The Globalist Undermining of Western Civilization and Personal Freedoms

Having been born and raised in Canada, I understood several important things about the blessing that was mine. Growing up in a western democratic country, an oft repeated phrase… especially when differences were noted… was, “It’s a free country.” Indeed it was. I was aware that those precious freedoms came at a great price, and that they should never be taken for granted. It was also stressed that those freedoms must be protected, and would sometimes have to be defended, but in all cases we must, “Stand on guard for thee.”

Also, I was very aware that actions have consequences and further, we were not doing anyone any favours should we attempt to protect or shield individuals from those consequences. Mercy might however, sometimes mitigate the outcome. More on this as this essay unfolds.

Over the years, it has made me very sad to see the attacks against, and gradual demise of, those very things that made my country great. Slowly at first, and then with ever increasing speed the attacks have been relentless. Looking at our friends to the south… the USA is also undergoing those very same attacks and with some very similar results. There is also varying amounts of decay and decline as one looks towards other western countries. Some parts of Europe, in my opinion, are already largely a “basket case.” Is this all by accident or by design?

One of the strongest arguments for the promotion of western societal values has been the success of those nations that function as (truly) free and democratic societies. Our Judeo-Christian values, freedoms, AND civic responsibilities, coupled with strong national identities and interests has led to the successes enjoyed by such countries. Those, whose goal is to destroy and supplant successful western democratic nations, would first have to engineer their failure by destroying all that had made them successful and desirable. Succeed in doing that, and you just might then get enough support to implement a globalist agenda of some sort. Of course if such an agenda were going to succeed, it could not appear to be an attack… it would have to be made to appear as something desirable, humanitarian… progressive even. Sounds paranoid, you say? Well, let’s just stop and consider a few things.

Here in (no particular order) are just a few areas which have been under a sustained and growing attack:

1. Borders - Recent events all point at the push to eliminate sovereign borders. This would include the huge influx of illegal immigrants overrunning national boundaries, the rise in “sanctuary” cities, states or territories, and the active resistance (sponsored by the political left) toward border enforcement. This is most evident when we see a number of left-wing organizations funding, and actively subverting existing laws, while pushing toward so called, “open societies.” Sadly, while borders still can be found on maps, in a number of cases they have become incredibly weak.

2. National Identity – Along with attempts to eliminate national borders, there has also been a determined effort to deny, destroy or eradicate the history, cultural norms and symbols that are all part of a national and cultural identity. Indeed, the disastrous policies of official-multiculturalism have wreaked havoc on the cultural identities of a number of western countries. Such policy (always a darling of the “progressive” elites) is finally facing much deserved push-back and rejection… one can only hope the damage is not yet irreversible.

Indeed, following the 2015 election in Canada, Justin Trudeau proudly proclaimed Canada to be the world’s first “post-national country.” He then added, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” It seemed that the damaging Trudeau-regime ideals, begun by his father decades earlier, had finally been realized.

In an article titled, “For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada,” Ricardo Duchesne, Professor of Sociology, UNB and author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” writes (in part) the following:

“Today, the mainstream media and the academic world take great pleasure in labelling our immigration policy prior to 1967 as “racist and exclusionary”. But this is a cultural Marxist assessment of Canadian perceptions, their culture and ethnicity. Canadians then were part of a Western world committed and strongly attached to the idea that every individual citizen of Canada should be treated equally under the law without discrimination based on race, national origin, or religion. They were not racist, but merely ethnocentric, that is, a people with a natural and normal preference for their own ethnic traditions. Ethnic groups throughout the world exhibit a preference for their own culture and a disposition to judge other cultures by the standards of their own religion and customs. But today in the Western world, ethnocentrism is looked down upon as an attitude that contravenes the “universal brotherhood of humanity” to be manifested in Western multiethnic and multicultural societies. As diverse ethnic groups come into contact with one another, inside Western countries, our liberal elites bow to the importance of “understanding” other cultures and overcoming one’s ethnic prejudices. Europeans still exhibiting strong attachments (to their age-old cultures) are said to be bogged down by “irrational fears”…

