The Beginning of the World (Creation vs. Evolution, Good vs. Evil, Light vs. Darkness, Oneness vs. Trinitarianism) with Steven Waldron

Over the years, I find myself drawn more and more to the book of Genesis in prayer and study. It’s possibly the most attacked book in the Bible by liberal scholars, pseudo-scientists, and a litany of other detractors. The enemy knows if he can cast doubt on one book of the Bible, the others fall too. And because Genesis lays the foundation for the other sixty-five books, its validity is critical. Unfortunately, many well-meaning Christians have unnecessarily caved to societal pressures and contorted doctrinal positions into impossible knots. They’ve redefined, parsed, injected, and superimposed non-literal meanings into Genesis, leaving a husk of originality. This capitulating is often done in obeisance to the overinflated scientific communities wildly unscientific theories like the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution.

The enemy knows if he can cast doubt on one book of the Bible, the others fall too. And because Genesis lays the foundation for the other sixty-five books, its validity is critical.

Many well-meaning Christians have caved to societal pressures and contorted doctrinal positions into impossible knots. They’ve redefined, parsed, injected, and superimposed non-literal meanings into Genesis, leaving a husk of originality.

Expanding Circles of Truthless Knowledge

For serious-minded people, the unflinching partiality in proclaiming ideas as fact is maddening beyond words. The oddity of what I’m trying to describe brings 2 Timothy 3:7 and its depiction of the last days squarely into focus: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Knowledge has undoubtedly increased exponentially over the past one hundred years alone, yet the truth is fuzzier than ever for most. You might think in a naturalistic society, questions of gender would be settled debates, but not in a culture that’s stuck in a learning circle. Picture, if you will, a circle of learning with truth just on the outside of the circle. In their learning, they sometimes touch truth briefly, but the curvature of the loop takes them past reality into incredible error. As the circle of knowledge expands, it grows away from truth rather than encompassing reality. The ever-expanding knowledge that edges away from the solid foundation of absolute truth leave learners empty, broken, unfulfilled, unguided, and unregulated. They are like compasses without a true north or oceans without the gravitational pull of the moon.

Expanding Circles of Truthless Knowledge

Knowledge that edges away from the solid foundation of absolute truth leave learners empty, broken, unfulfilled, unguided, and unregulated. They are like compasses without a true north or oceans without the gravitational pull of the moon.

Scientific Science Deniers

But there is a glimmer of hope. The scientific community has mismanaged and overstepped itself on so many occasions that people are starting to catch on. Large swaths of Christians and even irreligious folks are beginning to realize that worshipping at the altar of science “so-called” is a dangerous proposition. Some generations forgot that Hitler and other vile historical figures committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of science and progress. The oddities and evident confusion or outright malevolence of the scientific community’s response and involvement in COVID jolted many people out of complacency. Even with the most generous opinions towards the scientific community surrounding COVID, most people have found it to be incompetent at the very least. Yet, unbelieving heretics are being burned at the public stake of opinion in disgrace for daring to disagree with the First Church of Scientific Naturalism. How interesting and telling it is that the science community so often becomes the predominant deniers of genuine science.

How interesting and telling it is that the science community so often becomes the predominant deniers of genuine science.

My Faith Journey

I was homeschooled and then went into private Christian schools throughout my childhood and teenage years. I was not taught the theory of Evolution formally in school—quite the opposite. However, like all other kids born since the mainstreaming of the Big Bang Theory, I wrestled with questions in my heart. It was hard to find coherent rebuttals to Darwinian thought aside from disgusted remarks about how we didn’t come from monkeys or that Evolution is pollution in my younger years. While that’s all cute and accurate, it didn’t satisfy my curious mind. Thankfully, I found two books that at least began answering all my questions: Scientific Creationism edited by Henry M. Morris Ph.D. and The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology by Alfred Rehwinkel (yes – I was a nerd). I highly recommend clicking the links included on those book titles and grabbing your own copies on Amazon.

Steven Waldron’s Creationist Commentary

Because of my faith journey, I understand the importance of intelligently pushing back against error, falsehoods, and well-formed untruths. And that is why I was so delighted to read and promote Pastor Steven Waldron’s new book series entitled Commentary on Genesis (Discussions in Scripture Series – A Creationist Commentary), Volumes 1-3 on the Apostolic Voice Podcast, Episode 51. There are many excellent books and commentary on Genesis, but I know none that approach the book of beginnings the way Waldron has done it. For one, he uses a conversational tone that is nonetheless intellectual and readable at the same time. Secondly, it is a verse-by-verse discussion. And thirdly, the majority of the book’s focus revolves around defending the literal interpretation of Genesis. Fourthly, it is not dull or droning. And there are other nuggets of profound information scattered throughout the book as well. Every Christians should own all three volumes of Steven Waldron’s Commentary on Genesis (Discussions in Scripture Series – A Creationist Commentary).

Episode 51, Highlights

I’ve linked our podcast chat below, and I certainly hope you will listen. However, I also wanted to highlight some of the significant points from Waldron’s book and our conversation in written form. Perhaps it will whet your appetite for more, and seeing things in writing helps burn them into our memories. At least that’s my hope. Besides, what could be more interesting than the beginning of the world?

Six Days of Creation

Like myself, Waldron affirms the biblical belief that the world is young and that God literally created the world in six days with no gaps or caveats. In his opening rejection of Evolution, Waldron declares:

All Spiritual and Scientific laws are found here in creation. The theory of Evolution destroys our connections with the past and with God. Are we in the image of a bacteria or God? Does the world have purpose, or is all just random chance? How can we know where we are going if we do not know where we came from? Is there a sense of meaning? The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is consistent with reality. It is what we see when we look around, whether biologically, geologically, morally, or astronomically. Everything fits perfectly with Scripture.

