Setting the record straight on "Amazing Grace."

Another Jesus Conspiracy Theory

Easter must be around the corner because here comes yet another conspiracy theory around Jesus. This time it's about a tomb that supposedly contains the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their family and... we've heard it all before.

Canadian director James Cameron, of Titanic fame, and another Canadian director, Simcha Jacobovici, are responsible for this latest bit of irresponsible journalism. The Discovery Channel is being criticized for its sensationalism and lack of ethics in airing the documentary.

So, what of the claims? Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner, who was in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb which is the subject of the new claims by Cameron-Jacobovici, said "The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell." Archeologist Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever."

If you recall back in 2003, it was broadly reported that the remains of James, the brother of Jesus had been discovered - a claim that was disproven and demonstrated to be a fraud (see picture above). Jacobovici is still a believer in the fraud - likely because it helps with this current deception.

This is all so repetitive and typically inflammatory. Two years ago we had ABC's special that challenged the facts of the resurrection; last year we had NBC's "Dateline" featuring Michael Baigent and his claims in "The Jesus Papers;" and let's not forget "The Davinci Code." Now this from the Discovery Channel. I've also got a collection of magazine covers from "Time" and "Macleans," etc... with cover stories with titles like "The Shaman Jesus." Anybody see a trend. It's interesting that all of these "breaking" stories happen to coincide with the Easter season. No coincidence there I'm sure.

Why the media wants to jump on the bandwagon with these fringe players is beyond me, especially when their claims fly in the face of evidence. You can check out some more commentary at "The Point," if you like. Let's leave the last word to archaeologist Amos Kloner, who made the find in the first place: "I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists."

Kyoto - Less Than Useless

I've been listening to the continuing discussion about the whole global warming debate and, I've got to say, the whole thing is kind of sickening. The Canadian scene has its clowns in the Liberal party who admit that they never intended to fulfil their commitments when they signed on to the Kyoto Accord, and yet pushed through a bill in parliament, along with the NDP and the Bloc, to try to force the Conservatives to do just that. Sheer hypocrisy!

In the U.S. you've got the grandstanding Al Gore, making political hay out of the issue with his movie/documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," while living the life of luxury in a greenhouse gas producing mansion. One of a few he owns. I'm just waiting for his announcement that he's running for President again. He was treated like a rock start during his recent speech in Toronto, with $20 tickets going for up to $750. One young ecofan breathlessly declared that she would be willing to give all she had for the privilege of hearing him speak.

I think my new hero is Lorrie Goldstein, a columnist I've admired for years. He's been going against the grain on this issue for quite some time, not concerned about how many enemies he makes.

Let's cut to the chase, though, on global warming, or, even better, pollution and the care of the environment. Is there a problem? Yes, there are many problems. We have been happily polluting our planet for generations and we need to change. We need to adapt our lifestyle so that we are not contributing to the problem. We need to find and take advantage of alternate forms of energy. We need to invest in scientific means of reversing the damage caused. We also need to calm down and stop being foolish.

As I stated in an earlier blog, immediate drastic action would not result in any improvement in greenhouse gases for a hundred years. It would, however, devastate our economy and likely produce a fallout which would inevitably hurt the poor in our societies more than anyone.

I agree with Goldstein that "We should withdraw from Kyoto and set our own course. Yes, let's address greenhouse gases but, even more important, smog, which really is killing us right now, end multi-billion dollar tax subsidies to Big Oil and Big Auto and use that money to help average Canadians retrofit their homes for maximum energy efficiency."

We need to stop jumping on bandwagons and think. The Kyoto Accord is a disaster, designed merely to give publicity to the problem. Fine - now we see the problem. Kyoto is not the solution. How can we expect to fix it when the worst offenders are not required to lower greenhouse gas emissions? It's unfair and stupid for Canada to be expected to meet its requirements when the real offenders are making the problem worse. It's like plugging a small leak while blowing a big hole in the other side of the boat. Let's use tax incentives to encourage individuals and businesses to lessen emissions and to find scientific solutions to the problem. But first of all, let's stop lying to the public - the Kyoto targets were never going to be met, and the signers knew it.

The Agony Of Defeat

Ouch! I had the privilege of coaching my son's Senior High School basketball team this year. Tonight we were eliminated from the playoffs with a 1 point loss. It's one of those defeats that stays with you for a while. You know - the "woulda, coulda, shouldas."

