory of gravity that unites relativity with quantum physics, and theorists are currently quite excited by the potential of superstring theories" (Pg. 534). 

I can't help but single out this statement: "There seem to be at least three or four ways to produce other universes." Not gonna lie, I find this hilarious. Three or four ways? All involving theories such as the multiverse and inconsistent quantum mechanics. They do recognize the need for consistency, but I am awestruck that one would base one's beliefs about the origins of the Universe on recognizably inconsistent theories.

This brings me to my main point. And if you made it this far, allow me to thank you for sticking with me. Which is more logical:  an eternal and all-powerful Creator of all things, or the Universe coming out of nothing by nothing and for nothing? The Scriptures say that "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 53:1, NASB). It is foolish for us to approach the subject of astronomy, or any subject, from a worldview that fails to consistently interpret the world around us. Worldviews matter, no matter how much the secular humanist wishes he could be unbiased. You cannot escape from your worldview, for it is the lens through which you see the world.

When the Scriptures call someone a fool, it isn't intended to be a personal insult, but rather a statement expressing a lack of proper judgment. Remember that since all human beings are created in God's image, we all possess the same general revelation of God's existence, character and moral demands: "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20, NASB). This is why when we are talking with our fellow man, they know what we're saying is true, even though they naturally do their best to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). The Christian message rings true with all human beings across the globe because we have a common Creator, and we share a common natural condition as we enter this world.

What took my breath away as I read through The Cosmos was the sheer breadth, peculiarity and beauty of the heavens. There is an inherent wonder in the Universe, and I believe that all of creation is a testimony to God's handiwork: "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2, NASB). I'm learning to again have a childlike amazement at the work of God's hands, something I can see in the eyes of my two-year-old. I encourage the reader to do the same.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

That's a Wrap, 2013

The year came and went in a WHOOSH! My mind is overflowing with memories that will last a lifetime. The love I have for my wife only grew, my daughter is walking, talking, riding a bike, and expressing the many young opinions she has formulated. The Ryan home grew in love, and feels more settled with pictures and things on the walls. Definitely feels like home.

Emily continues to be an incredible resource to her financial firm, specializing in a couple key areas that helps her to be an invaluable asset to them. Being the expert that she is, she even recently trained a class of newly hired coworkers.

Thankfully, my lovely wife is able to work part time allowing her to spend more time with Molly. We have both come to realize the immense responsibility of parenting in 2013. Our behavior and our attitudes have a direct impact on our little girl. One funny moment last year was when Emily and Molly were in the car, and someone rudely cut off Emily. Emily proclaimed, "Gosh, lady!"  Molly has since yelled this out from time to time - without any comprehension of what this means. While this is one of the more humorous moments of her imitating us, it has served as a lesson that other actions and words will likewise be watched very closely.

Two year olds have about as much energy as exists within a black hole, and my little girl is no exception. Rather than being amazed that she needs a nap during the day, what is more amazing is that she doesn't require significantly more sleep! Let me tell you - if I ran around ... everywhere ... always performing various crafts, reading, jumping, randomly yelling and squealing, and having emotional breakdowns - I'd need to go to bed at 7:30pm too! The Bible tells us that children are a blessing, and it is a blessing that my wife and I now understand. The joy that our daughter brings to our lives is immense, and increases my love for God and His goodness towards me. Molly is already riding her bike that she got for Christmas! On day 1 she needed help peddling and steering. By day 2 she was peddling and steering (almost) completely by herself! By day 3, she was making her daddy jog beside her just to keep up =). I find myself looking forward to each stage of her life, just not the part where she meets another boy.

Last year was also the start to my new job at my firm. While I can't discuss any specifics here, I can say that the Lord helped me to succeed, doubling my goal for the year. I very much enjoy the work that I do, I have an amazing boss (which, those of you who know me know that this wasn't the case a couple years back), and get along with my coworkers.

In fact, the Lord blessed me with opportunities to discuss the gospel numerous times with a few of my coworkers (all during appropriate times, not interrupting work). My drive home each evening typically included a recap to my wife of that day's conversation(s). We talked about history, morality, ethics, worldviews and presuppositions, logic, astronomy, macro-evolution, human sexuality, marriage, the family, and a host of other subjects. By God's grace, I did my best to offer my take on each of these issues from a Christian perspective, which was admittedly strange for them to hear. All of this culminated at the end of the year - I asked two of my coworkers for their permission to write them a full presentation of the Christian faith, hopefully to spur further dialogue. It was not my intention for the presentation to be as long as it was - 24 pages - but I couldn't bring myself to shorten it, for the sake of clarity. My continued hope is that the Lord might delight in showing these coworkers, now my friends, the same grace He freely bestowed on me.