The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is consistent with reality. It is what we see when we look around, whether biologically, geologically, morally, or astronomically. Everything fits perfectly with Scripture.

We Want Utopia Because We Lost Utopia

Waldron makes a philosophical and theological connection between the Garden of Eden and the human condition. We yearn for utopia because we lost it at the human fall in Edan. There seems to be a deep longing in the human psyche to regain humanistically what we lost spiritually. Yet, our only hope for that kind of redemption is found in Jesus. A necessary reality that God foreknew before creation itself. When humanity tries to create a utopia apart from God, the opposite occurs. Every. Single. Time.

We yearn for utopia because we lost it at the human fall in Edan. There seems to be a deep longing in the human psyche to regain humanistically what we lost spiritually.

Attention to Division

There’s a paradox in Scripture that first plays out in the book of Genesis. While unity gives humanity great power for good or evil, division similarly empowers us (Genesis 1:4-7). Waldron notes this Divine attention to division:

We also see that division is a key concept early in Genesis. Division of light and dark. Division of waters. Division of day and night. Evening and morning. Later divisions into kinds of various living things are mentioned. Then an enclosed Garden, separated from the world, for man and woman. And the division of what could be consumed and what could not.

I believe this to be a type and foreshadowing of later biblical teachings on holiness and separation from the world—the division of the clean and the unclean, the righteous and the profane, etc. Indeed, the typology of light and darkness is perpetuated throughout both Testaments, culminating dramatically in John 1:1-14. There’s much more to explore on this subject. The depths have yet to be treaded. In the meantime, the apparent paradox is reconciled with the revelation that true unity in the spiritual sense can only be achieved by first paying great attention to the details of Divine division.

True unity in the spiritual sense can only be achieved by first paying great attention to the details of Divine division.

The Law of Biogenesis (Life Produces Life)

Pasteur’s beaker famously proved that only life produces life. Previously, even scientists erroneously believed the corpse itself produced the observable maggots on a dead carcass. By isolating meat in a beaker, Pasteur paved the way for further breakthroughs revealing that only life begets life. It takes life to make life. Dead things do not produce living things. Waldron illuminated this point while commenting on Genesis 1:11:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

God is the source of all life, and He placed life within the seed giving it potential to fill the earth with its own kind. An incredibly complex genetic structure determines its own kind. As Waldron astutely points out:

Genetic walls are built into the seed, which ensures that which is encoded in the cell is what is produced. Change comes from within the DNA, not from without. Cut off a thousand generations of rat tails, and the rodent DNA still says rats will reproduce with tails. The law of kinds, DNA, and genetic walls does not allow for Evolution. This is observable science.

Cut off a thousand generations of rat tails, and the rodent DNA still says rats will reproduce with tails. The law of kinds, DNA, and genetic walls does not allow for Evolution. This is observable science.

Young Earth and the Lunar Recession

One inconvenient fact for evolutionists is that the moon is receding from the earth about two inches each year. Waldron makes this case in detail:

If the earth were much over six thousand years of age, the lunar gravitation which currently causes our beneficial tides would wreak havoc and destruction on planet earth. And before that, it would have just crashed into the earth. So, if current processes extend backwards just a few millennia, they would be an impossibility. The same is true for the sun. It is decreasing in size at the rate of five feet per second. Just a few thousand years ago, the earth would be unbearably hot from the closeness of the sun, and life on earth would be impossible.

After Their Kind (Genesis 1:21)

Again, we see the biblical fixation on the certain immutable traits of species (Genesis 1:21). Fish produce fish after their kind. Trees produce trees after their kind. Two dogs don’t produce a cat, and so forth. Waldron pivots from this into a discussion of the fossil record:

Fossils from whatever strata they are found show the same things that are alive today. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, and certainly not the chains of fossils from one kind to another, that Evolution and Darwin say should be there and should be the vast majority of the fossil record. “Kinds” are exactly what we see in DNA and the laws of genetics. There is fixity of each species, and only slight variations are possible within the genetic walls of each kind.

The Majestic Plural (Genesis 1:26)

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… (Genesis 1:26).

Here we have a Scripture commonly referred to by Trinitarians suggesting an allusion to the trinity in the Old Testament. Who is God talking to in Genesis 1:26? Waldron walks through several possibilities posed by Christendom throughout the centuries. For example, the traditional Jewish explanation has been that God was referring to the Cherubim’s or other angels (that distinction is another topic for another day). Waldron lists three reasons this might be a possibility. Eventually, though, he states, “The pushback on this subject is that only God is the Creator. And whoever God is referring to here seems to be participating in the act of creation.”

One thing we know for certain, Moses, the inspired author of Genesis, was monotheistic. He did not see this as an indication of God’s plurality or a hint of two hidden separate persons in the Godhead. I concur with Waldron’s assertion that Elohim is seen as the plural of majesty. In other words, God was using the language of royalty about Himself in Genesis 1:26. Charles Ryrie, in his systematic work Ryrie’s Basic Theology, makes an unusual admission for a trinitarian scholar:

We have already suggested that the plural name for God, Elohim, denotes God’s unlimited greatness and supremacy. To conclude, plurality of persons from the name itself is dubious.[i]

Ryrie goes on to speculate despite the evidence that a mystical trinity is probably evidenced in the text. But he ends up having to contradict himself gravely to do so. Regardless, in my opinion, God was not playing hide-and-seek with Moses or giving a peek-a-boo moment for a trinity to be revealed at a later date. Instead, God was speaking of Himself with a majestic plural. Interestingly, Waldron poses another possibility:

Since God dwells outside of time, as well as in time, He could have been referring to the man Christ Jesus here, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since all things were made by Jesus, predicated upon Him, this is entirely possible and plausible.