Watching the reactions of the team, and even thinking about the emotions I was experiencing, makes for an interesting study. Some get angry, some seem emotionally devastated, some try to laugh it off; some point fingers, others take responsibility; some look for reasons, some shrug their shoulders. It really is a microcosm of life.

It got me thinking of how people react to the failures and disappointments in life. We all have them, or will have. How people respond to failure says a great deal about them and also has a great deal to do with the kind of person we become. I'm reminded of a leadership development lesson I listened to quite a few years ago called "Failure Isn't Final." I believe it was one of John Maxwell's Injoy Life Lessons.

What I remember from the lesson is that many of the greatest leaders in history endured failure after failure and defeat after defeat and yet used those experiences as building blocks for future success. Look at Abraham Lincoln as an example. His mother passed away when he was only 9; he was a part of some failed business enterprises; he lost more elections than he won; he endured seasons of unpopularity, and yet he is remembered as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

Someone said that when you fall, you might as well pick up something while you're down there. A wise person does that. They are able to look objectively at their own failure and learn. What was the cause? Was it lack of preparation? Was it bad timing? Was it a character issue? Was it simply an unfortunate series of circumstances? What difference does it really make in the big picture of things?

Someone else said that "It's not what happens to you, but what happens in you that matters." There's a lot of truth in that statement. The best that we can do with failure is to let the wounds heal and then look for the lessons; improve ourselves and prepare for the next time. It doesn't change the fact that losing hurts, though. Ouch!

Video - Regrets of a Father

I found this video on-line that I wanted to share. It speaks for itself of the pain and regret that many fathers feel who have chosen abortion. This clearly and painfully illustrates one of the biggest social issues of our time.

Anna Nicole Smith

By now everyone would have heard of the premature passing of Anna Nicole Smith at only 39 years of age. She's shown (at left) with her most recent companion, Howard K. Stern, and her now 5 month-old daughter Dannielynn. She died on February 8 from as yet unknown causes. Her life is a sad story that just keeps on getting sadder - even after her death.

She went from a small-town girl in Texas to topless dancer, to Playboy Playmate of the Year, to the bride of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall, who was over 60 years older than she was. A law-suit is still ongoing over how much money she will receive from Marshall's estate. At issue is a lower court's ruling that she receive $474 million. This is where the story turns very sad, very fast.

Anna's son, Daniel, passed away in September at the age of 20. A jury inquest is still under away over the circumstances surrounding his death. So, Anna's death has left a 5 month old as the potential heir of an estate approaching half a billion dollars - now here come the vultures. So far three different men have lined up to say that the child is, or could be, theirs. First is the obvious one - her most recent companion Howard K. Stern. Next was Larry Birkhead, an ex-boyfriend who has gone so far as to obtain an injunction holding Anna's body for ten days in case DNA evidence is necessary to prove that no-one switched babies! The latest in the story is 59 year old Prince Frederick von Anhalt, Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, who claims a ten year affair with Anna. Let the lawsuits begin.

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction."

- 1 Timothy 6:9

Why do people think that money buys happiness? What is it that convinces us that more is better? If we look around and ask some questions, we find that the wealthiest people are often the most miserable. Jesus said in Luke 12:15: "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

The Bible teaches us that money and possessions are means to an end, and not an end in themselves. A worldview which sees this life as all there is tends to keep us focused so much on what we're trying to get that we forget, or never bother to think about, why we're here. It reminds me of the old Epicurean philosophy "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

This is the dark side of the American Dream, that a beautiful young lady like Anna feels that she has to do whatever is necessary to "make a name for herself." Sadly, she died young and seemingly unhappy, much like her heroine and role model, Marilyn Munroe. Now the drama being played out around her resembles a tragic comedy - but there's nothing funny about it. Let's hope that this baby grows up with someone who actually will love her, and not simply see her as a meal ticket. The odds don't seem very favorable right now.

Jesus taught in "His Sermon on the Mount" that we shouldn't amass treasures on earth, but should lay up treasures in heaven. It was the martyred Christian missionary Jim Elliot who said, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." We'll end with these words of advice from Albert Einstein: "Try not to be a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."

Superbowl XLI

Coach Tony Dungy leads his Superbowl champion Indianapolis Colts in a prayer of thanksgiving after their victory on Sunday night. I figured I'd post the picture since it didn't make it into any of the newspapers I've seen. Congratulations!

I thought you might like this link to the top ten Superbowl ads of all time. After all, don't most people watch the game for the ads anyway? Here it is: SUPERBOWL ADS!

