What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also… – 1 John 1:3

When I find good news – and need to share it – you’ll find it under this heading. “Akouo” means “heard”.

{Like} cold water to a weary soul, So is good news from a distant land. – Pr 25:25

This category is about… life. Your life, my life, life in general – or, just general news that doesn’t really fit my “normal” topics.

Ok, the Evangelical Outpost is hosting a blog symposium. The subject of this symposium (and, incidentally, most symposiums should have a subject…) is David Gelernter’s article – “Americanism—and Its Enemies“.
Before I go on, however, I want to point out a couple things.

David Gelernter is a professor of computer science – but that’s not all he does. He writes op-ed pieces all the time. Go do a Google search on Mr. Gelernter. Not only is he a computer scientist – and a very good one, but he is also an accomplished writer. (However, he doesn’t live up to his usual standard, in this piece.)

Edge says: “The day I met him, he walked into my office and began to lecture me on the problems with current theories of consciousness. “The discussion of consciousness is dominated by two opposite positions,” he said, starting to pace back and forth in front of my desk. “On one side you have your friend the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, who, in Consciousness Explained, presents his reductionist agenda for thinking about the mind. On the other, there are the holistic ideas of the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose in The Emperor’s New Mind.” He stopped, turned, and faced me. He looked me in the eye and in a very measured and direct tone said, “They’re both full of crap!”” and… David is The Conservative. He’s a contributing editor at the City Journal and National Review, a contributor to Commentary, and an art critic at the Weekly Standard. He has also put in appearances as token conservative or technology pundit at The New Republic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Feed, a Web magazine.

He is featured in the book “Digerati”.

He was one of the targets of the Unabomber, also – in case you’re wondering where you’ve heard the name.

So, I don’t think this is a case of “one shot at the limelight”. He writes on social issues rather frequently, and from a uniquely Jewish perspective. He’s not a flash in the pan, or someone who just “decided to write about social issues”, and got noticed, because this particular thesis was controversial. He writes a lot – and, after reading some of his other work… he writes rather well. That doesn’t mean I agree with it all. I don’t. However, he is very bright, and a very good writer.

So, let’s put that aside, ok? Attacking the “new guy” just won’t jive. His credentials suffice – in fact, they runneth over. Focus on the merits of his thesis – or the lack thereof.

Which, I do believe, I’m going to proceed with.

In 1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt said

Americanism is a matter of the mind and heart; Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race and ancestry. A good American is one who is loyal to this country and to our creed of liberty and democracy.

This is the trap we fall into, when we start to make “liberty and democracy” our creed – or even “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – as laudable as they may be. As a nation, we “hold these truths to be self-evident – that all men are created equal”. However: We no longer, as a whole, believe that we are “endowed by our Creator” with those unalienable rights. We simply believe that they are our rights.

Now, much of his article is correct – but, much is not. For example – his treatment of Puritans, and Puritanism in general, is at the heart of his thesis. This treatment is the demise of his thesis – and of his supposed connection between Puritanism, and Americanism (Or New Zionism, for that matter.).

Back to “Americanism”, for a moment.

Nationalism makes “nation” and “national history” into objects of religious worship. In that sense a “secular” nationalism is not less religious than a Hindu or Muslim one.

– Peter van der Veer

Now, although “Americanism” has been flavored very strongly with Christianity – I find that this is no longer the case, in most respects. In the past? Quite likely, Christianity and “Americanism” were complimentary. In some respects, they still are. However, most of today’s “Americanism” is simply the exaltation of “The American Ideal” to demi-religious status. We are far, far away from the days of “One Nation Under God”, in anywhere but Christian circles. The majority of America is no longer Christian. The majority of American “Christians” are not Christians in the true sense of the word. Are many traditionally ‘”chuchgoing”, or “religious”? Yes. Perhaps even the majority. Are they “Christian”? No. Part of that is the growing movement away from Biblical foundations in the church, and in society as a whole, as we are influenced more and more by the inroads that secular humanism has made into mainstream culture.

“Americanism” is simply the value judgements we make about world affairs. This, in international circles, is simply “not done”. We are hated, because we continually judge, by our own standards, the actions of other nations – without even a pretense of apology for it. This, the secular world, as a whole, cannot abide. Is this because of our ingrained “New Zionist” tendencies, or because we still bear the stamp of our Christian heritage in many respects, despite the erosion from within?

Of course, not all of America believes we can, or have any right to, judge the conduct of nations by our standards. This portion of America is called “liberal”. It bears the same ideological stamp as the nations who are aghast at our “value judgements”, and our “cowboy mentality”. These, also, are the elements, both at home, and abroad, that are disgusted by religious influences, cannot abide those who follow their religious princples, and who are shocked by the tendency of the “other half” to act on those principles – without apology, without pretense, without qualm, and without “consensus”.

That segment – which we will call “liberalism” (secular humanism, more precisely), can be described as follows:

Their consciousness hardly exists apart from the social atmosphere that surrounds them. And of course we have contrived that their very language should be all smudge and blur; what would be a bribe in someone else’s profession is a tip or a present in theirs. The job of their Tempters was first, or course, to harden these choices of the Hellward roads into a habit by steady repetition. But then (and this was all-important) to turn the habit into a principle — a principle the creature is prepared to defend. After that, all will go well. Conformity to the social environment, at first merely instinctive or even mechanical — how should a jelly not conform? — now becomes an unacknowledged creed or ideal of Togetherness or Being Like Folks. Mere ignorance of the law they break now turns into a vague theory about it — remember, they know no history — a theory expressed by calling it conventional or Puritan or bourgeois “morality.” Thus gradually there comes to exist at the center of the creature a hard, tight, settled core of resolution to go on being what it is, and even to resist moods that might tend to alter it. It is a very small core; not at all reflective (they are too ignorant) nor defiant (their emotional and imaginative poverty excludes that); almost, in its own way, prim and demure; like a pebble, or a very young cancer.

– C.S. Lewis – “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” – afterword, “The Screwtape Letters”

This view places restrictions on social conformance, creates out of the liberty only the “equality”, with none of the liberty involved in true liberty. Well, perhaps I’m being too vague.

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.
You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.
The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

– “Screwtape Proposes a Toast”

See, when we venerate “democracy”, but pervert it to only encompass the “equality”, and never the “participation in our own governmental process, by means of a voting process, by which we direct and select the government we wish”, we run the real danger of this “Americanism” – the leftist “Americanism”. You do know, don’t you, that there are two Americanisms? One version promotes “the ideals of America” – by which they mean “the behaviour that democracies like”. Another version promotes “the behaviour that will preserve a democracy.”

The distinction is profound – yet it goes directly under our radar – because it is couched in the terms of “patriotism”, “democracy”, “liberty”, “equality”, “freedom”, and “ideals”. Words. Words pregnant with meaning – and infuriating, when heard promoting the very antithesis which the opposing version espouses. Now, the opinions will always vary, on both sides of this issue – but the basic principles remain the same. One school of thought believes that “being like folks” is the supreme acheivement of societal evolution. It’s no accident that “diversity” is simply a comical farce of the word’s definition. It is “being like folks” – en masse. Another school of thought believes that “the underpinnings of society are in it’s moral values, and the application of those values”. These are the “cowboys”, the “just not done” – in short – the people that the ones who hate us really hate. They hate our moral codes, our moral decisions, and, most of all, our actions based on moral principles.