I have no problem with that view. However, for my mind, the majestic plural is the best explanation of this verse. Even today, it isn’t uncommon to hear someone speak of themselves in the plural. It adds gravitas and majesty to their countenance. It’s historically common among royalty. And since God is the supreme ruler of all things it would make sense for Him to speak in that vernacular of Himself. Even intellectually honest Trinitarians are eventually forced to admit that Genesis 1:26 is not a Divine admission of three persons.

One thing we know for certain, Moses, the inspired author of Genesis, was monotheistic. He did not see this as an indication of God’s plurality or a hint of two hidden separate persons in the Godhead (Genesis 1:26).

God was not playing hide-and-seek with Moses or giving a peek-a-boo moment for a trinity to be revealed at a later date. Instead, God was speaking of Himself with a majestic plural (Genesis 1:26).

Endnote

[i] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Accordance electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), 58.

Ep. 51 | The Beginning of the World (Creation vs. Evolution, Good vs. Evil, Light vs. Darkness, Oneness vs. Trinitarianism) with Steven Waldron Apostolic Voice with Ryan French

Ryan French and Pastor Steven Waldron have a riveting conversation about the literal interpretation of the biblical description of a six-day creation versus the secular religion of evolution and the Big Bang Theory. In addition, we are taking a deep plunge into the book of Genesis based on Steven's new book series entitled Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1 (Discussions in Scripture Series – A Creationist Commentary). Their discussion explores issues of morality, good and evil, light and darkness, and the oneness of God as opposed to trinitarianism. This episode unequivocally exposes the secular anti-God religion surrounding the false theory of evolution. Furthermore, it reveals that it takes more faith to believe in science "so-called" than it does the Bible. Steven Waldron Links: Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1 | Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2 | Commentary on Genesis, Volume 3 | New Life of Albany, GA YouTube Channel | Biblical Archeology Today with Steve Waldron Podcast | The Premier Study Bible — Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/apostolicvoice/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/apostolicvoice/support
YouTubeApple PodcastsAnchorBreakerOvercastPocketCastsRadio PublicSpotifyiTunes

Mass Killings and the Question of Evil

Two mass shootings have rocked the nation in the past month alone. One of them occurred right here in the Atlanta area that I love and call home. This isn’t a news story, it’s not my intention to give details or sensationalize the killings. Understandably, America always waits with bated breath for any details that might clarify the reasons behind a shooter’s sickening actions. Sadly, knowing a killer’s motivations (regardless of what they are) will be of no solace to those who have lost a loved one to senseless killing. Justifiably, the watching world craves some level of understanding going forward. One thing is sure, nothing discovered will produce any satisfying revelations. By assessing motives, we desperately hope to discover an inoculation from individual acts of evil. Although new laws may or may not make certain types of despicable inclinations more challenging to accomplish – laws do nothing to address the pervasive evil contained within the human heart.

Although new laws may or may not make certain types of despicable inclinations more challenging to accomplish – laws do nothing to address the pervasive evil contained within the human heart.

Pure Evil Can’t Be Intimidated

Undoubtedly, consequences (legal and otherwise) intimidate many people into submission. However, threatened social consequences are only preemptively impactful to a certain point. Obviously, suicide bombers can’t be intimidated by the loss of life over their actions. They give their lives willingly in the service of evil. Neither can a suicidal killer with hatred in his heart be thwarted by any punitive measures. A homicidal heart will find a way to commit murder regardless of the actions civil society takes. Please don’t misunderstand; we should take preventative measures when and where possible. It would be ludicrous for polite society to conclude that because rape can’t be totally eradicated, we shouldn’t make every effort humanly possible to prevent and punish rape. Indeed, the same goes for murder, whether it be mass murder or homicide in general.

Mass Shootings: A Modern Problem

Mass killings are a relatively new social manifestation of evil. While every society from the beginning of time (going all the way back to the biblical account of Genesis) has suffered the scourge of violence and homicidal hatred, the particularly heinous rise of senseless mass murder is a distinctively modern problem. Since the dawn of so-called civilization, governments and power-hungry tyrants have slaughtered more innocents than historians can count. But otherwise, average individuals killing innocent people they don’t even know (or barely know) en masse is terrifyingly unique. The level of hatred required for this nightmarish breed of viciousness defies comprehension. Modern psychology views the origin of evil as a biological byproduct rather than an outside force that impacts us biologically. Therefore, it only addresses the symptoms and remains incapable of correctly diagnosing the primary disease.

Modern psychology views the origin of evil as a biological byproduct rather than an outside force that impacts us biologically. Therefore, it only addresses the symptoms and remains incapable of correctly diagnosing the primary disease.

The Origin of Evil

Evil is evil, and while individuals are responsible for their own actions, evil does not originate in the human psyche. It is always easier to relegate every depraved human action down to mental illness or madness. While mental illness is undoubtedly a real problem, not all (or even most) mentally ill individuals commit horrific crimes. Just calling a killer mentally ill doesn’t explain away their actions or substantively address why one mentally ill person kills and another does not. We instinctively want to categorize evil as insanity because it is too emotionally painful to imagine a sane person methodically killing dozens of people he’s never even met.

Just calling a killer mentally ill doesn’t explain away their actions or substantively address why one mentally ill person kills and another does not.

We instinctively want to categorize evil as insanity because it is too emotionally painful to imagine a sane person methodically killing dozens of people he’s never even met.