"Yes - But Is It True?" - The Global Warming Debate

Ever since the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the rhetoric on Global Warming has reached a fever pitch. Even the fire-breathing "Global Warming Deniers" - the Conservative Party of Canada - are now making noises that something must be done to protect the environment. I guess that the dramatic increase in crazy weather patterns is pushing people over the edge.

Canada is in for a tidal wave of (dis?)information on the subject over the next little while. The challenge for all of us is to discern truth from alarmist propoganda and prudent response from knee-jerk reactionism. There are a number of issues and questions involved.

1. Is global warming occurring? The answer to this is obviously "yes." Science has demonstrated that the average temperature has increased by about .6 degrees Celsius over the past 30 years.
2. What causes global warming? This is where the debate begins. Scientists know that greenhouse gases are a major cause of global warming, and greenhouse gases are caused by Carbon Dioxide and Methane, as well as other factors. Solar activity has also had an effect on global warming.
3. Who is responsible for the greenhouse gases? Good question. Much of the blame has been placed on the burning of fossil fuels, which produces carbon dioxide. Methane is also a chief cause. So, the lion's share of the blame is laid at the feet of the developed nations who have been pumping it out since the Industrial Revolution. there are other natural causes, of course, such as peat bogs and cows producing methane.
4. What to do? Here's the big question. Experts admit that even if we were to eliminate emissions immediately, the effects would continue to worsen for 100 years. This is due to the fact that these gases take so long to dissipate. The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce emissions through a "carrot and stick" approach of rewarding countries who meet their targets and penalizing those who fail to do so. Criticism of the protocol includes the claim that the "Carbon Credit" transfer system amounts to a transfer of wealth to the developing world by the industrialized nations. Then there's the question of effectiveness. The U.S., which hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has done far better with its targets than Canada, which did ratify.

Let the debate begin. Al Gore's surprise blockbuster "An Inconvenient Truth," which some claim plays fast and loose with the truth, has certainly helped to bring this to the forefront of public consciousness. In Canada, Stephane Dion became the leader of the Liberal Party largely on the basis of his emphasis on environmental causes. This even though Canada's environmental record worsened while he was environment minister and his party was in power.

The noises being made by the Liberals are that they are planning to take some radical steps to change things in Canada. Charles Adler managed to extract a picture of the future from Mark Holland, a Liberal MP and adviser to Dion. Apparently the Liberals would place severe limits on the Alberta oil industry in order to meet targets. There's no mention on how the economy might recover from such a shock to the system, nor what difference this would make in the long run since China is now preparing to open scores of new fossil fuel-burning plants. (China is not considered a developed nation under Kyoto.)

I think it's important to take a step back from the precipice here and look at a more balanced approach. It will do no good to destroy the world's economy with reactionary policies, especially since there is a great deal of disagreement out there (see Larry King debate) about what the right solution may be.

We are in this boat partly because we have been bad stewards of the planet. We've been belching out pollutants for 300 years without thought to the consequences. Add to this the destruction of the rain forest, clear-cutting of timber and pollution of our waterways and it's no wonder we're in the mess we're in. We've built our economies by allowing industry to profit without responsibility. Having done so, it's equally irresponsible to turn this around on a dime. Prime Minister Harper stated the obvious recently: "The problem is enormous. It's large, it's long-term and there are no quick fixes to this," Harper told reporters in Ottawa last Friday. "You can't just snap your fingers and reduce Canada's energy use by one-third in the space of a couple of years."

The Liberals are being hypocritical in pushing this issue, seeing that emissions rose to 27% above 1990 levels while they were in power. Yet something obviously must be done. Is nuclear power safe enough for its use to be expanded? Does that create a whole other range of problems? What pressures or rewards can be brought to bear on industry to eliminate unnecessary waste? How can processes be refined to be as fuel-efficient as possible? Is there any scientific research promising solutions to this issue? Questions, questions, questions.... There are no simple answers.

Deserved Praise

"Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Isaiah 1:17)

I came across a natural follow-up on the last few blogs with the latest recipient of the Wilberforce Forum Award. Each year since 1989 Prison Fellowship has given the William Wilberforce Award to that one person who has made a substantial difference in the face of formidable societal problems.

The winner this year is a man of whom most people would likely never have heard. His name is Gary Haugen, founder of the International Justice Mission and champion of the ongoing struggle to end human trafficking.