The word thrown around to describe the Iraq war by the anti-Americans was “unilateral”. When your goal is “to be like folks” – what could be more of an anathema than not receiving their sanction – and doing it anyway! That is not being like folks!

The religious adherents that follow the school of thought which requires morality based action are the especial targets of those who want “like folks”. One of our central doctrines is “do not be conformed to this world”. What could make them an enemy faster?

Americanism, when it comes down to it, is religious in form, yes. In practice? Not always. There is always form – even in the worship most dead to spiritual things. Americanism, in most practical ways, is dying to the secular cancer eating her soul, and replacing it with zombielike “like folks”. The form still exists – and is still vibrant, in many ways – but the majority of it is only the reflexive twitches of a man in his sickbed, fighting the fever that will eventually cost him his life. He fights, and fights because it is not only wise, but healthy to do so. Inaction is certain death – action is his only response, whether he believes he will live, or not.

But, we’ve covered Americanism, to a point.

When he equates Americanism with Puritanism, he makes several critical errors. They are small errors, but, unfortunately, they are errors in the very foundations of his thesis. When, as a Christian, you read through his article the first time, it leaves you really, really, wanting to agree with him. The emotional impact of it is quite powerful, when you’re coming from that worldview. Conservative Christianity has always had a soft spot for the Puritans. Why? Most of us are descendants, denominationally, of the Puritans! The Mayflower, Thanksgiving, Jonathan Edwards, John Adams… hours of preaching, detailed attention to the Old Testament. We don’t agree with them on many things – but their serious, dedicated attention to God’s word, and to their spiritual “link” to God leaves us in awe – regardless of their theological inconsistencies and practical failings.

When Gelernter uses Puritanism as his foundation for modern “Americanism”, he is using only one aspect of Puritanism as his “connection”. “The “New Israel” metaphor. In the larger scheme of things, Puritan “New Israel” thinking was a minor, minor point of their beliefs. In fact, I would make the case that it was only a very minor subset of their overall “theology”. In modern America… it does not even exist. We still support Israel… but we do nto consider ourselves a “chosen people”. The metaphor has been used – and it was just as wrong then, as it is now.

We are not the “New Israel”. Abraham Lincoln’s quote is particularly apt – “almost chosen”. Are we unique? Yes. Are we powerful? Yes. Are we chosen? No. We had no Moses. We had no pillar of fire. We had no plagues. We had no parting of the Red Sea. We had no Sinai.

We are not chosen, any more than any other Christian, or any other nation. We are merely blessed – because for a time, we really were, perhaps, the closest to a Christian nation the world has seen. Are we, though? No. Were we? Like Abe said – “almost”. “Almost.” Is this essay right? “Almost.” He gets most of the facts right – except for the parts he needs for the connection.

His thesis:

But my thesis is that Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism; it turned into Americanism. Puritanism and Americanism are not just parallel or related developments; they are two stages of a single phenomenon.

There are several things wrong with this. The first directly follows his thesis: This is an unprovable proposition. But as a way of looking at things, it buys us something valuable…

Wishful thinking buys us nothing. Nothing whatsoever. A wish that something were true, yet cannot be proven, or even connected properly, is nothing of value.

The claim that “Puritanism” disappeared has no substantiation – in the article, or in the facts. It is purely specious. Puritanism was the particularly English (mostly) expression of the Reformation. Was a large percentage of Christian America Puritan? Yes. So, how did they all just “disappear”? Furthermore, why was this bald-faced assertion made with no substantiation? I don’t get it – or his connection with Americanism, which rests on this assumption. It is written as if the disappearance of Puritanism gave rise to “Americanism” – yet, he gives no substantiation for this, aside from anecdotes from famous figures in history.

That’s all well and good… but where is the connection? Biblical references do not “New Zionism” make, nor does a claim that Puritanism “disappeared” mean that Americanism is an extension of Puritanism – especially when, if you use the generic “Puritans”, you cover just about the whole gamut of Protestant denominations in America – from Quakers to Baptists, to Presbyterians, to Congregationalists, to Pilgrims. Talk about painting with a wide brush!

Then, to top it off, the supposed connection between Americanism and Puritanism, we are told, is that the “Puritans” all “disappeared”. Well… as this covers a good chunk of current-day evangelical denominations… I find that hard to swallow. Very. So, we have a significant stretch to make Puritans “New Zionists” (when, as we all know, Israel is merely the OT forerunner of Christianity’s “body of Christ” concept – and is often used as a metaphor for everything and anything… since it’s the whole focus of the New Testament, and all…), then, we stretch to say that Puritanism is “Americanism” – then, we say that Puritanism “disappeared”, even though it has done nothing of the sort. The thesis has a Mack truck-sized hole directly in it’s foundation.

Instead of making a questionable stretch to a political/religious movement stemming from Protestantism, and calling IT the basis for our “American Exceptionalism” – THEN extending it to a “New Zionist” mentality…

How about we call a spade a spade – instead of calling it “an earth extraction device” – and creating a “new definition” for it – shall we?

My alternate thesis is as follows:

The overtly Christian beliefs of a large number of America’s citizens and leaders, over a long period of time, have manifested themselves countless times. In both the public, and private lives of both groups, this influence has been clearly seen, and identified.
HOWEVER! Instead of trying to make all these semi-mystical connections between Zionism, New Zionism, Puritanical thought, and Manifest Destiny…

Is it perhaps possible that large swathes of public and private policies have simply been shaped by the beliefs of Americans? Does there have to be a “New Puritan”, or a “New Zionist”? Could it be – just maybe – that many Americans are simply Christians – and attempt to reflect their beliefs in their actions, both public and private?

I find that an unbelievable amount of time is spent, (as is the case throughout history) labeling “movements”, linking “ideologies” together, finding “trends”, and the like – that could much, much, more easily be explained by a simple “at face value” assessment.

Like this one: “In a nation with many Christians – Christian viewpoints will be plainly on display, and be reflected in its history, in many respects”.

It’s not really that hard. Making some connection that doesn’t exist, to fit a theory which has no basis in fact… it really isn’t that tempting after all. After the first blush.

It looks really nice – tempting, in fact – when you read it through the first time. The second time… you see the BIG, HUGE, GAPING HOLE that is dead center of the foundational assumptions in Gelernter’s thesis.

His statements on Americanism have merit – but. The but is the problem. So what? Americanism exists, and has religious overtones. But, what is the point? That doesn’t mean Puritanism grew into Americanism (not to mention the supposed “New Zionism” connection…). He never successfully gives us the transition that results in this change – and, the statements he uses to say so, are incorrect. Multiple historical references won’t change that lack of a suitable transition.