…How, then, did European Canadians come to accept the idea that it is racist and xenophobic to exhibit preference for one’s own ethnicity and heritage, while believing, at the same time, that every non-European ethnic group has a right to preserve its own culture inside Canada? How did Canadians come to believe that their identity can be proudly captured in answers to such banal Macleans questions as “How many rooms does your house have per person?” There is no space here to address these questions. Suffice it to respond — to those who claim that multiculturalism was in origins and essence a “quintessentially Canadian” idea and policy — that the relentless promotion of diversity and mass immigration, despite some variations, has been a Western-wide phenomenon since the 1960s. The American President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Immigration Act of 1965, which led to a tremendous surge in immigration from Mexico and Asia in the decades that followed. Eight years later the “White Australia Policy” came to an end, resulting in a massive influx of ethnocentric Asians.”

The article concludes with:

“The multiculturalists are the ones who have infused politics with an intolerant ideology in which anyone proud of his European heritage and refusing to join the multiculti choruses is despised as a xenophobic outsider. The irony of creating a “universal humanity” is that it has required the dehumanization of the British people, or any particular European group, wishing to retain its identity. Multiculturalists advocate in-group favoritism for immigrants and cultural Marxists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, out-group hate for those Canadians who love their European heritage. They have demonized the European founding peoples of Canada as an out-group, an enemy of “humanity”, to be eradicated for the sake of non-European “diversity” and the creation of a new species inside Canada and the West. Their position runs counter to the natural, healthy and rational ethnocentric prejudices of humans. It also runs counter to the actual ethnic diversity of the peoples of the earth. Why would the Japanese, Koreans, and Pakistanis want their countries to look like “diverse” Toronto?

Let us defend European ethnocentrism in the name of human nature and the true diversity of the peoples of the planet.”

Quoting from a National Post article titled, “Trudeau's experiment with multiculturalism has been a failure” author George Jonas writes in part:

“In the 1960s, inspired by the spirit of the times, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his merry band of sorcerer’s apprentices, embarked on what seemed to them a jolly social experiment. It entailed altering this country’s ethno-cultural makeup, along with its institutions and ethos.”

“Canada’s brave new progressive-liberal-socialist mandarins devised on a three-step program to revamp the country culturally and demographically. It involved (a) reducing immigration from “traditional’ (read: West European) sources; (b) increasing it from non-traditional sources, and (c) dismantling Conservative Prime Minister (till 1963) John Diefenbaker’s ideal society of unhyphenated Canadians and replacing it with Trudeaucratic Liberalism’s ideal of a multicultural Canada.”

In the mean time, those wanting to hold to their traditions, national identity and culture, are being subjected to slander, ridicule and socialist style bullying tactics. Liberalized definitions of words like “racism” are being liberally used to taunt the more conservative amongst us. All the while, the left-wing generated hostility, against those of us they choose to label as xenophobic, continue to be encouraged.

3. History - “In war, truth is the first casualty.” ― Aeschylus

Whether or not you believe or like it, our society is embroiled in a culture war. The stakes are high. If you’ve read the article thus far, you are aware of what I’m referring to. Our past, the successes and struggles of our western societies are being targeted as a part of that war. To remove symbols of the past, to rewrite our history and to recast and demonize the accomplishments of those who have preceded us has been a consistent goal of the Liberal Progressives. They realise that if we can hold on to those successes and celebrate our past, their larger goal of undermining and supplanting our western democracies becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to achieve. If they can succeed in destroying our history – and with it, our roots and identity – they can perhaps move us toward their ultimate goal of a global socialist state.

4. Family – The basic building blocks of any society and indeed one of its greatest strengths is the strength and well-being of the individual family unit. A strong family unit that is teaching and passing on the history and values of society, contributes to the growth and health of that society. Destroy the family unit, and the society of which it is a part, begins to crumble. There is no question that in the west, the basic family unit has been under constant attack.

Divorce has been made far too easy to obtain. People are free to walk away from their “long-term” commitment for no other reason than they no longer wish to be married. This means there is far less motivation to do the hard work required to make marriage work. To this point, I am not questioning divorce for cause (such as abuse or adultery etc) but specifically the “no-fault,”divorce… just walk away from your spouse ‘cause you fell out of love… that has become so prevalent.