Out of the Shadows

Mass shootings push the fallen nature of humankind out from the shadows into the harsh light of day. The naked evil and wicked capacity of the human heart causes us to blink and squint. We can’t look directly at it without excruciating pain. It’s not that evil things aren’t happening all around us every day – we just fail or refuse to notice them. Like the prophets of old, those who do notice and comment are labeled depressing, downers, boorish, buzz killers, alarmists, catastrophists, or some other condescending pejorative. But large-scale, in-your-face evil can’t be ignored, denied, or minimized. So, we hunger for the elusive why behind the “madness.” Some point the finger of blame at God in these circumstances (here’s a great article on the origins of evil). But ultimately, evil is satanic in origin and embedded in the human condition. Therefore, human methodologies alone – no matter how well-intentioned – will never eradicate evil from the human heart.

Mass shootings push the fallen nature of humankind out from the shadows into the harsh light of day. The naked evil and wicked capacity of the human heart causes us to blink and squint.

It’s not that evil things aren’t happening all around us every day – we just fail or refuse to notice them.

Like prophets of old, those who notice evil are labeled depressing, downers, buzz killers, alarmists, or some other condescending pejorative. But large-scale, in-your-face evil can’t be ignored, denied, or minimized.

Evil is satanic in origin and embedded in the human condition. Therefore, human methodologies alone – no matter how well-intentioned – will never eradicate evil from the human heart.

Because the fallen nature of humankind is vulnerable and consistently capable of awful behavior, Jesus instructed us to pray, “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil… (Matthew 6:13).” I’ve often marveled at those who assert that God is not good while simultaneously claiming that humans are intrinsically good. I’m not sure you can read about events like mass shootings and believe in the innate goodness of humanity. Facing the depravity of the human condition head-on is depressing and hard to grasp. The human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). C.H. Spurgeon wrote:

“As the salt flavors, every drop in the Atlantic so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived.” He added: “The venom of sin is in the very fountain of our being; it has poisoned our heart. It is in the very marrow of our bones and is as natural to us as anything that belongs to us.”

I’ve often marveled at those who assert that God is not good while claiming that humans are intrinsically good. I’m not sure you can read about mass shootings and believe in the innate goodness of humanity.

The Bad News and the Good News

We inherited that sinful nature from the lineage of Adam (Romans 5:12). You can’t truly fathom the goodness of the Gospel until you grasp the depravity of the human condition. The Good News begins with bad news: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Thankfully, the Gospel story begins with condemnation but ends with redemption. In the weeks and months ahead, I have decided to write, podcast, preach and teach about the Gospel. If you’re reading this and you feel hopeless, please know there is hope. If you’re reading this and you know someone who feels hopeless, please tell them about Jesus. Tell them how God wants to forgive their sins and fill them with His Spirit (Acts 2:38). Tell them how the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead can raise them above the hopelessness of sin (Romans 8:11). We can push back against the darkness by reaching one heart at a time with the truth of the Gospel. It’s the only hope for the human condition.

You can’t truly fathom the goodness of the Gospel until you grasp the depravity of the human condition. The Good News begins with bad news.

Thankfully, the Gospel story begins with condemnation but ends with redemption.

We can push back against the darkness by reaching one heart at a time with the truth of the Gospel. It’s the only hope for the human condition.

Podcast

YouTubeApple PodcastsAnchorBreakerOvercastPocketCastsRadio PublicSpotifyiTunes

Link to the David French Article Mentioned in the Podcast

The Death of Reverence

CAN YOU DEFINE REVERENCE?

While contemplating this article, I conducted an extremely non-scientific, anecdotal experiment. I asked several people from various backgrounds (religious, irreligious, and a few in between) to define the word reverence as best they could without googling it or phoning a friend. As you can imagine, the answers were varied, to say the least: Some were spot on (mostly the extremely religious), others defined reverence as some type of fear (mostly the mildly religious), several people thought reverence was a title for priests or clergy (mostly the irreligious), and a handful didn’t know how to define the word reverence at all. If they were willing to play along, I also asked them to explain the terms sacred, hallowed, consecrated, holy, and inviolable (if you’re like most people, you had to google inviolable). People’s attempts to define these words sorted out pretty much the same way as it did for the word reverence; they were confused, uncertain, or outright wrong in their answers.

THE YOUNG & THE IRRELIGIOUS!

Pollsters, social scientists, and statisticians are super interested in putting us all into nice little categories. In reality, humans are far more complex and less monolithic than we have been led to believe. However, it’s increasingly clear from stats that the elderly are much likelier than younger generations to be religious.

Rest assured, many young adults are extremely religious, but there is an ever-widening gap between the spiritual and the irreligious. Meaning, the “in-betweeners” are disappearing. People are either becoming more religious than ever or joining the growing number of atheists. So, the question is why? Why is this gap ever-widening, and what can be done about it? From the secular perspective, nirvana can be reached by eradicating pesky religious notions. It’s a naive and ludicrous idea.

There is an ever-widening gap between the spiritual and the irreligious. Meaning, the “in-betweeners” are disappearing. People are either becoming more religious than ever or joining the growing number of atheists.

THE MEANINGLESSNESS CONUNDRUM

Douglas Rushkoff is a widely acclaimed media theorist, writer, and university professor. His name might not be familiar to you, but you’ve used phrases he coined. Terms like “viral media” and “social currency” originated with Rushkoff. Some of his thoughts on socialization and technology are fascinating. His theories have silently impacted your life in more ways than one. Rushkoff is one of many vogue atheists who laid the groundwork for secularizing modern young minds. Here’s a famous and particularly nauseating quote from Rushkoff:

“It’s also hard for people to contend with the difficult possibility that we are simply overadvanced fungi and bacteria hurtling through a galaxy in cold, meaningless space. But just because our existence may have arisen unintentionally and without purpose doesn’t preclude meaning or purpose from emerging as a result of our interaction and collaboration. Meaning may not be a precondition for humanity as much as a by-product of it.”