Gotta tell you though, not in my wildest dreams did I expect to have to deal with a drunk driving accident. But one day, unexpectedly, Emily called me after getting hit by a drunk driver. It was the guy's turn to carpool for a couple of other kids, none of which were buckled. The arm of the Lord protected my wife and daughter, Emily having escaped with nothing but whiplash. Thankfully, everyone in the other vehicle escaped unscathed. Our first car was totaled, thus resulting in a used 2012 Mazda 6, which is the nicest car we've ever owned. Emily is still going through physical therapy, but has improved greatly.

One Saturday afternoon in September, I received a knock on the door from a man and a woman, who wanted to invite me to an upcoming event at their church. Yes, they were Jehovah's Witnesses. That first day, we spoke on my front porch for more than an hour, and starting that afternoon I began brushing up on Watchtower theology for a conversation I scheduled for the following Saturday. I decided to not only brush up on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' organization), but also Koine Greek (New Testament Greek), the Trinity, and to work through the many relevant arguments that would likely come up in a conversation. I spent approximately 3 months studying and preparing during my meetings with them. I went through my first year Greek grammar for the second time, re-read James White's The Forgotten Trinity, also re-read Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes, and worked through a host of issues with my good buddy, Gobbler (my professor in all things Greek). The final result of my studies was compiled in a spiral notebook, filled to the brim with my notes - if you're like me, it's enjoyable to look back over a project and see your progress and your thoughts along the way. There were three meetings that followed, and while I was unable to persuade them of the truth, my prayer is that the Spirit of Truth would convict them of the reality of God's triune existence.

Finally, I was able to get through some important books that have been on my list for years, many of which deserve a dedicated blog article, and you'll probably see these over the coming months: (1) Atlas Shrugged, (2) A Tale of Two Cities, (3) Great Expectations, (4) Rhetoric, Poetics and Logic by Aristotle, (5) Moby Dick, (6) The Three Musketeers, (7) The Panic of 1907, and (8) The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium.

There is so much more I could say, but will save more for later. For 2014, I have set some goals: working out, reading goals, Bible study goals, being more responsible with my time, being a better husband and father, and by God's free grace I hope to be a better Christian.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

A Desert Island Dweller

I had the opportunity to answer a question via AOMin and thought it worthwhile to post my answer here. The question was essentially: can someone who has never heard the gospel be saved? My response is below...

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

It is my pleasure to respond to your question. I will do my best to address all of your questions and concerns clearly and in a way that brings honor to our God.

To summarize your question: Can a person who has never heard the gospel, but only has a general belief in God, be saved from his sins?

The short answer is: no. Why do I say this? Because belief in the existence of God is something all human beings clearly know, and are condemned for it. The Apostle Paul argues in his letter to the Christians at Rome:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23, NASB).

Taking a closer look at verses 19-21, we see that knowledge about God is “evident within them.” How is this knowledge made evident? Paul answers this: “for God made it evident to them.” Someone might then ask: what is it that they know about God, and how do they possess this knowledge? Paul answers this as well: God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature - all clearly visible by looking at the created order.

All men have this general knowledge about God and His existence, but what is the unregenerate man’s natural reaction to this clearly revealed truth? To suppress it (vs 18), not to honor God or give Him thanks (vs 21), to become futile in their speculations (vs 21), claiming to have wisdom, yet in reality becoming fools (vs 22), and worshipping created things rather than the Creator (vs 23).

Furthermore, all men have God’s moral requirements written on their hearts, and know what is good and evil (Romans 2:14-15). But even having an understanding of what is right and wrong in the sight of God is not enough to deliver one from the consequences of sin. This moral understanding accuses them, pointing toward the final Day of Judgment in which the Lord will judge people by His perfect moral standard (Romans 2:15-16).

Up to this point, we have discussed 2 ways in which God has revealed Himself: the creation itself, and also His moral requirements given to all men. Theologians call this “General Revelation” because it is given to everyone generally.

Separate and distinct from general revelation is “Special Revelation,” which may basically be understood to mean the clear revelation found in the Bible, including the gospel. Only knowledge of special revelation, and specifically of the gospel can deliver sinners from the consequences of their sins. For example, Paul says earlier in his letter to the Romans:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17, NASB).