Subsequent to the significant weakening of the marriage contract, we’ve seen a sustained push for redefining marriage away from the traditional meaning that has served humanity for thousands of years. This, along with attacks on both masculine and feminine role models, plus attacks against human gender and what that means, has left many of the children of today with poor or missing role models, an unstable/uncertain home life, and great confusion about who and what they are. Taking on those missing parts and role models then becomes the perfectly created situation into which the state steps. Until recently, such roles and teachings would have been rightly fulfilled within a stable family unit. Just recently, the former Liberal government in Ontario happily declared their role within the school system as that of “co-parent.” And they have shown a readiness to take on that role aggressively as they undermine, and supplant the rightful role of parents.

5. Basic Freedoms - The rights and freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so long are being whittled away at an increasing rate as they come under an almost daily attack. Special attention is paid to eliminating the individual right to express ourselves, our opinions and to speak freely. As well, our right to defend ourselves and our basic god-given rights to guard our person and property against all others (including our own government if necessary) is under constant threat and challenge by the political left.

6. Economy – Any country can be brought to the point of collapse if the economy can be made to fail. The chaos that results from a failing economy lends itself to the imposition of autocratic forceful control and the crackdown on individual freedom; all in the name of restoring order. Western economies have been placed under tremendous pressures; many of them self-imposed. We’ve seen decades of liberal policies building larger and larger debt loads, rising taxes, and failing promises. All this is done as a kind of left-wing ideal where the state ultimately is set to become the one who will take care of us all in a kind of cradle to grave utopia. This, of course, has led to social programs and entitlements that consume more and more of the country’s ability to pay. Add to this, the ever increasing mound of bureaucratic red-tape and government oversight; couple that with government literally giving away money it does not have and you have the basis of choking out any chance of recovery.

As if these pressures are not already enough to destabilize any economy, add to this attack on the economy, the already mentioned open borders and the accompanying mass of illegal immigration. When you do, couple all that with a motivated and financed effort to overwhelm the country’s social and legal systems (all financed by left-wing special-interest groups) and the destruction is near complete. Now to complete the destruction, throw in an unproven unscientific carbon reduction protocol, couple it with a global wealth redistribution plan, and the failure seems guaranteed.

7. Churches – Many of the principles contributing to the successes of western democracies have their roots in their Judaeo-Christian foundation. Much of what has made these cultures desirable and attractive also have the same Judaeo-Christian beginnings. The peaceful coexistence of church and state has seen nations free and prosperous. Today, those same Judaeo-Christian principles and ideals, once seen as a part of the churches role, are being attacked and restricted as the state seeks first to regulate and then to assume control.

8. Schools – I’ve already mentioned schools, as the education system seeks to take on a co-parenting role in the raising of our children. I think it needs to be stressed that academics, which was once upon a time determined by social contract and understanding, was the schools primary role. It seems this is no longer the case. Schools were known as the places where children went to learn the so-called “3 R’s” and they were never intended to parent children. Learning right from wrong, ethics and morality, how to become a responsible person and a good citizen, cultural celebrations and norms… were among all the issues that were the responsibility of parents in a stable and loving family.

Of course now schools, at the granting of the progressive state, have taken over many of those roles. Parents often have no idea what their children are being taught. Sadly, little of it seems to be of an academic value (as witnessed by abysmal math, reading and writing skills). In some cases the parents are being told they do not even have the right to know exactly what their child is being taught…particularly when it comes to state-decided morality issues. With early and long-term indoctrination, the state has the ability to train up a generation of people who will carry forth the global-socialist ideals that the left seems so determined to realize.

I’ve presented just eight short examples of why I think there is a larger agenda driving the chaos and discord we see in our society today. I recognize that each could be debated at a much greater length and what I presented is just the barest of summaries for each point. It is my desire that in presenting these points of view, thought and possibly further discussion will be stimulated. As they used to say on a very popular television show, “The truth is out there.”

Is The Media The Enemy?

The topic I wish to comment on today has been brewing in my mind for quite some time. Like many people I know, I also have become more and more concerned with the degree of anger, strife and division to be found in both Canada and the USA. If one is paying attention to the rapid evolution of conflict within our society, where we are headed becomes an obvious concern. It was following a recent comment by President Trump, that I felt compelled to finally put my musings to paper.