The summary?

Just learn to call a spade a spade. Don’t try to call it a garden hoe, and use historical anecdotes to tell us how much better that is – how much more valuable it is to think we’re the “heirs” of Puritanism.

Or tell me that a replacement for real Christianity – which is what “Americanism” as a religion really is – is a good thing. Americanism, when practiced by Christians is one thing. Americanism being equated with, and replacing Christianity is quite another.

Welcome back! Or, if you’re just joining me – welcome to 1st Peter. We’re going through 1 Peter, verse by verse.

So, let’s delve in!

1 Peter 1:3-5 – linked, with Strong’s notes.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

All right. First… the first phrase.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

Pretty straight forward. The word used for “Blessed” is the word Eulogetos, which means blessed, praised – and, incidentally, is the root for the English word “Eulogy”. Man, this reminds of Psalm 103 – Bless the LORD, O my soul, And all that is within me, bless His holy name. God truly is to be blessed, isn’t He? Amen!

“God” is the word Theos, from which we get the word “theology”, today. “Father” is the word Pater, which is an old root for “father” – and the root for “paternal”, and “paternity”. Pretty straightforward. Peter is continuing his benediction, from our previous study in verses 1 and 2.

who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again

Who? God. So, it’s God’s doing – not ours. “According to” (Kata). So, mercy is in accord with Himself.

Not just His mercy, though – his “great” mercy. Or, Polus. Many, much, large. I’d say that’s an understatement!

The word for “mercy” is Eleos – which implies not only a _feeling_ of mercy, or goodwill – but a _desire_ to help.

The phrase “born again” is actually one word – Anagennao, which gives the picture of a changed mind – which conforms to the will of God.

to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

I absolutely love this phrase. “Living hope”. We are born again, in accordance with God’s character, through His mercy to – note that there is a purpose for this rebirth – a “living hope”. Isn’t that cool?

The word “living” is used a lot in the New Testament. It is the same word Jesus uses, when speaking to the weeping women, outside His empty tomb, in Luke 24:5. What does He tell them? Why do you seek the living One among the dead? We are alive! We should, then, live as if we were! And, not just “live” – but live in renewal, as we have been born again, to a changed mind, conformed to the will of God. That’s not all, though.

We are to be born again, living, in hope. The word “hope” is Elpis, and means joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation. That gives me hope!

Where is our hope grounded? In the resurrection! For, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, everything in the Christian faith is grounded in the resurrection! If not… our faith is worthless. Thus, our hope is completely in Him, and based in His sacrificial death and resurrection.

THIS is our hope – and our faith.

Which brings us to the next part.

to obtain an inheritance

So, what did the resurrection accomplish? It gave us our eternal “inheritance” (or Kleronomia), as the newly appointed “heirs” with Christ.

which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven

Our inheritance is not subject to earthly malaises. Things all have a “shelf life” – even preservative-laden food spoils, eventually. Even “treasures” are lost, eventually. What we have is not subject to earthly entropy – God Himself is safeguarding it, and has promised it. Who can gainsay God? If God reserves it – we’ll get what He has reserved. Guaranteed.

for you who are protected by the power of God

Who? You. What? Protected. That word is Phroureo. It means ” to guard, protect by a military guard”, and ” by watching and guarding to preserve one for the attainment of something”. What did He promise? Our inheritance. What is He doing? Reserving it. How is He doing it? Guarding it – like a military watch, ensuring that we have the inheritance, and that we are safely able to receive it.

That’s our God!

through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Is there a qualifier? Yes – God guards it through our faith. That is said again, in 2 Tim. 1:12 – for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

What is the inheritance? Salvation! Wasn’t that the whole point? The entire Bible leads toward this one theme. Salvation! What else would our inheritance be?

Now, what does that last part mean?

ready to be revealed in the last time.

Hrmm. Well, the word “ready” is Hetoimos – which can mean a bunch of things. Taken in context with the rest, though, it looks like ready prepared – since God has been protecting it, guarding it, and holding it for us. I’d say He has it ready to go for us.

Then, we have “revealed”. This word is Apokalupto (think Revelation) – revealed to us, or uncovered. Which, I’d think, makes sense, since God has had it prepared, but guarded, and protected. It will be 1. Ready, and 2. Revealed.

Next, we have “in the last time”. Those two words are Eschatos (think “Eschatology – or “end times” study. Left Behind, etc.), and Kairos. So, we have “end/last”, or “extreme” as the definition choices for “Eschatos”. Extreme doesn’t fit, so it’s “last” Always go literally, when possible, right? Then, we have “due measure”, or “a measure of time” – with the latter having several sub-possibilities.

Basically, it’s “when the time is right”, or “the time we’ve waited for”, or “the opportune time”. Well, it’s the “last” of times – so… at Judgement, or “when God says so”. We have the faith already, which is the “qualifier” for this inheritance already… so we have faith in Him to protect it “until the time is right”.

How about you?
—————————-
The Bottom Lines:
—————————-
We bless God.

God, being God, was merciful, and we were born again, to be like Him.

That rebirth gives us a living hope that is based in Christ’s resurrection

That resurrection gives us an inheritance, which we receive as heirs with Christ

That inheritance is in God’s possession, and safe

We have faith:
That we will have an inheritance
In the author of that inheritance
In His ability to safeguard it
The timing of His decision to give it to us

Only five verses in… and we’re getting some _meat_ – not milk!

I’m really, really liking Peter. How about you?

What is doctrine? It’s a body of unchanging and specific principles. The Bible is specific in identifying God, the fall, sin, the law, salvation, and Christ. The Bible isn’t a nebulous book that speaks in secret code leaving every truth up to individual interpretation, as much as those who pollute its message would say in their own defense.

Read this entry from Christian Conservative. It’s excellent.

Welcome to 1st Peter!

I’m picking a book I’m not that familiar with, because I’d like to learn about this book, in addition to verse 3:15.

NASB: 1 Peter 1:1-2 – linked, with Strong’s notes included.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Ready? Let’s begin!

Ok, let’s take the first phrase:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ

So, as he opens his letter, he begins with:

Identification.

He identifies himself by name. “Peter”. The name given to Simon by Jesus – “Petros“, if you don’t mind transliteration – or “petroß”, if you do. But, I’m going to use the Strong’s transliteration (and link to words I transliterate, so you can see the originals).

He identifies himself by authority. “Apostle.” From the word”Apostolos“, which, as Strong’s defines it, is a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. Specifically, applied to Jesus’ 12 “apostles”, as well as the other “authoritative” figures of the early church.

So, he’s told us who he is, and under what authority his words should be taken under. Pretty clear thus far.

Next, he Addresses his letter.

To those who reside as aliens

He gives us his Relation to the recipients.
Now, this is one complete phrase. Strong’s tell us that the word used is Parepidemos – which means one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives. It is also used in Hebrews 11:3, in much the same way. So, the recipients are foreigners – on earth! Their home is heaven – with me still?