Let me ask the question: what is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes? Is it a general knowledge of God that has been revealed to all men? On the contrary; Paul is explicit, in that it is the gospel that contains the power of God for salvation. He continues in the next verse: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed.” The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not by another means.

Our Lord put it this way:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6, NASB).

The Lord Jesus was making a claim to exclusivity here. If one wants a right relationship with the Father, one must come through Jesus Christ. He is not one of many ways, not one of many truths, not one of many means to life. He is the exclusive way, the exclusive truth, and the exclusive means to life.

In one of his first sermons, Peter said this about Christ:

12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12, NASB).

Getting back to Paul’s letter to the Romans, he continues his argument in chapter 3, one of the great discussions about how sinful men may be justified in the sight of God:

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26, NASB).

While I won’t have time to fully interact with this remarkable text (one of my favorites, I might add), there is one point I wish to draw from it: Paul argues that the righteousness of God is made known “through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” Therefore, it is with the strongest convictions that Christians can rightly say that only those who have faith in Christ are justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is revealed through faith in Christ … not in some bland, generic, non-specific belief in the existence of God.

This brings me to your next question: what about the one who has never heard the gospel? Can such a one be saved apart from hearing the gospel?

I believe that the clear answer from Scripture is: no. Salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. One must not merely possess the general revelation of God’s existence and divine attributes. One must also have an understanding of the special revelation as revealed in the Bible, particularly of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This has been demonstrated in the above texts of Scripture.

I find that using exaggerated hypothetical examples can sometimes be helpful to make a point, so in the scenario where someone is born alone, lives alone, and dies alone, stranded on a desert island, and has never heard the gospel - what will become of this person? Unfortunately, this hypothetical person was clearly not one of God’s elect because he did not hear and believe in the gospel. I should add that the only reason we know with certainty that this desert island dweller was not chosen by God for salvation, is because it is a hypothetical example whereby we know he has never heard the gospel, and therefore, never believed the gospel.

Because we do not possess a knowledge of those whom God has predestined to save from their sins, we preach the gospel to all men everywhere. It is our desire to preach to everyone, for the sake of God’s elect (2 Timothy 2:10), recognizing that we are the means by which the gospel is preached (1 Corinthians 1:21), which alone has the power to save sinners. The Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20 reminds us of the principle that we are to preach the gospel to all the nations, and to all people’s everywhere - even those who might be stranded on a desert island. And we do this knowing that God will save whom He has decided to save, but we are to be faithful witnesses to the ends of the earth, as commanded by God.

Having said all of this, I would like to spend a few moments to respond to your friend’s argument: Since Jesus is God, if someone has a general knowledge of God and a belief in this general God, can they be saved? For many of the reasons mentioned above, I would say: no. One must have knowledge that exceeds the general revelation made known to all men; one must have knowledge of the gospel. This means that one must have a basic knowledge of the Trinity - even if they are not able to exhaustively define the Trinity, they need to know there is only one true God, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God - yet distinct Persons from one another. 

We have covered a lot of ground in this email, and my hope and prayer is that this has been beneficial for you. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns, or would like to talk about any of this further. It would be my privilege to do so.

Because of the finished work of Christ,

Rusty

What I Want for My Children

Maybe it's because I'm 30 years old, or perhaps it's that next month I'll be 31. Maybe it's because I have a beautiful wife who I adore more than anyone on this earth, or that our daughter is a tinier reflection of her mother's innocence and beauty. Then again, maybe I'm just finally willing to reflect long enough on my life to wonder what really matters.

Whatever the root cause might be, my wife and I have casually discussed for some time how we want to educate our children: public, public charter, private/Christian, or home school? While my darling wife was fairly certain from the get-go, I was pretty uncertain - which is quite unusual if you don't me know well. I tend to know what I believe, and why I believe it. How I approach an uncertain subject is: slowly. I tend to be cautious, skeptical of new ideas, and always questioning. 

Therefore, to make our decision a bit simpler, we were able to quickly erase common public school and home school off our list. As time went on, and the realities of the cost of private education became known, we were able to cross that off the list. That left public charter schools, which have a growing reputation of being better performing schools and would be within our means.

We began discussing education prior to the recent Presidential election, and since that time any number of key events have compelled me to spend some additional time thinking about my daughter's future. Events such as the President's re-election, the Supreme Court effectively over-turning DOMA, and the varied attacks on religious liberty and practice in American civil society.