THE MEANINGLESS FALLOUT!

It’s almost painful to read Rushkoff, and countless others like him, trying to deal with the conundrum of meaninglessness that secularism produces. All the pandering platitudes and pointless philosophizing in the world can’t reconcile the awful emptiness that godlessness produces. Rushkoff’s quote reeks of desperation. It’s as if he’s trying to force the square peg of meaning into the circular slot of secularism. To his credit, at least he’s attempting to face the nothingness of secularism. He’s honest enough to admit that his worldview relegates us all to overadvanced fungi and bacteria hurtling through a galaxy in cold, meaningless space. His feeble attempt to insert meaning and purpose into this worldview falls flat on its face. Any intellectually honest person knows that if this trendy shift away from belief in God continues, there will be a catastrophic fallout in the collective human psyche.

All the pandering platitudes and pointless philosophizing in the world can’t reconcile the awful emptiness that godlessness produces.

Any intellectually honest person knows that if this trendy shift away from belief in God continues, there will be a catastrophic fallout in the collective human psyche.

I suspect that much of the world’s woes are precursors to this fallout. Many societal problems are directly linked to the psychological and spiritual disruption that occurs when humans start thinking of themselves as animals. Higher evolved perhaps, but animals, nonetheless. Even worse, what if large swaths of humanity adopt Rushkoff’s view and seriously think of humanity as being little more than bacteria? At least most people like animals, but no one likes or cares for fungi. Certainly, dangerous ideas have real-life consequences.

Many societal problems are directly linked to the psychological and spiritual disruption that occurs when humans start thinking of themselves as animals. Higher evolved perhaps, but animals, nonetheless.

HOW CAN IT FEEL SO WRONG IF THERE’S NO WRONG?

The repercussions of a perceived godless universe are already being felt in big and small ways. I believe the growing suicide rates indicate how a perceived world without eternal purpose affects people mentally. The staggering statistics on mass depression and substance abuse also highlight the failures of secularism. Secular thinkers are perplexed by the dilemma of a wildly advanced civilization filled with unhappy citizens. Our world has more wealth, health, comfort, entertainment, and prosperity than any other generation in civilization’s history. Yet, we are plagued with dissatisfaction, disappointment, and disenfranchisement. Predictably, while society encourages and celebrates freedom from religion, the warm fuzzy feelings quickly fade into a haze of melancholia.

Secular thinkers are perplexed by the dilemma of a wildly advanced civilization filled with unhappy citizens.

Our world has more wealth, health, comfort, entertainment, and prosperity than any other generation in civilization’s history. Yet, we are plagued with dissatisfaction, disappointment, and disenfranchisement.

Take racism, for example, an issue that is currently spotlighted in our nation. Many agnostic millennials are waking up to the shortcomings of their worldview. For instance, without a God, there is no such thing as tangible intrinsic human rights or freedoms. If we weren’t created equally by God and we’re just overadvanced fungi, what makes racism wrong? What makes anything wrong? Why would euthanasia be wrong? Why would suicide be wrong? Why would hatred, bigotry, dislike, or injustice be wrong? The very word injustice implies an intrinsic human right, but humanity doesn’t have inherent rights without God. Without God, the world is just an animalistic fight for survival where only the fittest survive.

Without a God, there is no such thing as tangible intrinsic human rights or freedoms. If we weren’t created equally by God and we’re just overadvanced fungi, what makes racism wrong? What makes anything wrong?

The very word injustice implies an intrinsic human right, but humanity doesn’t have inherent rights without God. Without God, the world is just an animalistic fight for survival where only the fittest survive.

Without God, we’re all just little specks looking for some silly bits of meaning in a vast ocean of nothingness. Try as they might, godless philosophers and thought leaders can’t change that reality because it’s the logical dead end to a series of agonizingly long and twisted veins of faulty philosophies.

Without God, we’re all just little specks looking for meaning in a vast ocean of nothingness. Godless philosophers can’t change that reality because it’s the logical dead end to a series of agonizingly long and twisted veins of philosophy.

INCUBATION, INEBRIATION, INHIBITION, HANGOVER

Like all philosophies (and sins), there’s a kind of early incubation period. During incubation, a new albeit terrible idea basks in the warmth of shiny newness. Of course, there’s nothing new under the sun, but mankind has a gullible tendency to mistake ancient sins for brand new brilliant ideas. The “new” worldview temporarily blooms into an exciting “free” way of life, unshackled by the silliness of past ideologies, morals, standards, or antiquated religious reverences.

Mankind has a gullible tendency to mistake old sins for brand new brilliant ideas. The new worldview temporarily blooms into an exciting free way of life, unshackled by past ideologies, morals, standards, or antiquated religious reverences.

For a long time, the Western Hemisphere has enjoyed the inebriations of heady Rushkoffian philosophies. Secular society has tried hard to create its own brand of morality from nothingness. The inebriation produces predictable inhibitions. They’ve been comfortably intoxicated with the exhilaration of their “new” notions, but for many, the hangover phase is kicking in. The stark realization that most secular “moralities” are poorly imitated holdovers from the Judeo-Christian worldview is unsettling. Morality always unravels without the involvement and recognition of humanity’s Divine Creator.

Morality always unravels without the involvement and recognition of humanity’s Divine Creator.

THE GROWING DIVIDE

There was a time when secularists and Christians agreed that certain things were considered sacred. They treated those things with reverence. For example, most agreed human life was sacred and should be treated with reverence. Most agreed there was something sacred about the innocence of children and that children should be protected. Most agreed freedom and common decencies were sacred. The family was also considered sacred by most of society. But an alarmingly large number of secularists hold their noses in disdain at the very mention of things we used to have in common.