On February 17/17, Trump made the comment that the media is not his enemy so much as it is an enemy of the American people. Of course this stirred up much discussion and concern as to the veracity of the statement and the important role the press/media play in our society. Indeed, one of the most important rights and freedoms we enjoy is the so called, “freedom of the press” – this coupled with our freedom of speech and expression exists at the very foundation of a free society.

So then, what of Trump’s comment? Is it a baseless accusation or is there any truth to it? In order to answer these questions, I’d first like to look a little deeper into the issues and context that surround such comments. Also, though I referenced Trumps comments, this writing is not meant as a defense or condemnation of Trump and/or his policies.

In both Canada and the USA, the press enjoys a unique and protected position that has been specifically written into each country’s constitution. In return for this very special (protected) status, there are certain responsibilities a free press has:

1. to truthfully report the news “fully, accurately and fairly”

2. hold government leaders accountable to the people

3. educate citizens to all the facts so they can make informed decisions, and

4. connect people with each other in civil society.

Given the special and unique relationship a free press has within a free and democratic society, the question becomes: “Is our mass media, the so-called ‘mainstream media,’ fully living up to those responsibilities?” If they are, they are unquestionably not only an asset to our society but an indispensable necessity. If they are failing to live up to all responsibilities, they then become a dysfunctional liability. If they purposely abandon their responsibilities, they can become downright destructive and subversive.

The real question then is; to what extent is the media living up to their responsibilities? Are there areas where they are failing and the dysfunction is significant enough that it is of real concern?

Aside from the anti-Trump screed included within his opinion piece, Neil Macdonald makes some very valid points. His whole article, “Trust in the media is sinking and it's time to act: Neil Macdonald” can be found at http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/news-journalism-standards-regulation-neil-macdonald-1.3991443?cmp=rss.

The following quotes are taken from his article:

“…Like a stupid cop or a nasty bureaucrat, or, worse, a maliciously dull-witted doctor or lawyer or stockbroker, a bad reporter can ruin a person's life, or at least a person's career.

But there's a difference: all of the other occupations I just mentioned are legally leashed and held accountable, to one extent or another. People in those jobs must qualify for them, and submit to strict professional standards…

…There is no uniform qualification for a reporter, no uniform code of behaviour. Journalism has vigorously resisted any efforts to legally define journalism, or any sort of peer review…

…A huge swath of journalism doesn't even bother pretending self-regulation…

…Gallup's most recent testing of public opinion suggested that trust in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" is at its lowest level in polling history.

Only 32 per cent of respondents said they trusted the mainstream media…

… This is not a new phenomenon, either. Gallup has traced a steady decline in trust for two decades.”

I believe the two decade decline, which Macdonald has identified, is significant and has its’ roots in the social engineering push of the progressive movement. When I speak of social engineering, I am referring specifically to efforts meant to influence and/or change particular attitudes and social behaviours on a large scale. Whether by governments, media or private groups, the goal of social engineering remains that of attempting to produce desired changes in a target population. Mass media could conceivably be used as a tool for large scale societal change if any political movement were to successfully introduce their particular ideology into journalistic schools. Once introduced and implemented as teaching ideals to emerging journalists, the press would eventually begin to reflect those ideologies – and this is what I believe has happened.

With the above in mind; to one degree or another, the media has often become the legs carrying the message of the progressive left in their quest to engineer society into their view of a liberal paradise. Often disguised under lofty, idealistic labels (containing terms to suggest social justice or fairness and freedom) the progressive agenda gets moved forward by a media that is more than willing to tirelessly promote the issue du jour until it is accepted. Whether the issue is open borders, immigration policy, homosexual policy, sexual/gender identity, school curriculum, political correctness or fiscal policy, the mainstream media most-often abandons a neutral, fact-based position in favour of a pro-liberal stance. Let me hasten to add, while smearing and denigrating the conservative position. The political struggles between the left and the right are kept alive by a media driving the wedge ever deeper into the fabric of our culture.

This media bias can be seen in a great many of our recent elections. Conservative leaders are almost uniformly misrepresented and presented in the least desirable light possible whilst liberal leaders receive much more favourable treatment. This has been true for every conservative leader I can think of during the past 50 years. While the argument usually presented, is that the comments and criticisms are specific to a particular conservative leader. The fact is however, that the same pejorative terms are often dragged out and used in smear campaigns against all conservative leaders. Traditionally, the media (being the sacred cow that it is) is largely left alone and unchallenged. In recent years however, there has begun to be some long overdue push-back and more attempts to hold the media to account.