Like Wilberforce, Haugen found himself face-to-face with an issue from which he could not retreat. In 1994 he was on temporary reassignment from the U.S. Department of Justice working with the United Nations genocide investigation in Rwanda. The horrific scenes which he visited as he collected evidence would not allow him to return to normal life. The more he read his Bible, the more verses like the one above would speak to him. He decided he had to act.

He surveyed more than sixty-five organizations representing some 40,000 overseas missionaries and relief workers and Haugen found numerous examples of modern-day injustices for which there seemed to be no remedy. Issues like child prostitution, the murder of street children, persecution, etc... abounded, yet those who were aware of the problem lacked the resources or the power to affect change.

So, in 1997 Haugen formed the International Justice Mission (IJM), a human-rights organization founded to seek justice on Christian principles. the organization includes lawyers, criminal investigators, and government relationships workers who defend and rescue victims of violence, sexual exploitation, slavery, and oppression around the world. Their four-fold purpose is:

• Victim Relief - Relieve the victim of the abuse currently being committed.
  
• Perpetrator Accountability - Bring accountability and just consequences under the law to the specific perpetrator(s) of abuse.
  
• Structural Prevention - Prevent the abuse from being committed against others who are also at risk by strengthening community factors that are likely to deter potential oppressors, reduce the vulnerability of at-risk populations and empower local authorities to stop such abuses.
  
• Victim Aftercare - Provide access to services to help victims transition to their new lives and to encourage long-term success.

Haugen is an author of two books: Terrify No More and Good News about Injustice. The advice is not to read them unless you're prepared to do something with what you learn. You will be changed.

Congratulations to Gary Haugen. I hope we hear a lot about the success of his organization. they're helping to make the world a better place.

Change Your World

I've been thinking about politics this week. I watched part of President Bush's "State of the Union" address last night; I was reading about Stephen Harper's reflections on his first year as Prime Minister of Canada today, and I just finished reading about William Wilberforce (shown at right).

I guess I tend to be an idealist. I like to think that there are people who mean what they say and live their lives with integrity. I want to believe that people, ordinary people who care, can make a difference. Yet what I so often see is the politics of compromise and posturing for the photo-op. Is it possible today to rise above partisan politics and actually just do the right thing on a consistent basis?

That's why I included William Wilberforce. He served in the British Parliament in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and made as profound an impact as anyone in his time. He was born to privilege and position and yet risked both by embracing unpopular causes, simply because he believed in them. Along with an, at first, small group of sympathizers, Wilberforce took on the most powerful cartel in the British Empire in defence of the weakest.

A lifetime of labour enabled him to see not only the end of the slave trade in the British Empire, but the advancement of many worthy causes that ultimately changed the course of history. What causes a man to work tirelessly for almost forty years in parliament? It certainly wasn't the money - he already had that. In fact, during difficult times for the country, he gave away, in at least one year, more than he earned in order to help relieve the suffering.

Something had shifted in the psyche of this man who was elected at the ripe old age of 21. An old schoolmaster of Wilberforce's joined him on a trip to the continent and, over the course of time, led him to commit himself to the study of the Bible. Later that year he sought counsel from none other than John Newton, author of "Amazing Grace," and somewhere in those events he committed himself to follow Christ, whatever the cost.

He saw the corruption in politics, which he'd seen first hand, he'd witnessed the vulgarities of British society. (Some estimates claimed that up to 1 in 4 women in London at the time were engaged in prostitution. One-eighth of the deaths in London were blamed on excessive drinking. Animals were tortured for entertainment and frequent executions drew huge crowds.) He wrote in his journal: "Almighty God has set before me two great objectives, the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners."

His story is inspiring and, thankfully, will be told in a movie being released soon called appropriately "Amazing Grace."

Here's the question. What are the causes today which are worthy of a life-long commitment? What is it that can make your eyes shine with passion? Wilberforce, with his Biblical worldview, believed that he could succeed in spite of all of the odds because it was God Himself who had given him this task. The lives of thousands and the destiny of millions was changed for the better because of it.

Perhaps you and I were not born to privilege like Wilberforce. We may not carry the same influence as he did. Yet each of us can affect the lives of those around us in a positive way if we will.

That's what I believe that the church is: it's a community of people who have decided to follow Jesus Christ - wherever He leads. Jesus was a revolutionary who refused to use physical force, but rather, the power of truth. The church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). In spite of its failings - and they have been many and well-documented - God changes the world through the transformed lives of ordinary men and women.

I believe that there is a generation of people who are looking for something or someone to believe in. Are you tired of being let down and disappointed? Take this challenge. Search for the Christ that Wilberforce found and see what that does for your perspective!