THE DEATH OF REVERENCE

I could fill lots of paragraphs with examples of how society is cheapening the value of human life. The abortion issue alone could fill volumes of books. Certainly, secular society gives lip service to the sanctity of life, but they are increasingly less interested in protecting the lives of those who are in disagreement with their worldview. And, of course, the slow decline of the family unit has been documented for decades. Society can’t even agree to call biological men, men and biological women, women (and supposedly Christians are the science “deniers”). It’s not even socially acceptable to teach children that a family consists of a biological mom and a biological dad who are married. So, how can we expect the family unit (the basic fundamental building block of society) to thrive?

Secular society gives lip service to the sanctity of life, but they are increasingly less interested in protecting the lives of those who are in disagreement with their worldview.

It’s not even socially acceptable to teach children that a family consists of a biological mom and a biological dad who are married. So, how can we expect the family unit (the basic fundamental building block of society) to thrive?

Furthermore, marriage is viewed more and more as antiquated. Admittedly, if marriage isn’t a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God, it is pretty ridiculous. Western culture’s respect for marriage’s sanctity bit the dust when gay marriage was legalized and celebrated. To be sure, it was already gasping its last breaths, but it officially died with that legal pronouncement. Culture can’t even define the family properly anymore. Ironically, even morally ambiguous counterfeit Christians got more than they bargained for after supporting the homosexual agenda. Most liberal Christians never dreamed the transgender agenda would be the next culture battle. But if life, family, and marriage aren’t sacred or definable, sexuality isn’t either. Western society had already been pushed down the slippery slope of letting go of holy things. Vast groups of carnal gullible Christians became willing conspirators in the destruction of yet another holy and sacred institution, marriage, and family.

IT ONLY GETS WORSE

Ok. I’ll admit it! I really like to say, I told you so. But this is one situation where I desperately wish my predictions had been wrong. Years ago, on this blog, I predicted that pedophilia would become socially acceptable. My prophecy was met with incredulity, mockery, and dismissiveness. I was called a fear-monger and worse. Atheists told me that children were the last sacred totem. I couldn’t help but roll my eyes at that because I’m fully aware of the massive abortion rates. At that time, science was already definitively affirming anti-abortionists’ position, yet secular culture didn’t care at all. So, why would I believe children are any safer out of the womb than in the womb? I didn’t believe it then, and I really don’t believe it now!

A recent TED Talk entitled Why Our Perception of Pedophilia Has to Change is just one of many disgusting examples of how pedophilia is being normalized in culture. Pedophiles are brazenly referring to themselves as Minor Attracted Persons or MAPs. The internet is filled with MAPs going public and beginning their sexual revolution. Much of the so-called scientific research in this area is trending more favorably towards the MAPs community. One recent study (The Internalization of Social Stigma Among Minor-Attracted Persons: Implications for Treatment) reports that 5% of the world’s population might be MAPs. The overwhelming reports of child molestation coupled with the bleak knowledge that most child molestation cases go unreported lend credence to the 5% theory. With that kind of percentage, the societal push for destigmatization will only grow stronger. One day soon, there will be no social stigma for MAPs.

NETFLIX HITS A NEW LOW

As if on cue, while writing this article, Netflix announced the release of a new show called Cuties, where little girls are explicitly sexualized in bizarre and repulsive ways. Girls as young as eleven are scantily dressed and perform sexually provocative dance routines. Children’s hyper-sexualization is hardly a first for the entertainment culture, but it is one of the more unblushingly pro MAPs shows ever released to the general public. It would do us all well to remember how the gay agenda used this same kind of strategy to normalize itself in the public eye. Little by little, shows were littered with overt references and subtle instances of homosexuality. Western culture was predictably desensitized over a relatively short period of time. History is repeating itself, but now innocent children will suffer because of our godless culture (godless churches aren’t helping either, but that’s a different blog for a different day).

DON’T PANIC! PRAY!

Keeping all of this in mind, it’s little wonder secular culture doesn’t value or consider it worthwhile to protect Christians’ religious freedoms or their churches. This long trending cultural shift makes the Church more countercultural than it’s ever been in modern times. I want to quickly look at how the Church should and should not respond to the death of reverence taking place right before our eyes. Of course, it’s easy to feel panicky when the world seems to be in a moral death spiral. But rather than panic, why don’t we commit ourselves to prayer as never before? Prayer will stabilize us and make a difference in the world around us. Prayer isn’t simplistic or naive. It isn’t a lesser course of action than other pursuits. Instead, prayer is the action by which all other actions are judged. Nothing else we do could ever match the importance of praying over our world.

Prayer will stabilize us and make a difference in the world around us. Prayer isn’t simplistic or naive. It isn’t a lesser course of action than other pursuits.

Prayer is the action by which all other actions are judged. Nothing else we do could ever match the importance of praying over our world.

BE SUPER SERIOUS ABOUT SACRED THINGS

In response to society’s drastic shift away from reverence, the Church should contrast itself by intensifying our respect and awe for sacred things. Our gatherings should be filled with a sense of reverence and majesty. I’m not talking about stuffy formalities; however, we must resist the external pressure to approach the things of God flippantly or casually. I’ve long contended our attire is a reflection of our sense of reverence for the house of God. We should oppose societal pressure to approach corporate worship casually in demeanor, clothing, focus, and attention. We must prioritize sacred things above the secular. For example, jobs, relaxation, and entertainment should never be prioritized over the sacred. Even family time shouldn’t be prioritized above sacred things. Family time should always be a major priority, but it should be balanced so the sacred isn’t infringed upon. When Christians consistently prioritize the secular over the sacred, it signifies the impending death of reverence in their hearts.