Now things really start to get interesting - enter Donald Trump and the USA presidential election of 2016. When Trump entered the presidential race, he was treated as a curiosity, a joke and a headline grabber. He was scoffed at and not taken seriously by the media. Yet in a field of 17 candidates, Trump eventually won the Republican nomination. In the run to the White House against the Democratic candidate (Hillary Clinton) Trump was the media underdog and not expected to win. Against the odds, Trump took on the Democratic machine, hundreds of millions of dollars spent in damning and negative ads, a very negative and at times hostile mainstream media and yet won a stunning victory.

As has often been the case, many in the media seemed to feel they can constantly attack, but be immune to counterattack. If and when someone does attempt to counterattack, the media often respond with a kind of self-righteous indignation. In my opinion Trump was able to overcome much of the negative press because he confronted them quickly and directly. Whereas in the past, many leaders of conservative parties would have attempted to deal with the negative commentary by becoming defensive or by attempting to rise above the fray… ignoring the negative noise while trying to get their message out, Trump counter-punched. He hit back and he hit hard which often found the media in the unfamiliar position of defensiveness. He called them on their bias, he called them on their sloppiness and bad journalism and he called them on their attempts to deceive. This, I believe, worked because this is what the public wanted and were waiting for. If, however, the media had not already lost their believability and respect, the people would have believed them and not voted for Trump.

Many within the mainstream media, much like a spoiled child needing a good spanking, wailed long and loud after finally receiving their comeuppance. Now, after the election is over, too many in the media still seem not to have learned. Instead of acting adult, gathering the facts and reporting the news, they persist in a sort of angry rage to try to take down the one who dared expose them and the (no longer hallowed) halls of ‘acamedia.’ (Academia X Mass Media). In the process, they continue to drive a wedge into those things about which there is already some division… and they cause the rift to widen even more. Maybe it’s time the media grew-up and began to hold themselves and each other accountable… maybe there needs to be some sort of standards and oversight of the media’s actions.

In closing, listen to the words of Neil Macdonald as it pertains to holding the media accountable and responsible:

“But the wider distrust expressed in polls is something else. Journalism is losing the support of rational, intelligent, thoughtful consumers, and that is a serious threat.

Recapturing it probably means a little less snark (millennials, especially, seem to loathe snark and smug, of which I am a foremost practitioner), less blatant clickbait (in some ways, news websites are becoming a collection of bad listicles), more policy and less politics, and less pusillanimous surrender to ratings, something that helped create Trump.

But nothing would go further in recapturing public trust than becoming a true profession, with standards, qualifications, accountability and enforceable rules. As much as I shudder at being judged by other journalists, there is no longer any other way.”

Rules Laws and the Nature of Sin

As a youngster I frequently would questions such as, “Why can’t I _____?” or, “What’s wrong with _____?” Such questions inevitably arose whenever I was prevented from doing something that I wanted to do. I wasn’t alone in this as many kids in my peer group would also resort to asking the same questions. While it is common to manipulate, argue and rationalize in order to get our own way, and no doubt such questions could be viewed in that light, we can not simply dismiss such questions without discussion. They do raise some important issues and disserve closer attention.

As a child of the 50's, in addition to my religious upbringing, I was also subject to the prevailing attitudes of that period. The post-war 1950's can best be described as “restless” which resulted in a high degree of moving and searching. With increasing affluence and as part of an optimistic post-war boom, there was an explosion of materialism. As people searched for ways of coping, during this period in our history, there was also a rapid growth in religious engagement. In the USA from 1950 – 1960, the number of people identifying with a particular church went from 49% to 69% and this period is described by some as a time of conformity. Society was generally law-abiding and its citizens generally conformed to both the moral and legal requirements of the culture.

From these two strong influential factors i.e. strict religious and civil codes, my earliest views of rules, laws and sin evolved. Within this context, all behaviour (actions taken or not taken) could thus be classified as right or wrong, lawful or sinful. I believe that inherent within this paradigm are a number of problems, but I did not begin to reevaluate this approach to life until much more recently. By itself, approaches such as this can produce a strife-filled, divisive and restrictive, some might say legalistic, world-view.