There’s a song about this, actually. It’s called “Strangers“, by Joel Weldon.

We are strangers in this land
And our home lies far away
When we get there, He’ll take our hand
Say “Welcome home, child. You’re here to stay.”

Hit the link above, to read the rest, or listen to it. It’s a great song.

Next, Peter gives us the Condition of the recipients.

scattered throughout

The word “scattered”, is the word Diaspora – which you may be familiar with. In case you aren’t, it is the word used of the Jewish “dispersion” after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans for the last time. It is being used here to describe how Christians were scattered among the “natives” (because, remember, they are “strangers” – even though they may actually be “physical” natives. Spiritually, they are now strangers…) of the various areas that are listed directly after.

Next, he gives the Location of the recipients.

This, to me, indicates a specific audience. Basically, all of these places are in a specific “region” – surrounding modern-day Turkey, and Asia Minor.

From there, he moves into Recognition.

who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father

Note, we’re still talking about “those” – so, those who are chosen. The word used for “chosen” is Eklektos, the same word Jesus uses in Matthew 22:14, when He says “For many are called, but few are chosen.” The word “foreknowledge” is the word Prognosis, which is the same word used in Acts 2:23, when Peter himself is preaching, and tells the crowd that Jesus’ death was God’s plan all along. Now, let me make a note, here. There are those who say that “predestination” is the rule – and often point to these verses as proof of that. Well, although I agree that God does know everything that was, is, and is to come – I also think that looking at it from only this single angle is a dangerous thing to do. Remember, we are to choose to follow Christ, and pick up our cross, as well. The Spirit leads us, as we are unable to come to Christ in and of ourselves, but the choice to follow our Lord is ours – God’s desire is that “all be saved” – but, the choice to accept that salvation is ours. So, although I agree that there is foreknowledge of our decision, and thus, God accounts for that in His plan; I do not agree that there is no choice on our part. I believe there are two components to salvation. Anyway. Back to the Scripture…

He next identifies the Seal of the Believer.

This seal is the “sanctification” by the Spirit – which Hebrews 12:14 says is required, in order to “see the Lord”. The word used is Hagiasmos, which translates to sanctification of heart and life.

Next, comes theMark of the believer.

to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood

The word “obey”, is upakoe, and means obedience rendered to anyone’s counsels, an obedience shown in observing the requirements of Christianity. The “sprinkled with blood” is the word “Rhantismos” – and refers to the sacrificial ritual of purification, where the blood is sprinkled to render something pure. The sacrifice, of course, is Jesus – so, we are sanctified/purified by the sprinkling of His blood.

Finally, we see Peter’s Benediction for the recipients.

May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Grace – Charis – of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues – I do believe this is the root word for the English “charity”.

Peace – eirene – of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is.

Fullest Measure – plequno – to be increased, to multiply.
————————————————
The Bottom Lines:
————————————————
So, what can we take from this?

Peter has authority, and makes it plain.

He tells his recipients that they are strangers to the world, and citizens of heaven.

We are scattered in the world – how did Jesus tell us to interact with the world? To be Salt, which flavors everything it touches, irrevocably. To be leaven, which permeates the entire dough. So, as we are scattered through this foreign land.. what should our effect be?

We are chosen by God, sealed by the spirit, and purified by the blood of Jesus. That… is an excellent message – especially in the first 2 verses of a letter – in the actual greeting!

We are to be blessed, and to bless others accordingly.

Not bad for your first 2 verses, Peter!

No wonder He called you the Rock!

This will be the “homepage” for a study through 1 Peter – verse by verse.

If you’d like to follow along, you’re welcome to.

I don’t think I’ll be doing it daily – but keep on the lookout – I’ll be doing it semi-regularly.

Feel free to comment on the individual studies!
————————–
1 Peter 1:1-2 – (1/6/05)
1 Peter 1:3-5 – (1/7/05)

​​​​We hear this statement. We know it is from the Bible. We know it
means that we need more than just physical nourishment to thrive.

However, all too many of us, Id venture even to say a majority of us –
Christian, and non-Christian alike, never have really known, or have
even paid attention, to the words to follow this axiomatic statement of
Jesus’, to His tempter – Satan himself.

The last part of this verse is one to which we rarely ascribe the
importance of which it is worthy: “but on every word that comes from
the mouth of the Lord.”

Did you catch that? Let’s put it all together.

‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’

I think it acquires a whole new level of importance, when viewed in
it’s entirety. Don’t you? Thus, we are not only to live physically –
but spiritually – and, that life is to be sustained by the Word of God
Himself!

There’s more, though. What else is not commonly known is that Jesus is
not just replying – He is quoting. From Deuteronomy 8:3. “He humbled
you by letting you go hungry; then He gave you manna to eat, which you
and your fathers had not known, so that you might learn that man does
not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of
the Lord.”

Isn’t that

interesting. Now, let’s do some contextual study. No truth is readily
apparent without an understanding of the context in which it is found.

 Quote:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted
by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He
then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are
the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He
answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE,
BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ ” – Matthew 4:1-4

So, Jesus is out in the middle of nowhere, and has gone without food for forty consecutive days. “He then became hungry.” The Bible has a positive gift for understatement, at times.

Now, note Satan’s challenge. “If.” Now, Satan wants several things. He is nothing, if not subtle.

1) He is casting doubt on Jesus’ relationship to God – and inviting Him to also doubt it as well.

2) He is casting aspersions on the character of God – would He really
allow His Son to get to such a state? Is it really Just of God to allow
His Son to sink to this state? Without food, in the wilderness, all
alone?

3) He is attempting to raise doubts about the Word of God. God had just
said, “This is My beloved Son – in whom I am well pleased.” “If

You are the Son of God…” Does this remind you of another question –
thousands of years before? “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat
from any tree of the garden’?” Interesting how we are back to food
again… isn’t it?

4) He is trying to get Jesus to prove
He is the Son of God. Nothing about “Pray to the Father” – “command”
the stones to turn to bread… a usage of His power solely for His own
benefit.

What does Jesus do? He refuses, and He answers – with Scripture that is
both applicable, and pertinent to the exact issue at hand.

Why does He refuse?

1) It would look like He was questioning the voice from Heaven that had already said He was the Son of God. The Word of God, once given, is never in doubt. If is one of two cardinal words in this sentence.

2) It would look like mistrust of God’s provision.

3) It would be setting Himself up to use His own power – for Himself – when He was there to glorify the Father.

4) It would be doing the bidding of Satan. The other cardinal word is
“command” – not for the word itself, but for the type of address it is
used for – an imperative. Satan cannot tell us – and especially God –
what to do.

What does He answer?

It is written…

The beginning of John’s Gospel tells us: “In the beginning was the
Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” How appropriate
that Jesus counters the devil with Himself – the Word. As a statement
of His own character, and as an example to us, He uses the only
offensive weapon in the Christian arsenal. The sword of the Spirit –
the Word of God.