In response to society’s drastic shift away from reverence, the Church should contrast itself by intensifying our respect and awe for sacred things. Our gatherings should be filled with a sense of reverence and majesty.

We should oppose societal pressure to approach corporate worship casually in demeanor, clothing, focus, and attention. We must prioritize sacred things above the secular.

When Christians consistently prioritize the secular over the sacred, it signifies the impending death of reverence in their hearts.

You don’t have to go back too far in history to remember a time when American culture kept Sunday’s sacred on a national level. Even the irreligious enjoyed the benefits of work-free Sundays. Now, Christians are caught between the need to be in the workplace and the need to keep the Sabbath. But Christens must have the courage to put God first and trust Him to bless their faithfulness. This is an essential area where Christians must win the battle, or we will not stand when more significant battles move to the forefront. If we can’t prioritize God over our finances, how will we prioritize Him over our lives if needed?

BEWARE OF ALPHABET SOUP

Logical fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments that seem irrefutable but prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and far too often, they retain immense persuasive power even after being exposed as false. Alphabet Soup is a fairly modern fallacy where a person or group inappropriately overuses acronyms, abbreviations, form numbers, and arcane insider “shop talk” primarily to prove to people that an individual “speaks their language” and is “one of them.” Secondarily, people use Alphabet Soup to shut out, confuse, condescend, or to impress outsiders. Officially showing someone, they are on the outside looking in. For example, “It’s not uncommon for a KC-113 with ABC to be both GW and YB;” “I had a twenty-minute DX Q-so on 17with a SED-Q12 and a couple of SQ’s even though the QR-JANE was 34 over B10;” or “I hope I’ll keep on seeing my JNT on my HVL until the day I get my WW511.”

You get the picture. Alphabet Soup is a great way to misdirect someone from noticing you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. And, it’s a wonderful way to keep people at arm’s length by intimidating them into assuming you know things you don’t really know. Secularists use this pseudo-intellectual insider jargon all the time to make Christians feel feeble or out of touch. They use made-up phrases and talk about elaborate unprovable theories as if they are cold hard facts. They blather about billions of years and trillions of eons as if they know something with certainty they don’t even understand partially. It’s a condescending, intellectually dishonest way of dominating any form of real debate before it even begins.

Secularists use this pseudo-intellectual insider jargon all the time to make Christians feel feeble or out of touch. They use made-up phrases and talk about elaborate unprovable theories as if they are cold hard facts.

Secularists blather about billions of years and trillions of eons as if they know something with certainty they don’t understand partially. It’s a condescending, intellectually dishonest way of dominating a debate before it even begins.

REFUSE TO BE MARGINALIZED

We must not allow ourselves to be marginalized or bullied into silence. If you know Jesus, you know more than the most highly educated atheist in the world. Refuse to be overlooked because of your faith. Be vocal, confidant, and unashamed.

If you know Jesus, you know more than the most highly educated atheist in the world. Refuse to be overlooked because of your faith. Be vocal, confidant, and unashamed.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Initially, I set out to write an article about irreverent behaviors creeping into everyday Christian life and church services. You know, things like cell phones lit up throughout preaching. And, one of my biggest pet peeves; talking and joking around during altar services. Empty prayer rooms, grungy casual attire, disrespect towards ministry, disrespect towards elders, immodesty, untouched Bibles, and the list goes on. But while pondering these problems, I realized these are just spiritual manifestations of much deeper cultural problems ineluctably bleeding into the Church. Everywhere I look, irreverence seems to be the norm. The dereverencing and dismantling of traditional institutions like faith, family, honesty, and morality are eroding ordinary everyday life. The needed human perceptions of majesty, grandeur, and transcendent supernatural accouterments are sadly lacking even within sincere religious settings. We live in a post-respect, post-truth, post-logic, post-virtue secular society. That secular mindset has imperceptibly influenced unsuspecting Christians.

Everywhere I look, irreverence seems to be the norm. The dereverencing and dismantling of traditional institutions like faith, family, honesty, and morality are eroding ordinary everyday life.

The needed human perceptions of majesty, grandeur, and transcendent supernatural accouterments are sadly lacking even within sincere religious settings.

We live in a post-respect, post-truth, post-logic, post-virtue secular society. That secular mindset has imperceptibly influenced unsuspecting Christians.

How has this happened? Well, mostly through secular educational systems that work to legitimize secular evolutionary philosophies and stigmatize religious viewpoints. No longer can Christians unthinkingly hand their children over to be influenced carte blanche by secular educators from preschool to the end of college. Colleges are especially egregious in their cultural brainwashing efforts. This doesn’t mean we should become anti-education. On the contrary, we should be more educated than ever before. However, we must promote positive educational reforms and demand a seat at the table within educational systems.

Beyond that, Christians have allowed secular media to dominate their time and captivate their thinking for far too long. When the elders abstained from television and movies before television and movies were really all that bad, they had spiritual foresight. In the name of freedom and progress, many Christians engage in grotesquely sacrilegious and immoral viewing regularly. I know pointing out television is antiquated. Television is quickly becoming a thing of the past. But the ever-expanding web of the internet is far more dangerous than television could ever be. Not to mention the sticky world of social media and it’s mostly unknown negative impacts on the human psyche. It would be incredibly naive and foolish for the Church to ignore the vast powers of all media sources to influence, infiltrate, desensitize, destabilize, demoralize, and stigmatize the holy things of God.

Christians have allowed secular media to dominate their time and captivate their thinking for far too long.

In the name of freedom and progress, many Christians engage in grotesquely sacrilegious and immoral viewing regularly.