If we attempt to tie all our problems, all our societal ills, our spiritual depravity and our moral decay to either a lack of laws, or to a failure to abide by those laws then I believe we are doomed to repeated failure. We view ourselves as “free” and yet as a society we are regulated by hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. I read one statistic (but have no way of verifying the accuracy) that as of January 2016 there were 4,668,934 laws and regulations in Canada. Whether this number is accurate or not, we can state with certainty that the actual number would be huge indeed. Even with the burden of all these laws, inevitably someone will commit some act for which a law is not yet on the books and so we hear a cry for yet another law, as in “there ought to be a law!”

At creation, humanity was given free will. Along with this ability to choose freely, they were given one simple restriction or rule and they were told of the consequence should that rule be violated. How then, did we ever get to the point where we have such an unimaginably huge number of laws, rules and regulations? To have gone from one rule to such a staggeringly huge number of regulations and laws is a sad commentary on human nature and behaviour.

With humanity choosing to disregard and disobey the one rule given in the Garden of Eden and the subsequent fall of mankind, we’re told of a rapidly deteriorating human condition. Just prior to the flood at the time of Noah, Genesis 6:5 says, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

After the great flood, but before the Ten Commandments were given to Israel at Mount Sinai, the Talmud, speaks of the The Seven Laws of Noah. These are the so called “Noachide Laws.” These seven laws as traditionally enumerated are:
1. Acknowledge that there is only one God who is Infinite and Supreme above all things. Do not replace that Supreme Being with finite idols, be it yourself, or other beings. This command includes such acts as prayer, study and meditation.

2. Respect the Creator. As frustrated and angry as you may be, do not vent it by cursing your Maker.

3. Respect human life. Every human being is an entire world. To save a life is to save that entire world. To destroy a life is to destroy an entire world. To help others live, is a corollary of this principle.

4. Respect the institution of marriage. Marriage is a most Divine act. The marriage of a man and a woman is a reflection of the oneness of God and His creation. Disloyalty in marriage is an assault on that oneness.

5. Respect the rights and property of others. Be honest in all your business dealings. By relying on God rather than on our own conniving, we express our trust in Him as the Provider of Life.

6. Respect God's creatures. At first, Man was forbidden to consume meat. After the Great Flood, he was permitted - but with a warning: Do not cause unnecessary suffering to any creature.

7. Maintain justice. Justice is God's business, but we are given the charge to lay down necessary laws and enforce them whenever we can. When we right the wrongs of society, we are acting as partners in the act of sustaining the creation.

According to the Talmud, the Noachide Laws are considered by rabbinic tradition to be the minimal moral responsibilities required of all men. All men, Jew and non-Jew alike, are considered as sons of the ‘covenant of Noah.’ Talmudic teaching holds that he who accepts the obligations of the ‘covenant of Noah,’ is considered a righteous person who is guaranteed a place in the world to come. *Note: unlike non-Jews, Jews are obligated to observe the whole 613 commandments of the Torah.

We know that there were Jewish scholars and teachers who prided themselves in keeping to the letter of every one of these 613 laws and yet they were not free of the problem of sin. In fact Jesus pointed out the problems they were creating for themselves as well as for those around them. One such example can be found in Matthew 23:13 which reads, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” For their part, these same “law-keeping” teachers and scholars disputed with Jesus and accused Him of being a law-breaker.

What I’m attempting to show here is how, with our failure to obey one simple command, humanity has required more and more rules to manage/regulate our behaviour. We went from one command to seven, then ten and on to the 613 mentioned in the Torah. Today we in the west are now living with more laws and regulations than we can count! Frankly, if one were to try cataloguing every possible human behaviour, every action or inaction and then somehow codify it under the law, the possible number of laws would be astronomical. Now I’m not saying that laws are not important or that we should not have any…I’d hate to think where we’d be without some of the laws which protect and govern us. However, what I am saying is that we simply cannot pen a regulation to govern every action or cover every sin.