He, like Israel, was commanded to go into the wilderness in obedience
to God. He, like Israel, was humble by going hungry. He, like Israel,
is being tempted to grumble against God that there is no bread – and,
furthermore, since He has the capacity to create His own… to cease
relying upon His Father to supply His needs, and take them into His own
hands. Jesus, as part of His character, and as an example to us, gives
Satan exactly the right answer.

Moses told them exactly what God wanted the Israelites to learn from
all of this – and the verse Jesus quotes is the very heart of it.

Now, that is the context of both verses – the quoted, and the quote.

What did I finally discover?

Even in that passage, the emphasis is on the bread – and the reliance
on God to provide our physical needs. The Word is a tool that enables
us to do so, and to answer temptations as they come.

What did I figure out? The second half of the verse.

BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.

See, I’ve always loved to debate. I love studying, I love writing, and
I love reading most of all. However, those loves have never really
translated into a true, deeply felt love for the word of God.

I get the point, finally.

The second part of that verse is the important one. I realized, earlier
today, that I doubt that I’ve ever enjoyed myself quite so thoroughly
in my life, as I do when I’m seriously, sincerely studying a passage in
God’s Word. I sat down for 6 straight hours, a few days ago, to really
tear apart a passage that was confusing me – a passage about Balaam,
the prophet of God. Balaam was a real live prophet – but, he was killed
by the Israelites after he taught the king of Moab how to make the
Israelites stumble. I won’t go into it right now – I’m not speaking
about him. Thinking about that study (just because I genuinely didn’t
understand that passage) made me realize – you really do LIVE on every Word that comes from the mouth of God.
It’s a wonderful feeling, to study the Word of God, and tear it into
it’s components, and truly study it – suck the marrow out of the bones
of the Word, just to get every last drop of Truth from it.

I finally get it. The Word is the lifeblood of Christianity. I see why
it is truly the sword of the spirit. It sustains us, and gives us the
weapon we need against the lies of the enemy.

As I heard Ravi Zacharias say today – “If at the heart of the struggle
is a question of where to anchor reality – for a Christian, life MUST
be inseparable from the Word.”

You can live by more than bread – but are you living by the proactive part of that verse? Living on every Word that comes from the mouth of God!

Part 1: Faith, Foundations, and Fatherhood.
——————————————————-
A. Faith in American History
——————————————————-
Synopsis:

When you examine the source documents, penned by the various “Founding Fathers”, you’ll discover a trend.

That trend consists of three things.

1. A reluctance – even an aversion, to establishing a particular sect
of Christianity as the “official” religion for the country.

2. A deep, abiding belief that Christian moral foundations were
absolutely required to govern this country – and that such convictions
were the primary force governing their lives.

3. That freedom to practice, express, and profess their religious beliefs was a goal of the highest sort of order.

——————————————————-
The first English colony in the Americas was called “Jamestown”.

At the end of their “Instructions”, is found this phrase:

 Quote:

Lastly and chiefly the way to prosper and achieve good success is to
make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your
own, and to serve and fear God the Giver of all Goodness, for every
plantation which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted
out. – Source (Virginial Company, 1606)

In their First Charter is found the following statement:

 Quote:

Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to
the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of
Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in
propagating of Christian religion to suche people as yet live in
darkenesse and miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe
of God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in those
parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet govermente, doe by
theise our lettres patents graciously accepte of and agree to theire
humble and well intended desires; – Source (First Virginia Charter, 1606)

As we can see, the Virginia charter quite specifically mentions religion, the worship of God Almighty, and missionary duties.

And of course, the Mayflower Compact.

 Quote:

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal
Subjects of… &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and
Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and
Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of
Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence
of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and
Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts,
Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought
most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which
we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have
hereunto subscribed our names at… – Source (Pilgrims, upon their arrival at Plymouth, 1620)

The Pilgrims are an interesting study. They were the first of the
Northern Colonies, and were, in reality, religious fugitives –
dissenters concerning the Anglican Church’s “official” status as the
English religion.

The Pilgrims (Early History)

 Quote:

The Pilgrims were English Separatists. In the first years of the 17th
century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church
of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the
Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible.
…
The term Pilgrim was first used by William Bradford to describe the
Leiden Separatists who were leaving Holland. The Mayflower’s passengers
were first described as the Pilgrim Fathers in 1799. – Source (Read more about them there, as well.)

The Puritans (Early History)

 Quote:

The Puritans were a group of people who grew discontent in the Church
of England and worked towards religious, moral and societal reforms.
The writings and ideas of John Calvin, a leader in the Reformation,
gave rise to Protestantism and were pivotal to the Christian revolt.
They contended that The Church of England had become a product of
political struggles and man-made doctrines. The Puritans were one
branch of dissenters who decided that the Church of England was beyond
reform. Escaping persecution from church leadership and the King, they
came to America. – Source (Prof. Robert Barger, prepared by Kay Kizer)

(Further reading – Catholic Encyclopedia treatment of “Puritans”, or, the “Puritans” page, at the Hall of Church History.)

John Winthrop

 Quote:

It is yourselves who have called us to this office, and, being called by you, we have our authority from God, in way of an ordinance, such as hath the image of God eminently stamped upon it,
the contempt and violation whereof hath been vindicated with examples
of divine vengeance. I entreat you to consider that, when you choose
magistrates, you take them from among yourselves, men subject to like
passions as you are. Therefore, when you see infirmities in us, you
should reflect upon your own, and that would make you bear the more
with us, and not be severe censurers of the failings of your
magistrates, when you have continual experience of the like infirmities
in yourselves and others. We account him a good servant who breaks not
his covenant. The covenant between you and us is the oath you have
taken of us, which is to this purpose, that we shall govern you and judge your causes by the rules of God’s laws and our own, according to our best skill.

…
For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists: it is a liberty to evil as well as to good.
This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority, and
cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The
exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and
in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores.
This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I
call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the
covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic
covenants and constitutions, amongst men themselves. This
liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist
without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and
honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be.

Whatsoever crosseth this is not authority, but a distemper thereof.
This liberty is maintained and exercised in a way of subjection to
authority; it is of the same kind of liberty wherewith Christ hath made
us free. Source (“On Liberty”. Read the whole thing. It’s excellent.)

Powerful words! Eminently powerful. I also believe this accurately
describes the thoughts and intentions of these early Puritans.

Now, take a look at the city-level covenants of the Puritans – see how
deeply their beliefs affect both their lives, and their governments.

((Source)

(Salem: Yes, that Salem.)
– “We covenant with our Lord, and one with another; and we do bind our
selves in the presence of God, to walk together in all his ways..”