For the sake of time, I will limit myself to a few *recent* examples of encroachments on religious liberty. First, California upheld a law banning therapy from willing minors to receive therapeutic assistance in overcoming same-sex attraction. Second, San Antonio's city counsel joined 180 other U.S. cities and towns that have adopted some form of non-discrimination ordinance, which will not allow anyone with a bias against various sexual orientations and/or gender identities to be appointed to government positions. Third, in 2006, a photography business owned by Christians refused to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony. They were sued, and last month the New Mexican Supreme Court declared they were unlawful even though they had argued that to force them to photograph the celebration of a same-sex ceremony would go against their religious convictions. The concluding remarks by a majority justice in the case stated: "In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."

For those who are my age, you can think back to a time when a moment of silence was observed before the start of the school day. The students were informed that this could be a time of prayer, or simply of personal reflection or preparation as you start a new day. We were taught in the goodness of America and her place in the world. America was the land of the free, and the home of the brave. We were founded by those who escaped religious persecution, and sought a new world where they could live out their lives peaceably with religious liberty in hopes of being an example to other societies. Marriage wasn't up for debate - it could only be between one man and one woman.

My ... how things have changed. You'll have to forgive me, because I am still a little shell-shocked at the rapid rate of decay our society has experienced these past decades. I am not giving up hope; no, as a Christian there is always hope.

One day I had a long talk with a few of my non-Christian friends about education. I told them that home schooling was "back on the table" for how we might raise our children, and their reactions helped me formulate my opinion. In short, I got the distinct impression, more than once, that "Oh ... so what you're saying is: you're not one of us. And you don't want your children to become one of us either." These words were not said outright, but this was the general sentiment being expressed. I left that conversation and answered their sentiment: You're absolutely right.

That very night I told my wife my decision, and now we are both fully on board with home schooling. I don't believe home schooling is the only correct way for Christians to raise children, but we do believe it will allow an easier implementing of the Scripture that reads: "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6, NASB). What I don't want is to have to spend every day after school asking the question: "What do I need to correct today...macro-evolution? Age of the earth? How did the dinosaurs become extinct? The New Deal saved America? The Christian creation 'myth?' You have a GLASS [Gay Lesbian and Straight Supported] club on school? Your Christian club isn't allowed to do [such and such]? All religions are created equal? Same-sex couples are just as valid as hetero-sexual couples? Christianity is too narrow-minded?" ... etc etc etc.

It isn't that I won't be introducing my children to all of the above subjects. I will shelter my children from the world's influence, while at the same time introducing wrong concepts myself, but from a Christian perspective. That way my children will know where Mommy and Daddy stand on an issue. I want my kids to hear my thoughts on a subject before they hear about it from a secular classroom that approaches the world with an anti-Christian worldview.

Just scratching the surface, I have come to realize the immense responsibility of raising children and the truly wonderful gift that they are from the Lord God. I believe that parents have the duty to raise their children in the best way they know how, to provide them with the best opportunities available so that they may flourish in everything that they do. All parents want what is best for their children. As Christians, we go even further than this because our desire is everything mentioned earlier, but also that they love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength. That their words and deeds might reflect the goodness of the Creator of all things. That is what I want for my children. 

Mr. President, I Plead the Fourth

I don't trust you, Mr. President. What's worse is that you don't seem to understand why someone like me doesn't trust you or your cohorts in the federal government. The fourth amendment. Have you had an opportunity to read it, Mr. President? Knowing how intelligent and well educated you are, I must believe you have read the whole of the Bill of Rights - if only as a result of the past few weeks. But, better to be on the safe side, so I shall list it here for you:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While you've made it impossible to vouch with certainty for all the actions of the whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, all that I do know for certain is that, were it not for him, I wouldn't know of the government's spying on her own citizens. He has been accused of treason, and specifically you accuse him of three felonies. The whole world knows that his revealing of your spying on Americans has created much embarrassment for you and the United States government. But embarrassing the government is not a crime. All he has done is make public that your government is acting against the fourth amendment.

There are allegedly governmental protections for whistle-blowers. Mr. President, you so clearly stated on the Jay Leno show (as if that is a preferred or respectable place to get news) that Snowden could have told appropriate superiors of his concerns. Come on, Mr. President - what do you take us for? He would have told some superior at the NSA and nothing would have been done, except that Snowden would have lost his job ... and a government official may have been assigned to watch his personal activities for the foreseeable future. If Snowden didn't tell us, we wouldn't know what you were up to, and you would be happier in such a parallel universe.