It is my view that even if we could, through some kind of human effort, achieve agreement among all the nations of the earth, on laws to govern human behaviour, and if we could have every human on the planet make the effort to conform to those laws we would not eliminate the problem of sin. If we got agreement on all spiritual laws consisting of a complete list of “do this and don’t do that” regulations… as well as compliance with those laws, sin would not be eliminated.

This line of reasoning, or any exploration of this topic, raises questions about the origin of sin and destruction. Looking at the downfall of Satan is a key that helps understand the nature and complexity of sin. We’re told in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:15-17 about his fall from being one member of a heavenly host to becoming the devil. We’re told of his ambition to ascend above the heights of the clouds and make himself like the Most High. These two passages point out several things:

• He was perfect in his ways from the day he was created until iniquity was found in him

• He was a covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones

• He became proud; his heart was lifted up because of his own beauty and he corrupted his wisdom for the sake of his splendour

• He said in his heart he would ascend to heaven above the stars of God

• He aspired to set his throne on high and sit on the mount of assembly

• He became filled with violence within and he sinned

• He was cast, as a profane thing, out of the mountain of God

• Many of the angels followed him and were cast out with him.

It is my assumption that Satan used his own pride/ambition to somehow tempt or corrupt himself and then those others that ultimately fell with him. It also appears that he used a similar approach to corrupt humanity and because we yielded to that temptation, we fell. So what was humanities sin? Many would say it was eating the forbidden fruit, and that would be true, but I think at least part of the answer lies also within the temptation itself.

The devil did not focus on the fruit for its physical properties such as taste. He didn’t say look at this fruit, it tastes wonderful; you don’t know what you’re missing, you should try it and you’ll really like it. Instead, he first brought to mind that which had been forbidden by asking a question in such a way as to get Eve to focus on the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” The question he asked and the answer it elicited served to highlight the specialness of this tree and the unique qualities it possessed. Then he emphasized the desirability of those unique properties while creating doubt about the warning God had issued in relation to the tree.

Right from the beginning, God did not prevent man’s access to the knowledge of good and evil but He did gave direction not to go there and He warned that gaining this knowledge would result in death. To tempt humanity to disobey God’s command and disregard His warning, the devil appealed to human pride, vanity and self-importance. He suggested that God’s warning was merely a threat issued to scare them out of gaining parity with God. In essence he was saying that the properties of this particular tree was all that separated them from being equal to God. With the proper kind of suggestion, manipulation and appeal, sin was thus born first in the heart/mind and shortly thereafter the disobedient act occurred. Consider this; before the sinful act actually took place, we (mankind) had to disregard or disbelieve what God told us, believe the tale of a serpent and desire that which was not ours to have.

God’s unheeded warning has seen man consistently mistrusting, disregarding and even denying Him completely. This has resulted in frequently choosing evil over good whilst following a path leading ultimately to despair, destruction, depravity and death. As man journeyed further down this evil pathway, it seems more and more rules and laws became necessary for our own survival. We needed limits and instruction in order to teach us how to live and remember who we are and from whence we came. The irony these days is that as we seek to replace God’s wisdom with our own knowledge, we end up seeking even more and more regulation accompanied by a larger bureaucracy to govern our so called “freedom.”

So then, how does this all tie in with those, “what’s wrong with it” questions mentioned at the beginning of this piece? I now believe such questions were based on my underlying belief; I grew up thinking that sin is ‘doing bad stuff.’ As an example, if we had been taught drinking alcohol is a sin, the question that would naturally occur in our mind would be, “what’s wrong with alcohol?” Of course the answer many of us would have received would then include some version of the “evils of alcohol” thus adding to the idea that the alcohol somehow has moral qualities that make it evil. Thus, I think many of us believed (believe?) that the sin is in the action – not realizing the problem is in the actor and not simply in the act.

Oswald Chambers said it this way: “It is not being reconciled to the fact of sin that produces all the disasters in life. You may talk about the nobility of human nature, but there is something in human nature which will laugh in the face of every ideal you have. If you refuse to agree with the fact that there is vice and self-seeking, something downright spiteful and wrong in human beings, instead of reconciling yourself to it, when it strikes your life, you will compromise with it and say it is of no use to battle against it. Have you made allowance for this hour and the power of darkness, or do you take a recognition of yourself that misses out sin? In your bodily relationships and friendships do you reconcile yourself to the fact of sin? If not, you will be caught round the next corner and you will compromise with it. If you reconcile yourself to the fact of sin, you will realize the danger at once.”