It would be incredibly naive and foolish for the Church to ignore the vast powers of all media sources to influence, infiltrate, desensitize, destabilize, demoralize, and stigmatize the holy things of God.

But the Church is shaking itself loose of past naivety. We are learning to recognize what reverence looks like when it is dying. It isn’t too late for the Church. The only hope for the world is a sanctified Church calling them to repentance and a supernatural Holy Ghost encounter with God.

“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer (1 Peter 4:7).”

The only hope for the world is a sanctified Church calling them to repentance and a supernatural Holy Ghost encounter with God.

The Death of Harambe (How Moral Relativism Has Made It Controversial)

Update: since posting this article in June of last year the controversy surrounding the singular specialness of human life has continued to rage. For many, the odd angst surrounding the death of a gorilla was their first contact with this unique brand of secular madness. Wesley J. Smith of National Review fame recently published an article entitled Now It’s ‘Posthumanist Ethical Pluralism’ that deals with this issue. The article is exceptional. I hope you’ll take the time to read through it. Below is my favorite quote from the article:

“If human life doesn’t have the highest ultimate objective value simply and merely because it is human–an equal value to be distinguished from all other life forms on the planet–there is no way to philosophically defend universal human rights. Moreover, if we can’t distinguish between our inherent value and that of animals, we will not elevate their status to our level but diminish our own to theirs.”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard about the death of Harambe the gorilla. In case, by some blessed miracle you’ve been able to escape the media madness surrounding this story, I’ll give you a quick summary. A small boy recently fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo; zoo officials, fearing for the child’s life, shot and killed the 450-pound gorilla and rescued the boy.

I’m not here to argue the merits of whether or not the parents were or were not at fault. Although, having two young children myself, I know just how quickly a child can slip from your sight and into danger. Neither do I have a solid opinion on whether or not the zoo was at fault for not securing the enclosure more adequately, what’s interesting to me is the bizarre social dilemma that has bubbled up to the surface because of this story. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is a human life more valuable than an animal’s life (click here for a great article that details the ongoing debate)?

For most of my readership, this question is an absolute no brainer. Of course, a human child’s life is immensely more valuable than a gorilla’s life. But for many, this question is far from settled. We are trending on a societal trajectory that is going to wrestle with the question of the value of human life above animal life with increasing levels of intensity.

This should not be a surprise, it is, after all, the natural logical conclusion of a post-Christian, evolutionistic nation. If you reject a biblical worldview then you are left with a man-made, relativistic brand of morality. As my atheist friends would be quick to point out, it is possible to be an atheist and have morals. This is true. But their morality is subjective and open to interpretation, nuance, and circumstance.

For example, a moral relativist might say (and they often do) that war is immoral. But why? If there is no higher power who sets the standards of right and wrong than who gets to make the moral rules? Who gets to write the commandments that we all must follow? Without God, moral standards are chosen arbitrarily by those with the most power to impose their opinions. So, if human beings are just an accidental causation of a chemical reaction with no soul it’s only logical to wonder if we are really valuable at all? Why does any life have value for that matter?

Certainly, the slippery slope of evolutionary thought creates a moral conundrum; because if humans are just highly evolved animals what makes us better than lesser evolved animals? Without a higher authority, all actions are rendered nonmoral. Right and wrong, good and evil, etc. are completely idiosyncratic and without objective legitimacy.

Just to be clear, I really like animals. When Chip, my childhood dog died, I cried like a baby. I consider gorilla’s to be majestic and fascinating creatures, but they are creatures, not human beings. I think it’s tragic that circumstances caused Harambe to die. However, human life is immeasurably more valuable than animal life. The life of that one child is more valuable than every single animal in that zoo. Period.

My belief in the value of human life is deeply rooted in my biblical worldview. Human beings are created in the image of God and we are far more than flesh and blood. Our temporary bodies merely house our eternal souls. The soul is what separates us from the animals. God created animals and gave us dominion over them. Human versus animal equality should not enter into the picture at all.

But for those who have swallowed the theory of evolution and rejected the Bible, this question will continue to fester. As America becomes increasingly post-Christian, this debate will naturally rise to the forefront of the cultural conversation. This poses a tremendous opportunity for Christians because many who believe in evolution instinctively know that human life is superior to animal life. When they are forced to follow the logical conclusion of their belief system they find it hard to digest and repulsive to their sensibilities.

Even though we are living in a largely post-Christian culture there are still strong vestiges of biblical morality holding society together. In other words, many people have moral principles that are consistent with biblical principles rather than their underdeveloped post-modern beliefs. To clarify further, they still believe certain things that are consistent with biblical morality because they haven’t followed their own philosophies on down to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. Sometimes, helping to lead an intellectually honest and sincere person down their own philosophical sink hole shines a light on the real fallacies and dangers that lurk below.

In the meantime, if you don’t believe in God or the Bible you have no right to lecture me on morality of any kind. Your own belief system denies the reality of true morality and replaces it with social relativism. Social relativism is why the world has suffered genocide after genocide (including the mass genocide of unborn children) at the hands of godless governments. It also produces a growing segment of society that genuinely wonders if babies can be aborted (murdered) up to four months after birth, cheerfully sells aborted body parts over salad, and dryly kicks around the idea of population control because of an apocalyptic view of climate change (the secular version of the book of Revelations). When you lecture me (or anyone else) about morality you are playing God, and only the one true God gets to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.

Related articles: Is Faith Absurd?A Pattern Of Persecution (What Does Hollywood Have In Common With ISIS?), Why Do So Many Christians Support Same-Sex Marriage?Resist Irrelevant Relevance, 5 Key Subjects That We Must Address (If We Want To Retain Young Adults In Our Churches)