Charles-Boston Church
– “In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Obedience to his holy
Will and Divine Ordinance, We whose Names are here under written, being
by his most wise and good providence brought together into this part of
America in the Bay of Massachusetts…”

Watertown
– “We whose Names are hereto subscribed, having through God’s Mercy
escaped out of Pollutions of the World, and been taken into the Societe
of his People, with all Thankfulness do hereby both with Heart and Hand
acknowledge, That his Gracious Goodness, and Fatherly Care, towards us”

Dedham
– “One: We whose names are here unto subscribed do, in the fear and
reverence of our Almighty God, mutually and severally promise amongst
ourselves and each to profess and practice one truth according to that
most perfect rule, the foundation whereof is ever lasting love…”

Exeter
– “You shall swear by the great and dreadful Name of the High God,
Maker and Governor of Heaven and earth and by the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Prince of the Kings and rulers of the earth, that in his Name and
fear you will rule and govern his people according to the righteous
will of God, ministering justice and judgement on the workers of
iniquite, and ministering due incouragement and countenance to well
doers, protecting of the people so far as in you lieth, by the help of
God from foreigne annoyance and inward desturbance, that they may live
a quiet and peacabble life in all godliness and honesty. So God be
helpful and gracious to you and yours in Christ Jesus.”

WOW!

The Puritans had a strong, strong belief in God – which also governed
their society – and discouraged any dissenting views. This made them
incredibly strong, as a community, but incredibly week, as far as
interaction with other ideals. Now, this was not a result of their religious beliefs – it was a result of their insularity from all others, and their absolute, law-centric [i]civil
order. In effect, in their escape from a “state religion” – they made
one of their own. It was this mistake, and this problem, which led to
the Witch Trials, and other issues.

It was partly upon this particular mistake, among others, that the
“establishment” clause was introduced. Puritans were the most moral of
the original settlers. They were extraordinarily so. However, their
strengths – specifically, their concentration upon legality-oriented
Christianity – was also their weakness. Their example was both
powerful, as well as subtly dangerous.

I find it odd that the word “Puritan”, even though their influence on
the burgeoning nation was tremendous, has been turned into a “dirty”
word. The Puritans had their problems – this is not at question.
However, their standards of an inalienable right to freedom from the State was the spark which ignited the powderkeg of the American Revolution. It was in Massachusetts that the fist of England fell first. It was in Massachusetts where the first shots were fired, and the Revolution began. It was in Massachusetts – Boston, to be precise, where the British first tasted defeat at the hands of Americans. At Bunker Hill.

Why is it these Puritans are considered to be “dirty laundry”, when it
was precisely those selfsame Puritans who provided the backbone to the
infant Revolution? Men like John Adams (Puritan Congregationalist), Samuel Adams (Puritan Congregationalist), John Hancock (Puritan Congregationalist), Robert Treat Paine (Puritan Congregationalist), were all Puritans. Only one of the Massachusetts signers was an Episcopalian –Elbridge Gerry. However, all were men of exceedingly strong religious convictions.

John Edwards, considered by many to be the most influential American theologian of all time, was also a Puritan!

Is the trend becoming clear yet?

Massachusetts was, perhaps, one of the most instrumental states in
creating the American Revolution – however, the religious basis on
which that state was created, and remained deeply involved in, is
rarely mentioned.

Virginia, who had 7 signers of the Declaration, was not similarly represented – not to the extent of Massachusetts, at least. Richard Henry Lee

(Robert E. Lee’s ancestor). Although he is rarely, if ever, listed as a
member of a “congregation”, Lee was a supporter of state-sponsored
religion. “refiners may weave as fine a web of reason as they please,
but the experience of all times shows religion to be the guardian of
morals” Source.

Francis Lightfoot Lee
– Brother of Richard Henry. We know much of his political actions – but
little of his religious ones. Rev. Charles A. Goodrich, in his book
“Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence”, says that he
became a Christian before he died. Not much more is known.

Carter Braxton
was a church official, and represented his church in statewide
conventions. He died in rags, after having his fortunes destroyed by
the British. He truly “pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred
honor”.

Benjamin Harrison was a footloose type – he was an inveterate explorer, by many accounts. We don’t know a great deal about him otherwise.

Thomas Jefferson
was, in fact, one of the few known deists among the founding fathers.
However, he also considered Christian morality and virtue the
foundation for government, and the governed. See my essay “History: Separation of Church and State”, for a full treatment of Thomas Jefferson.

George Wythe was an Episcopalian, with a strong dash of Quaker. However, he is often portrayed as a deist. He was Jefferson’s mentor.

Thomas Nelson Jr. Died 13 years after signing the Declaration. He served mostly in a military capacity.

———————————–
So, as you can see, the variances between Massachusetts and Virginia
are profound. I won’t go into a detailed list of all 56 signers – but
that was a good cross-section of the two “most influential” states. In
Massachusetts, every one

of the signers was a devoted Christian – 4 Puritans, 1 Episcopalian. In
Virginia, 1, maybe 2 of the signers were professed Christians.
Interesting contrast.

So, there was an interesting disconnect, when it comes to Declaration signers.

However, it changes, more than slightly, once we get to the signers of the Constitution.

I will submit as reference the following website:

Errant Skeptics: The Fifty Five Delegates

Contained therein, is the religious affiliations (along with copious
research concerning them) of the 55 Constitutional Congress delegates.

I also submit This page, from USConstitution.net, with a table of the same, in database format.

Judging by these lists, as well as the references based upon them, we
can safely conclude that the historical basis of the laws, morals, and
customs of our nation, were founded directly in Christian principle and
faith.

To Be Continued.

Part I – Relative.
———————————————-
Pro:
“Art, like morality, consists in drawing a line somewhere.” – G.K. Chesterton

Con:

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred Whitehead

———————————————–

Objective:
———————————————–
In C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, he explores the logical thought processes used to establish the foundation for Christianity, and provides several analogies which are useful to explain the principles on which the Biblical concepts of morality are based. I’d like to quote a short excerpt.

 Quote:

Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very mportant from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”–“That’s my seat, I was there first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first?”–“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”–“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people, as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects[ the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have.

Now, what we have just seen, is an analogy. It is not a statement of absolute proof, which demolishes all arguments to the contrary. However, it points out something which, if you claim to be a thinking, reasoning being, you may have thought about, or need to think about.

If you say something is “wrong” – why do you say that? If you say something is “wrong” – where did you just get that standard? Some in the atheist camp – namely, Michael Martin – believe that it is possible to be an atheist, and an objective moralist. More power to them. I wonder, though – what standards, precisely, do they set as the
object? We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though.
—————————————
Pro:

“Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.” – Aldous Huxley

Con:
“There is only one morality, as there is only one geometry.” – Voltaire
—————————————
Subjective:
—————————————
Perhaps the most famous proponent of subjective morality was Pythagoras, who said “Humans are the measure of all things.”

(For the record, the terms “subjective”, and “relative”, for the purposes of this short essay, will be considered interchangeable.)

Subjective morality was defined quite succinctly by B.W. Van Norden in a recent paper of his. So, I’m going to quote it for you.

 Quote:

Speaking at the most general level, relativism is the doctrine that a claim is true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective. Specific kinds of relativism may be distinguished according to (1) which kinds of claims the doctrine of relativism applies to, and (2) which viewpoint or perspective these claims are relative to.

Relativism applied to ethical claims is called, sensibly enough, “ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the doctrine that all ethical claims are true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective.

Source.