Heroes

Wesley Autrey was simply waiting for the train with his two daughters. He wasn't planning on risking his life, he just reacted. A young man nearby began to have a seizure and staggered backwards, falling onto the tracks of the New York subway. Death appeared certain, as a train was already coming out of the tunnel and into the station.

What happened next shocked a city. Wesley, a construction worker and navy veteran, leapt onto the tracks, situated the man between the two rails and flattened himself down on top of him. The train cleared them by less than an inch. the young man is recovering in hospital and Wesley is trying to get used to his new found fame. You can watch a video of an interview with him by clicking on this link.

Understandably, Autrey is being hailed as a hero for his actions. We hear stories like this and we hope that, if placed in that situation, we would do the same thing. But, the question is, what makes us, as human beings, applaud actions such as these? This is obviously a worldview question.

Stark materialism can't provide a satisfactory answer for it. Neo-Darwinists call acts like this the result of "enlightened" selfishness. So, a Neo-Darwinist would say that parents care for their children and family as a way of guaranteeing that their "selfish genes" get passed on to the next generation. But, even if this explanation were reasonable, it certainly doesn't explain why someone would jump in front of a train to save a stranger.

In a worldview in which meaning is limited only to this earthly existence, self-sacrifice in acts of heroism are actually the peak of stupidity. What possible selfish purpose would it serve for someone to lay down their life for another if that would end their opportunity to perpetuate themselves.

On the other hand, for a person with a Biblical worldview, this type of act makes complete sense. Jesus said that "Greater love has no-one than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend."

Since this life is a pre-cursor to an eternal life with God, and since each human being was created in God's image, heroic acts like this are to be admired. It's hard to deny that we know this intuitively. That's why we all look up to heroes!

Worldview continued...

We've now looked at the easy part - the four questions that a worldview needs to answer: the questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Obviously, anyone can throw out an answer to these questions, so we need more than the four questions in and of themselves. Ravi Zacharias uses three tests to verify any statement's claim to truth. I think you'll find them helpful.

The first of these tests is the test of logical consistency. Is what is being claimed logically consistent or are there obvious contradictions? Many people's worldviews fall apart at this first question - they simply contradict themselves.

The second test is the test of empirical adequacy. In other words, is there any evidence to support what is being claimed? Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make it true. What facts or datum back up those claims? This test separates mythology from the historical claims of Christianity.

The third test is experiential relevance. The question here is does it work in real life? For example, atheism would have to make the claim that there is no real basis for values - and therefore they don't exist in reality. But this leads to some ridiculous claims. Ravi Zacharias recounts a speaking engagement at a university. One young man wanted to argue that there was no such thing as evil. Ravi asked the following question: "If I were to place a live baby on this table; take a sword and proceed to cut that baby in pieces, would that be evil?" The student was obviously pushed into a corner and stated, "I would not like it, but I could not call it evil." Yet, instinctively, none of us can live with that conclusion. We know that evil exists. So, in this case, atheism fails the experiential relevance test.

So, in review. The three tests are: the test of logical consistency, the test of empirical adequacy and the test of experiential relevance. I hope that you will find these tests helpful in your search for truth.

Worldview - Part 4 - Destiny

The final question in helping to define a worldview is "what is our ultimate destiny?" Once again, from a Biblical perspective, man's destiny springs from the fact that God created us in His image. His original intension for us was to be in relationship with Him. Man's disobedience brought about a separation between us and God. This precipitated the coming of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to build a bridge back to God.

Herein lies the choice. The Bible teaches that the eternal life God offers is available to "whoever believes in Him (Christ)..." The word "believe" in the New Testament is not simply an intellectual assent but it implies a commitment, a reliance on Jesus as Saviour. On the other hand, those who choose not to accept God's offer of reconciliation will face an eternity in that condition. Hell has been called "God's ultimate compliment to man's freedom to choose."

So, in summary, the Bible teaches that man was designed with a soul that lives on after the body dies. His destiny stretches far beyond the confines of earthly experience.

Conversely, an atheistic view of man ends at the grave. Since he is simply a product of a blind evolutionary process, he has the same ultimate destiny as a dog, a cat or even a bug. This view of man diminishes his value and ultimately leads to despair.

One of the byproducts of a Biblical worldview is the concept of hope. Failure does not have to be final. Redemption is possible. Even the worst reprobate can have the hope of a better eternity as demonstrated in the promise of Jesus to the thief dying beside Him - "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Worldview - Part 3 - Morality

Today we're dealing with the third issue in the examination of a worldview, and that is morality. The question is, "how do I determine right from wrong?" Again we'll begin with the perspective of a biblical worldview.