Where am I going with this? Allow me to be frank with you, President Obama - I expect one thing from the President of the United States of America: to uphold and defend the United States Constitution and to protect the rights and property of Americans. You have failed the American people in this. This is not a partisan issue, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent. The American people have a right to privacy.

"The fact that I said that the programs are operating in a way that prevents abuse ... that continues to be true without the reforms. The question is: how do I make the American people more comfortable," President Obama.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. President. From your vantage point the issue is not that the government is unjustly invading our privacy by collecting phone calls and Internet activity, but how you can help make the American people more comfortable with this unjust invasion into our lives. After all, it's just so-called "meta-data," isn't that right, sir? You're just collecting the data, but not listening to it without a warrant. And that makes it okay, right? Your lack of understanding these simple points staggers me. Why we ought to trust you since you've previously lied about collecting our data, is beyond me.

Suffering long and hard to consider where someone from your intrusive perspective might go next, you might ask of me: "So ... you don't like being spied on? What have you got to hide?"  That's the thing, Mr. President, nothing. I am a law-abiding citizen, who is commanded by Scripture to submit to the governing authorities. I abhor violence, and am utterly opposed to a revolution against the government. "I don't understand - why do you care that we record your phone calls and all possible Internet activity?" the President might ask. That is the great thing about being an American, Mr. President - I have a right to privacy. At least, I used to. I don't want Big Brother - that would be you, Mr. President - to know what I am up to. It is none of your business, plain and simple.

You've argued that intruding into our lives is the best way to protect our liberties.

... [Insert awkward silence HERE] ...

I would respond with this:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

The boat you have missed, Mr. President, is that I would rather have less safety in exchange for more liberty. My privacy is worth more to me than security. For as much as I value protection against terrorists, a government is also a potential threat that must be restrained to not overstep her bounds. Your government is only one step away from a terrible oppressive state. If you can't see that then I would ask you not to be so naive, Mr. President.

The fourth amendment is under attack, and you put forth your four-step plan for reform. Coincidence? Probably, yes. By the way, your four steps: meaningless fluff. I don't need help to understand why you believe you're right. I will only accept an apology for your unlawful intrusions, and a complete stop to these intrusions.

Praying that you might see the error of your ways, Mr. President,
Rusty

My, How Wise We Are

 

There are cases, and then there are cases - United States vs. Windsor - June 26th, 2013. This wasn't Roe vs. Wade, but it set the stage for her equal to come out into the spotlight. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is long gone, with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America exclaiming that they are indeed the first generation to get it right. THEY... no... WE are the single wisest generation ever to bless the human race with our existence. Not one generation, not one culture, not one society before us had the enlightened understanding that we now possess. Here is a selection of Justice Kennedy as he lays out his opinion on the case:

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’” especially require careful consideration. 

DOMA cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. (Bold MINE. Various source location removed).

Quite an explosive opinion, wouldn't you say? The Defense of Marriage Act "violates basic due process and equal protection principles," intends "harm" and "disparate treatment," is "motived by an improper animus or purpose" to "discriminate"  by "having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class" and to "impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages." To Justice Kennedy I would candidly ask: Upon what basis do you define marriage as between two loving adults? 

For this is now the issue. My own sense tells me that while I am intellectually outmatched by many on this issue, I can yet restate a common theme that this slippery slope of an opinion has now created. To what do I imply? Replace "same-sex couples" with "poly-amorous (polygamous) couples" in Kennedy's opinion and you'll see my inference manifestly. Justice Kennedy's unspoken presupposition throughout is that marriage can be defined by whatever whim American citizens believe at the time. Without reserve he believes marriage is an evolving definition, and will someday include same-sex couples on a broad scale. 

How naive of us if we believe for one moment this revolution will end once any 2 adults are considered a married couple. After all, why limit marriage to 2? I fear the sort of reply from 5 of the Supreme Court Justices to this question. 

The wise and quick-witted of our day wrongly accuse Christians of opposing same-sex marriage only because of the slippery-slope it then creates. While this is one element of the controversy, we believe that only God has the authority to define what marriage is. Christians, as the slaves of Christ, must wholly reject any understanding of marriage other than between one man and one woman, as the Lord taught in Matthew 19. 