There is also cultural subjectivism, but that’s another issue.

Basically, the crux of the argument converges at one point: That there is no absolute standard for right and wrong: Except that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.

Now, if you’re a quick study, you’ll immediately see the paradox implicit in that statement.

Now, we’ll look, a bit, at the problematical aspects of this philosophical worldview.

1. If there is no standard, how do we presume to create, enforce, or quantify law?

2. If standards differ with each individual, who are we to say anything when someone commits an act contrary to our standards?

3. If standards are relative to each other, on what scale, or measure, do we say that they are relative to each other?

—————————————–
Pro:
“Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, & not the {to kalon}, truth, &c. as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree.” – Thomas Jefferson

Con:
“Morals are an acquirement – like music, like a foreign language, like piety, poker, paralysis – no man is born with them.” – Mark Twain

—————————————–
Objective:
—————————————–

C.S. Lewis goes on to speak about the foundation of moral law, and the principles inherent in moral law.

 Quote:

There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual–when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea . . . if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions.

“But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. . . . And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.

“Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the thing inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for? What course the whole fleet ought to be on? . . .

So, if we have established that Christian morality is concerned with these three things, what is the logical conclusion?

1. Right and wrong is determined on an objective basis. There is an outside determination of such principles, apart from subjective experience. Atheists claim that this trait “evolved”. Christians claim that this trait is called “conscience”, and is an inborn, spiritual part of every human being, which reveals the existence of absolute morality in creation. (Romans 2:14-17)

2. Morality is implicit in human consciousness. Everyone knows, in themselves, the basis of right and wrong. Those who know what is right, and don’t do it – are wrong. (James 1:17)

3. There is also a true and legitimate, objective basis for absolute truth: God, who gave it to us, and will hold us to account for our adherence to His standard.

Such a standard necessarily transcends the world of description. It presupposes that God exists and has spoken, or revealed such standards. The true absolute contends that the Creator of man AND nature has given such values that are commensurate with the way He made us and appropriate to people’s problems and aspirations.

Thus, in painfully short form, we have the Christian foundation for objective truth.
——————————————-

Now, we arrive at the heart of the problem.

When we look at today’s society, and we think; “What are the issues Evangelicals care about?”

This subject will come to mind. Not immediately, and maybe not even until a thorough discussion of the issues reveal it. However, this core issue is at the heart of much of the debate raging around the country.

Evangelicals, I find it safe to say, believe that there is one, over-arching, absolute Truth. With a capital T. The only Truth is that which comes from God. When we apply that to morality, we have an absolute statement to make. That statement reads as follows, in my own words:

—————————-
While we do not deny that there are elements of truth in most religions, we must, and we shall, reject any self-styled “truth” which contradicts the moral law, and the moral standards set forth in Scripture, which we believe to be the literal, inspired Word of God. To do anything other is a dangerous ignorance at best, and outright rebellion, at worst. While the world may be deceived by claims to truth, we must not, and cannot, cease to proclaim, and to advance, the Truth set forth in Scripture. To cease to so is spiritual, societal, and moral suicide.

We recognize that certain religions all have a kernel of truth, somewhere in their practices, and doctrines – otherwise, no one would ascribe to them. Men recognize truth, as it is in their nature to do so. However, the lies which are most convincing, are those which contain an element of truth, yet are deceitful, at their core. To sacrifice our devotion to the Truth, and to the Author of Truth, at the altar of “tolerance” is neither beneficial, nor sane. While we can respect that the proponent of a certain viewpoint holds that viewpoint, intellectual honesty, as well as spiritual honesty, demands that we challenge that viewpoint. Reserving our right to challenge the factual, doctrinal, philosophical, spiritual, and moral tenets of faiths we consider to be erroneous is not only crucial – it is the basic foundation for our beliefs. Wherever any faith, creed, or belief diverges from Christianity, it is wrong. Christianity is no more tolerant of untruth, illogic, unsound beliefs, or spiritual danger than nature is tolerant of defiance of gravity.

————-
C.S. Lewis puts it best, yet again:

 Quote:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole word is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

…

If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this also is God.’ The Christian replies. ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’ For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world–that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God ‘made up out of His head’ as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on putting them right again

This is why Christians are often, even justly, called “intolerant”. We don’t tolerate nonsense, we don’t tolerate lies told in place of truth, and we don’t tolerate being told that “there is no real truth”.

A Roman governor once answered something similar to Jesus.

However, it was in reply to this statement:

 Quote:

You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

This is also why, without fail, an evangelical, when given the opportunity to explain Christianity, will do so.

“Evangelical” refers to a very specific thing: “Evangel.” comes from Greek euangelion, “good news”. Also known as “The gospel”. (also a translation of the Greek “euangelion”.) And, as a little known fact… the word “angel” means “messenger”. It can be traced back to the word “angelos” – a very close relation to the word above. Angels, in the Bible, were almost exclusively used as messengers for God, to man.

Our passion, and our central focus, is on the spread, and dissemination, of that “good news” – the account of God, becoming man, dying on a cross in place of us, in order to save us from our fall into sin and death. Most importantly, rising from the dead, on the third day, to show us both His power, and His plan for us.

So yes – a world without absolute truth precludes a need for the Truth of the Good News.

A word without absolute truth, is a world without meaning. A world where you cease to exist, for all eternity, when you die. Such a world is not only logically inconsistent – but a horrible thought to contemplate.

————————————–
Part II – Relevance.

—————————–
Whew.

So, now that we’ve addressed the logical instabilities inherent in subjective/relative morals – now, it’s time to address why, despite the fallacies inherent in them – they are used.

——————————
In Francis Schaeffer’s book, “The Christian Manifesto”, he lays out the counter-claims to “The Humanist Manifesto”.

So, before we delve into Schaeffer, we’ll examine this Humanist “manifesto”.

 Quote:

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a ooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in
order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the echniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Wow. If you examine this document thoroughly, you will find that this, in a nutshell, is the root of current secular thought.

We shall also find, if we examine the successor to the original Humanist manifesto (which was penned in 1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), that we find not only the root – but the absolute foundation for subjective morality.

Read the following statement, from the second “manifesto”.

 Quote:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.

Note the phrase I bolded above.

Now, a short explanation is in order. The term “situational” ethics refers to a school of thought that is very similar to subjective morality. In fact, it is, more or less, the same thing. You can read up on it Here, should you wish. I’ll define it for us, though. Situation ethics, as defined by dictionary.com, is “a system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.” Ok? Now, doesn’t that sound familiar?

So, according to this definition, morality is fluid, and not defined by any set standard – only by context, or the situation.

I know that I didn’t really need to define that, but I hate leaving undefined terms out there when I’ll be leaning heavily on them.

SO. We’ve seen what humanism believes, as it pertains to morality. Now Let’s look at how it views religion… and what religion it seeks to create. Yes, humanism, within the humanist manifesto, seeks to create a religion, based on the assumption that humanity’s place in the world as preeminent.

Note also, the following.