The Bible teaches that morality flows from the very character of God Himself. We learn that God is a righteous God, and that He demands the same of us. The Ten Commandments have provided the framework for the legal system of the Western world for centuries. Those commands are not arbitrary, but are reflections of who God is.

For example, God is the life-giver, the Creator; therefore, we are not to commit murder. It is wrong because each person is created in the image of God and, therefore, valuable. God is faithful, He keeps His commitments; therefore, we are not to commit adultery. He ordained marriage and designed it for one man and one woman for one lifetime. We are to be faithful to each other in that relationship because God is faithful. The same is to be said of God's commands regarding not lying; not coveting, etc... There is a reason these things are wrong - they violate God's character.

In our society today we see the result of decades of moral relativism as our secular culture has done away with a fixed moral compass. As non-Christian influence has expanded we've seen a growing disregard for human life with abortion on demand and an increasing tendency towards euthenasia. If we are simply the products of time and chance and a blind evolutionary process then who is to say what is right or what is wrong.

It was the Nazis after World War II that were being tried for war crimes who clearly demonstrated the difficulty when we declare there are no absolutes. They asked who we were to judge them, by what standard were we going to hold them to account? If there are no absolutes, who judges what is right or wrong? This is where modern man runs into difficulty. On the one hand we know that some things are right and some things are wrong; on the other hand, without an absolute standard we don't know why. We're left with standards that float on the whim of public opinion, watching a legal system make decisions which make us scratch our heads. Much of this stems from the secular worldview embraced by much of Western society.

An argument I've heard from some is that you don't have to believe in God to be moral. This is true. There are, I'm certain, a great number of moral atheists. However, logically, they have no reason to be moral. If they believe that there is no higher authority, and that there are no absolutes, therefore morality is simply one choice among many. They have no reason to be moral unless it is of some personal benefit to them.

Ultimately the question boils down to this: Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, come to the conclusion that there are some things that are simply right or wrong. Where does that realization come from? Scripture would tell us that all humans are born with some sense of right and wrong because they are created in God's image.

Tomorrow we'll look at the final question and then look at some cultural examples.

Worldview: Part 2 - Meaning

Sorry for the delay - it was a busy New Year's Eve. But here we go with part 2 of our series on Worldview. If you're just tuning in, you may want to go back and start with the introduction. The last edition dealt with the question: where did we come from? Today's question is: what is the meaning of life?

From a Biblical perspective, the meaning for which we were created springs from our Creator. God made us to have relationship with Him. As Augustine said, "Everlasting God, in whom we live and move and have our being: You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."

Throughout Scripture we find many references to the fact that God calls us to co-operate with Him in His plan of redemption. Simply put, the Bible speaks of an originally perfect creation, defined by a deep and loving relationship between God and mankind. This was followed, however, by man's disobedience and rebellion against God, which led the human race into spiritual separation from God. God's ultimate answer to this rebellion was the willing sacrifice of His Son to pay the price for our rebellion, and to satisfy the demands of justice. Jesus Christ became the way back for all of us into relationship with the Creator.

Those who come to God in Christ and are restored to relationship with God become a part of the community called the church. The church has been described by the Apostle Paul as "the Body of Christ." We are His agents in the world, with the expressed purpose of being "ambassadors" for God, helping others to be reconciled to God. As people created in the image of God we are called to reflect His nature by using our creative gifts to make the world a better place. The Bible teaches us that, as Christians, everything we do reflects on God. For that reason, Christians, though not perfect, ought to be exemplary in whatever enterprise they find themselves engaged.

Following a secular worldview would lead to the conclusion that there is ultimately no meaning in life. We are simply here to have a good time while we can. There is no real purpose to help others other than it may make us feel better about ourselves. Some secularists would counter that meaning comes from perpetuating the species and becoming a part of the ongoing process of evolution. But that is only cold comfort when at the end of your life you simply face oblivion and non-existence.

Other religions, such as Hinduism, would tend towards fatalism, as demonstrated in the Indian caste system. According to that religion, you were born as you were as a direct consequence of karma - the cause and effect of how you lived in a previous incarnation. They view it as bad karma to interfere with this process. Therefore, outcasts (lower caste people) in India are unable to rise above their lot in life and are faced with a lifetime of poverty in the hopes that their actions might provide for a better life in their next go-around.