Amidst the plasma grenades of accusation shot by the majority opinion, I sometimes wonder what it must be like to aid sinners in their suppression of God's Law. They accuse the opposition to same-sex marriage as desiring to do harm to an entire class of fellow-citizens, yet in reality they are causing harm by encouraging a culture of death. Sin may bring happiness in the short-term, but sin by its nature is deceitful and the only thing it can produce is death. If we love our neighbors, we will tell them the truth about God's Law, His just requirements, the wrath that abides upon sinners, and the only way of salvation by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. 

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Big Brother and the Christian

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, read the caption of a large poster that Winston passed by. Another poster read the same. Then another, and another. Cameras made it possible for the state's supreme leader, affectionately called "Big Brother," to watch nearly everything everyone did. Privacy? I wouldn't be surprised if the word was outlawed in George Orwell's created world.

Today as I stood before my three large and sturdy bookshelves, trying to locate my copy of 1984, I wondered if I was looking in the wrong section. That perhaps it had somehow migrated on its own to the non-fiction section. I knew this to be impossible, but I am inclined to return it to join my other non-fiction works once through with it.

My beautiful looking wife was the one who first informed me about the breaking story of Edward Snowden leaking information about the NSA's spying on private citizens. We were vacationing in San Diego, and either it is built into my natural disposition to doubt this kind of information when reported in the news media, knowing how they like to exaggerate about everything, or I was far too relaxed from the effects of the Gas-Lamp district. You can imagine how disturbing the news became to me, and undoubtedly to the reader, as more and more information was becoming known.

Commonly, I have heard from many fellow citizens, "I thought the government was already doing this," and carried on as if they had just told me about the bland breakfast they had that morning. Where has the passion that was once here during the time of the Enlightenment, the same zeal that pounded upon the will of every founder of our great nation? It seems to have diminished to such an extent that I have to look far and wide to find any. It is as if the every day Joe doesn't want to connect the dots: once the government unnecessarily watches and hears everything we do, our protected rights will not longer be protected.

Revelations such as these wouldn't trouble me near as much except for the fact that Christians are hastening down the same path as the world but in the opposite direction. We now stand in opposition to the culture and the government on a great many things: homosexuality (and all that it entails), abortion, euthanasia, sex education, evolution, religious expression in public life and in our schools, governmental fiscal responsibility, engaging only in just wars, ... among other things.

All it will take is for the government to begin criminalizing opposition to their views on any one of the aforesaid matters of contention, and Christians will immediately begin to feel the blunt force of the most powerful nation on earth. I hope I'm not coming across as conspiratorial, mind you, but I see this as a natural furtherance of their cause.

Pause you, reader - consider Winston's "Big Brother," and whether his all-intrusive government claimed to peruse every moment of every individual to punish them? Did they not claim and believe that it was for the good of the society at large? How did they handle any opposition, even he who kept to himself and posed no meaningful threat? Why, they forced submission. It wasn't enough for Winston to go through the motions. No. His thinking was required to change.

Now reader, Winston's world is fiction. But Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mussolini's Italy, China's Communist Party, and any number of Islamic states ruled by Sharia Law are not fiction. What I am aiming at is this: when a government has absolute power over her citizens, this is usually accompanied by an utter loss of freedom.

Looking back on my childhood I distinctly remember my parents instilling in me, however subtly and yet all-encompassingly, the love of God and country. Today it saddens me to see the state our nation has chosen to reside in, and it is becoming increasingly clear that I may one day be forced to choose my allegiance between these two loves. My friends, if this choice is ever put to us, there can only be one answer for the Christian: the triune Lord of the Bible. Oh it may be wholly against the grain to not acknowledge what Big Brother demands of us, but we cannot falter our witness in any way. Our love of the gospel of Jesus Christ will forever trump our love of any government.

Lest we begin to naively believe that this would be the first time God's people have encountered oppression by the culture or a governmental power, the Scriptures record examples for our benefit. Remember the Apostles once they were captured and brought before the Jewish leaders: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Remember also the author of Hebrews, writing to encourage those Jewish Christians that there really is nothing to go back to. He writes of the many victors of the faith down through the ages, and in chapter 12 says: 

"Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³ For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews, 12:1-3, NASB).

Let us not pretend that I know any certain thing about the future, for that is solely God's domain. So whether we will endure persecution, whether we are able to find favor amidst an oppressive government, or if God's common grace is extended to our land to repent us from the direction we are headed, I do know one thing: the Judge of all the earth does what is right.

Thanks for reading,
rustypth