1. The universe was not created.

2. “Continuous process”, as I understand this statement, is endorsing evolution.

3. The mind and the body are one – there is no spirit.

4. Religion is an evolved, natural process.

5. The supernatural does not exist. The only reality is that posed by scientific inquiry – thus, materialism.

6. Everything which came before is no longer valid, as pertains to religion.

7. Religion is human-centric, not God-centric.

8. There is no life after death. All of existence is our mortal lives.

9. Religion is “heightened self” and “social well-being”.

10. Religion, thus, has no ties to the supernatural.

11. Religion focuses on “reality”, and discourages “sentimentality”.

12. Religious aims constitute furtherance of “satisfaction”

13. Religion exists to “fulfill” human life

14. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world. (Communism? :D)

15. Humanism seeks to promote “life”, by moral principles.

Whew. Now, as much as I would really, really like to answer each point from the Christian perspective… I won’t. That is a different subject entirely, and not within the scope of this discussion. However, I will ask you to note, that these tenets line up, very closely, with the direction and intention of modern-day thought,
and morality.

“I’m not a subjective moralist!” I can hear some of you saying this right now. Well, let me ask you this. If your morality is not founded on Biblical principles, but upon something else – what is that “something”? Your own perceptions of morality? Well, what is there to keep you from changing those views? If you DO change them – is it not subject to your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the matter?

What external basis do you compare your own standards to, and thus achieve “objective” morality? The “social” morality? Well… if it founded upon the collective viewpoints of many – what is to keep _that_ from changing? What objective, set apart standard of morality do you adhere to? Is it unchanging? Is it unchangeable? I ask you… is it, in fact, objective, then? I prefer not to call it “objective morality, actually. Objective will bring to mind an object. A physical entity – which can be affected by other physical entities. An object can be moved.. In the deepest sense, objective morality is no more absolute than subjective. Absolute morality is the more correct term. Upon what absolute is your morality founded?

————————————

Francis Schaeffer is considered, by many (and rightfully so) to be the foremost Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He cuts incisively through the fluff that surrounds the penetrating political, moral and spiritual questions we face today. His insight is incredible. if you want to know – truly know what Christianity is, intellectually – read this man’s writing.

 Quote:

The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a “buzz” word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So. If we do not get our values from an outside source…(God) they must come from ourselves. This, my friends, is the absolute, unequivocally real conclusion we must draw! Be it collective, personal, or “internal” (conscience), this is where they must be derived. Can we, with any sort of truth, define such a view as “objective” truth?

Furthermore, those of you who reject the Bible as literal, absolute truth, yet call it “moral teaching” – are we not siding with the humanists, by interpreting for ourselves that which is right? By picking and choosing for yourselves which truths to accept, and which to reject – are you not simply “borrowing” your own “truth”, while rejecting that which does not “suit” you? in what possible way does such a “morality” lend itself to absolutes – if you reject whatever you decide?

There are two beliefs: Absolutism, and Subjectivism, at heart. Everything which does not fit into “absolutism” is simply a different form of Subjectivism – somewhere on the “sliding scale” we try to call “Objective”, as if by fixing a certain point on that sliding rule, we can ignore the metrics by which that slide rule is divided. Or the fact that such metrics exist!

 Quote:

But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary — merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.

Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country.
It’s the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law.

They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.

The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that’s the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically — with mathematical certainty — brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country — in society — and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.

Truth is objective, you say? Tell me this. Why does the same clause in the Constitution – namely, the “establishment” clause, mean one thing, up until this century – and now mean it’s exact opposite today? The answer?

Subjectivism. The word “establishment” means the exact same thing, when it was penned as part of the Bill of Rights, as it does today. The meaning, the intent, and even the definitions of words themselves have been twisted into ten kinds of pretzels to attempt to “justify” the “new” intent, without the inconvenience of actually changing the words themselves!

THAT is what moral relativism brings you to. You can lie to others, you can lie to yourself. If you are told a lie enough times, you may even believe it to be true. If you lie to yourself enough, you may end up thinking of yourself as truthful – by your own lights! This, however, does not negate the central issue: When absolutes no longer hold sway, there is no fixed system of morality. Unless you are willing to say this is so, and thus, is always true, at all times – and have some external reference to keep that standard unchanging… you are, in fact, a proponent of subjective morality.

Try to call it “social morality”. Society is the objective reference! Society is in a constant state of flux. If you count on society to provide your “objective reference”, you are up the creek, without a paddle.

 Quote:

It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.

We must understand something very thoroughly. If society — if the state gives the rights, it can take them away — they’re not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights — this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have — even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.

The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.

What does the Declaration of Independence say?

Tell me. Read it. Please tell me what, exactly, is the intent of the people who wrote it. The person who was a Deist wrote this. Not even a Christian, but a Deist!

 Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Oh, please tell me how that can be misconstrued! If not the Creator, [i]WHO gave us these “unalienable” rights!

Tell me! Society? We’ve already discussed that! The State? The State giveth, the State can taketh away! Individuals? How does a “right” granted by an individual constitute an inalienable right?

THIS is the central, absolute problem facing us. If not God, WHO!

Who!

If God does not give us morality – if God is dead, as Nietzsche claims… then who defines morality? Us? Then, good sir – kindly explain how “objective” your morality is. How absolute your morality is. Then, good sir, kindly explain how your conception of morality, when it impinges mine, is any more correct. Or how any “morality” can even conceive itself correct, even in self-deceit, if, by definition, it is no more “correct” than that of anyone else.

Oh, and while you are at it – explain the source of our inalienable rights, if not defined by the state, or society.

 Quote:

Now we have turned it over and we have put it on its head and what we must do is absolutely insist that we return to what the First Amendment meant in the first place — not that religion can’t have an influence into society and into the state — not that. But we must insist that there’s a freedom that the First Amendment really gave. Now with this we must emphasize, and I said it, but let me say it again, we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy until Jesus the King comes back. But that’s a very different thing while saying clearly we are not in favor of a theocracy in name or in fact, from where we are now, where all religious influence is shut out of the processes of the state and the public schools. We are only asking for one thing. We are asking for the freedom that the First
Amendment guaranteed. That’s what we should be standing for.

Interpretation is just a fancy way of saying “change the meaning.”

Do not – I repeat, do not, equivocate. If you are saying no external standard for morality exists, you are, in effect, saying that you are the basis, and the judge, of right, and wrong. This is, and we have demonstratively shown it to be, the very heart of subjective morality. We have also shown that a “pick and choose” version of “absolute”
morality is nothing but a flimsy attempt to play bait and switch with Truth.

Truth either is, or is not, absolute. The moment you say it is otherwise, you begin the path of “subjective” truth. Until we reverse our course, our destination lies fully along the path of the humanist manifesto.

So, along with Mr. Schaeffer, I present to you the Christian Manifesto:
God is God, and we are not. Thus, our standards can only be measured by the yardstick of His eternal truth. To do otherwise is folly.

~Finis
———————————————————-
Further Discussion: Mektek’s Political @ Religious Debate forums