What is your purpose? Is there meaning in your life? Why? All questions worth asking. As Plato said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Worldview - Part 1 - Origin

The first question to be dealt with in a worldview is that of origin - where did we come from? The answer to this question has a lot of implications for how we live our lives.

From a Christian perspective, the answer is that we were created by a personal God who loves us and has a purpose for our lives. Using the Bible as our frame of reference, we see from Psalm 139 that God was intimately involved in the smallest detail of our formation. Genesis 1 tells that God gave each human being a living soul, designed for relationship with Him. This applies to every human being, and so affects the way Christians are to treat others. Jesus stated that all of God's law can be summed up in two commandments: to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and then to love our neighbor (our fellow man) as ourself.

This view of origin changed the way that people treated each other right from the first days of Christianity. Christians cared for the outcasts of society, not because they could contribute anything, but because they were people created in the image of God. It was Christians like William Wilberforce and John Newton who eventually brought an end to the inhuman slave trade for the same reason. Today, still, Christians minister to the poor and the outcast of society because, in each of them, we see the "Imago Dei" - the image of God.

Critics would quickly point to the pogroms and the persecution of which the church has been guilty over the centuries - and that criticism is valid to a point. However, those who would perpetrate such evil in the name of Christianity go against the teachings of the God they claim to serve. In other words, they are living in a manner that is inconsistent with a Biblical worldview. Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21). It would be akin to a medical doctor who, rather than healing, contributes to someone's illness, breaking his hippocratic oath.

On the other hand, a secular worldview would take as its view of origin that mankind evolved from a series of random occurrences in amindless universe. We are here simply because we survived while other species didn't. We are merely highly developed animals, whose final destiny is the dust. The logical outworking of this belief is the devaluing of human life. What, after all, is the justification for helping the disadvantaged when they have nothing to offer back to the species?

If we are only flotsam and jetsom in the universe and have no purpose beyond this life, why keep the unwanted child - abortion makes sense; why care for the severely disabled - they serve no purpose. It was this reasoning that led Hitler to destroy millions in the gas chambers of World War II. He was a staunch believer in the superiority of the Aryan Race and set out to destroy the "mongrel races." He believed, as he learned from evolutionary theory, in the survival of the fittest. He was merely helping nature along. The Nuremberg Trials were an eye-opener in that they had to appeal to a "higher law" in order to find the Nazis guilty of crimes against humanity.

While the criticisms of a sometimes violent church history are somewhat valid, as admitted above, what about the atrocities committed by those with a non-theistic view of the world? The worst tyrants in the history of the world have been those who denied the existence of God and therefore lived as though there was no-one to whom they must ultimately give account. I speak of men like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Chairman Mao and those who have inherited his office. If you believe that we are all the products of a mindless process, on what grounds do you say that they were wrong?

What I've tried to demonstrate here is an example of how worldview does shape the way we live our lives and affects culture at large. We need to think about what we believe and why because ideas have consequences. We'll pick up on the second question tomorrow.

Worldview - an introduction.

Yesterday we looked at the question of worldview and its importance in helping us find the truth. Today we're going to continue in that theme and look at exactly what a worldview is and how to frame the discussion.

Simply put, a worldview is a lens through which we view the world and by which we interpret events, information and experiences. Each of us has one, whether we have thought it through or not.

I have found Ravi Zacharias, a prolific Christian author and speaker, very helpful in his work on this subject. He says that a worldview has to answer four basic questions: Where did I come from? What is life's meaning? How do I define right from wrong and what happens to me when I die? These can be categorized as Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny. The catch, and the reason that Christianity rises above other worldviews, is that these four categories must be coherent: they must make sense together. The answer to each question must also stand on its own - it has to conform to reality.

Nancy Pearcey has taken a slightly different approach in her book Total Truth. She gives three categories: Creation, Fall, and Redemption. The questions are basically the same. I would highly recommend her newsletter for an example of how a solid grasp of worldview can help you to make sense of the world. Understanding this subject can also help you to better identify the biases and prejudicial tendencies of news outlets and academic institutions. As already stated, we all have a worldview. What we need to do is be upfront about that fact. Tomorrow we'll begin with the first question and look at the different answers we might get from various viewpoints.

Christianity & Science

There's a theme that keeps being repeated over and over again in the popular media which basically states that there is a war between religion (particularly Christianity) and science. Time magazine recently did a cover on just this subject. A British television station went one further, airing a two-part special titled "The Root of All Evil?". Both Time and the TV series featured Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous apologist of Darwinism.

