Did you know, “…that the British High Court ruled in a lawsuit that Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, “is scientifically flawed and has nine significant exaggerations and factual errors.” Among those exaggerations are the claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet by the end of the century, and that polar bears are disappearing because of global warming (in fact, they are not).” ((http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/13099-not-evil-just-wrong))
Not likely to hear this in school or on most media outlets. These and other challenges to the seemingly unbridled hype about man-made global warming are unveiled in a new movie, “Not Evil Just Wrong” produced by the Cornwall Alliance. You can purchase the movie directly from them. Also you may want to check out Chuck Colson’s commentary on the film.
Why should Christians be concerned about the excessive hysteria over man-made global warming? To mention a few, first, contrary to the claims of many environmentalists and the actions of some others, man is not an intrusion into the environment, a detriment, but actually God’s capstone to the environment, and given by Him the authority to rule over it (Gen 1:26-29). Their distorted view of man’s place in creation causes them to choose to save some creature like a snail darter over human life, stop technological advancements via fiat, or cause economic strangulation via environmental regulation, effectively perpetuating poverty and pollution in poor countries, for example, where dung is used for heat. They make man who is “created in the image of God” not only less than man, but less than an animal.
Second, truth matters, and when the truth is distorted in one area, it eventually will lead to distortions in other areas.
Third, many of the environmentalists have an agenda that is far more in line with socialism, Marxism, and any system of governmental redistribution of wealth, which I believe always has a deleterious impact upon the family unit.
Those of you who know me know that I am deeply concerned about not only false teaching, but particularly the shallow insubstantial teaching of the Scripture in a growing number of our evangelical churches. This leaves this generation of Christians un-equipped and the next generation with very little knowledge of the Christian faith to not only follow but to pass down to the next generation.
The dumbing down of the church is dishonoring to God, harmful to Christians, and consigns future generations to either perish without the truth or to live only principles of Scripture without knowing God in a way that allows them to teach the generation that succeeds them—if there is such a generation.
Simply put, one cannot teach what one does not know, and if the church abrogates her teaching responsibility, those who should be learning the faith to pass it on will be no more than emotional Christians.
C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) taught at Oxford for 29 years and later held the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge until his death. He saw the necessity and importance of correct teaching and spoke pointedly about it in one of his God in the Dock Essays.
He said, “This very obvious fact—that each generation is taught by an earlier generation—must be kept very firmly in mind . . . None can give to another what he does not possess himself. No generation can bequeath to its successor what it has not got. You may frame the syllabus as you please. But when you have planned and reported ad nauseam, if we are skeptical we shall teach only skepticism to our pupils, if fools only folly, if vulgar only vulgarity, if saints sanctity, if heroes heroism.
Education is only the most fully conscious of the channels whereby each generation influences the next. It is not a closed system. Nothing which was not in the teachers can flow from them into the pupils. We shall all admit that a man who knows no Greek himself cannot teach Greek to his form; but it is equally certain that a man whose mind was formed in a period of cynicism and disillusion, cannot teach hope or fortitude. A society which is predominantly Christian will propagate Christianity through its schools: one which is not, will not. All the ministries of education in the world cannot alter this law . . . “ ((C. S. Lewis, “On the Transmission of Christianity,” God in the Dock: Essays on Theology & Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1972), 116-117.))
Hitler’s animosity and inhumane atrocities against the Jews are well known. His venom against them and his plan to use his own oratorical abilities to exploit them in order to resurrect Germany is a theme running though Mein Kampf. However, one should never forget how effective his devilish, albeit intellectually doltish, scheme was. Moreover, there are more than a few today who seek to eradicate from the globe the Jews, Christians, and other groups they deem to be corrupting influences.
The following quote reminds us of how one can use a group in order to accomplish a dastardly political end.
“My object is to guide first-rate revolutionary upheavals, regardless of what methods or means I have to use in the process. Earlier revolutions were against the peasants, or nobility, or the clergy or against dynasties and their network of vassals, but in no case has revolution succeeded without the presence of a lightening rod that could conduct and channel the odium of the general masses . . . [W]eighing every imaginable factor, I came to the conclusion that a campaign against the Jews would be as popular as it would be successful . . . Disproportionately to their small number they account for an immense share of the German national wealth, which can be just as easily put to profitable use for the state and the general public as could the holdings of monasteries, bishops and nobility. Once the hatred and the battle against the Jews has been really stirred up, their resistance will necessarily crumble in the shortest possible time. They are totally defenseless, and no one will stand up to protect them.” ((Josef Hell, Aufzeichnung, 1922, Z.S. 640, p. 6, Institut für Zeitgeschicthe in Frankfurt. Quoted in Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), 28-29. Cited in Philip Rieff, My Life among the Deathworks (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006), 160-161.))
Even though Hitler died, there are still several “Hitlers” on the political landscape who will use whatever means possible to ruthlessly conquer the weak maugre all political agreements and niceties.
Intentionalists believe that the Constitution should be understood in the way it was understood by the Founders. Consequently, it is a fixed document with static meaning; therefore, it means today what it meant then. The only way one can properly interpret it is by studying the authorial intent of the signatories.
In contrast, progressives believe that the Constitution is to be understood as a living document, which not only allows but requires that each generation interpret the Constitution in light of current needs and changes. They argue that the meaning must be ever changing in order to keep the Constitution relevant and adaptable to the issues of the day. Therefore, the interpretations and adjudications of the Supreme Court, which are not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution, are not only appropriate, but essential.
Thus, the question of which approach is the correct one? Well, if the latter was the desire of the Founders, then I would ask, why did they include an explicit process for amending the Constitution? For the amendment process seems glaringly superfluous if the Founders intended for the Supreme Court to change, add to, or reinterpret the Constitution according to their modern opinions regarding the need to change.
Moreover, one may even go so far as to suggest that both of the legislative houses are, if not extraneous, at least marginalized in significance since legislators were/are actually the nation’s lawmakers.
Jefferson said, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” ((Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277, http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html ))
We like to consider ourselves a “civilized” and “humane” society, and I think that is true in many ways. However, the legalization and normalization of abortion reminds us of the darker side of our humanity. For in abortion, the strong summarily dismiss the lives of the preborn through methods that betray a narcissistic primal barbarism. I suspect that if an actual abortion was performed on television for all to see in cinematic detail, it would rival the cruelest and most heart wrenching of horror movies.
Recently, Landon Norton’s Round Table presentation succinctly reminded us of the inhumane process of an abortion. Please do not allow his admirable brevity to cause you to forget the heroic struggle of each little one caught in this human web of brutish and savage selfishness. Continue reading →