One of the most consistent myths being perpetrated by Dawkins and his ilk is that Christianity promotes ignorance and superstition. He may have some scientific qualifications, but his grasp of history could certainly be improved.

As Rodney Stark outlines in his book, The Victory of Reason, it was Christian Europe that provided the fertile soil for modern science. As he states, Christianity "embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth." It was, in part, the understanding that God was an intelligent being who created in a logical and orderly manner that encouraged scientists to look for the order in nature. There were laws in nature because there was a law-giver.

I think it's a given that there are many, if not most, religions which are anti-science, but Christianity is not one of them. What Christians object to is pseudo-science: making outlandish faith claims and calling it science. Retired Berkeley law school professor Phillip E. Johnson, among others, have pointed out the propensity of some members of the scientific community to make truth claims without the required evidence.

The Discovery Institute is an organization established by well-known scientists such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards who also happen to be Christians. So was Isaac Newton, by the way. All of these men - and countless other men and women - have found that their Christian faith and scientific investigation are mutually compatible.

What intellectually drew me to Christianity was the fact that it is based in history and has a comprehensive view of the world. It has as its central tenet an historical event - the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It presents a view of the world that makes sense at every level. As C.S. lewis wrote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Over the next few posts we're going to look at the idea of worldview, and how the Biblical worldview compares with that of other faiths - including atheism. Your comments are welcome.

Merry Christmas!

It's Christmas season again, and once again the debate is raging all over post-Christian North America. Do we say "Merry Christmas" or are we infringing on someone's rights? Do we put up a Christmas tree or is it now a "Holiday Tree?"

Walmart has done its polling and decided that its good for business to dare to say the "C" word. Most others will stick with the politically correct "Happy Holidays." All of this foolishness has once again got a lot of Christians up in arms and writing letters in defence of Christmas. I was tempted to do the same with this blog.

However, the fact is this: we no longer live in a Christian society, and we need to stop pretending that we do. It is not our job to try to make everyone celebrate our Christian holidays just because we do, and just because everybody used to. It's our job to make the way we celebrate so attractive that they want to join us. I love Christmas - it's a great time of year. I like the fact that we can turn our attention to the coming of Jesus Christ into this world. He is the greatest gift ever given, after all.

So, what can you do to demonstrate the real meaning of Christmas? Put up your own nativity on your own lawn. Take a neighbor to see the new movie "The Nativity Story" and talk about it afterwards. Invite a friend to a Christmas Eve service. Take some carolers to a Nursing Home or a street-corner. Give a secret gift to someone who needs it and do it in the name of Jesus. Celebrate Christmas and let your good works point people to our Father in heaven.

Surprise! Hollywood Influences Children.

I know that some of you are shocked by this, but a recent study has confirmed what many have been saying all along, graphic movies have a negative impact on our children. According to an article in the Washington Post and re-run in the Toronto Star, there was a substantial difference in risky behavior between 9-12 year-olds whose parents allowed them to watch 'R' rated movies and those who didn't.

Remember that in Canada the ratings system is quite different, so many movies rated 'R' stateside are actually '14A' here or even 'PG13.' According to the study done by researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, children with permissive parents were 40% more likely to consider using cigarettes or alcohol than their more restricted peers.

This simply confirms what many parents have already assumed to be fact - GIGO "Garbage In, Garbage Out." There have been voices speaking up for years but they have largely been ignored by the mainstream media or dismissed as crackpots. Movie critic Michael Medved has been an especially articulate spokesman in favor of some self-control from Hollywood (don't hold your breath). A couple of books have spoken specifically to this issue, incuding: "Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values" and one he co-authored with his psychologist wife: "Saving Childhood: Protecting Our Children from the National Assault on Innocence."

We live in a complicated age. Technology has enabled us to have instant access to news and entertainment from anywhere in the world to wherever we happen to be. This new freedom is not necessarily a good thing if we haven't learned how to discern. This is particularly important for the age group mentioned in this study. We've focused a lot in our society on the unhealthy diets which our fast-food culture has inflicted on our kids, but what about the junk food for the brain that passes for entertainment. Regarding the morality of the movie and music industry the question seems to be "how low can you go?"

I guess the good news coming out of this study is that parents who took an active role in the viewing choices of their children were actually able to make a difference. Don't give up on being parents. Your kids may fight you, your friends may criticize you, liberal media may mock you, but your kids need you. Hang in there!