There is no doubt that human beings are capable of committing all kinds of horrendous, sinful, evil and destructive acts. In the struggle to come to grips with and regulate our behaviour, certain laws and rules are necessary. Until such time as we truly have a change of heart such that we can rightly govern and develop the necessary internal self-control, external controls and mechanisms for enforcement will be necessary. History has shown we are incapable of doing this ourselves; we need a Savior, one who can change our hearts. Jesus has promised us if we will believe in Him, he will provide us with a new heart. 

 

A New Heart?

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezekiel 36:26 (New International Version). This is just one of many passages in the Bible that makes reference to the heart of man and the need for a change. In order for me to begin to understand the need for a change of heart I needed to question what is being described in passages such as this. So what does a ‘new heart’ mean and why is it necessary?

On a recent mini-holiday, it was my privilege to attend a church service where the pastor happened to be preaching on the Beatitudes. Specifically, he was speaking on the passage found in Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” The pastor spent some time teaching just what is meant by “heart” and it turns out to be much more than what we might have thought. The more he spoke on the topic, the more it seemed to answer some of the questions I had while musing about the ‘problem of sin.’

Sin is what has separated us, and keeps us separated from God. If sin was just us “doing bad stuff,” it would stand to reason that if we stopped doing bad stuff, the separation could be bridged. However, the problem with sin is that it goes much deeper than our behaviour; it has penetrated all the way to and infected the very core of our being. That “core” is often what is being referenced when the term heart is used. This infected core, this nature is a part of what we’ve become as humans living in a fallen world.

As I ponder the problem of sin and those actions we often regard as sinful, I wonder if the “bad stuff” we do is really an external manifestation or a symptom of the disease. Is it an internal, ongoing problem with our heart? Are we far too consumed with the symptoms and not nearly concerned enough with the disease? Is it the behaviour or the motivation? Right now, if we attempted to stop all our current bad behaviour but did not eliminate the motivation to behave, what would happen? Now, if we could switch that and eliminate the motivation to behave badly, what would that outcome look like? Eating something, wearing something, saying something or doing something vs what flows from a changed heart…this (it seems) is too often the issue for many Christians.

These points are expressed in the following passages of Scripture:

- “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Mark 7:21–23 (ESV)

- “For I was guilty from the day I was born, a sinner from the time my mother became pregnant with me.” (Psalm 51:5). Later in the same chapter, as he recognized this problem and what it had led him to do, King David pleads for God to cleanse his heart; “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.” (Psalm 51:10)

- “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

- “But for all who did receive and trust in Him, He gave them the right to be reborn as children of God; He bestowed this birthright not by human power or initiative but by God’s will.” John 1:12-13 (The Voice - VOICE);

In Matthew 5:20 Jesus tells us “…unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Earlier, in that same sermon, Jesus told us, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Clearly He was saying that focusing on our own good works, our own righteousness, will never bridge the gulf caused by sin; we need purity of heart. For me, this more than answers the question of why a changed heart is necessary.

Whenever we speak of heart, and what or why we need to understand what is being described, we should remember that the Bible also speaks of God’s heart. Man was created in the image of God; we have heart because He has a heart. We’re told, for instance, David was a man “after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22) and God blesses His people with leaders who know and follow His heart (1 Samuel 2:35; Jeremiah 3:15).

There are over three hundred Biblical references to what has been translated as “heart.” One difficulty I sometimes have when reading passages from the Bible, as well as anything else written hundreds of years ago, is to understand and appreciate how language changes and evolves over time. Some terms are used differently today than when they were written, and their intended meaning has changed somewhat while other words are seldom used any longer. Often the changes are subtle so as to make the term recognizable but different in some way. For me the term “heart,” as used in some Bible passages, is one such word and therefore it requires a bit more thought and study.

“Heart has several definitions but in twenty-first century English we often infer that a significant emotional element is being expressed. Often we think in terms of love, kindness, empathy or sympathy when we hear the term “heart.” This is because it is often used to express the emotions as an individual aspect or component part of the inner self, and we tend to divide humans into the physical and the metaphysical (mental, emotional, spiritual).

In North America we have a tendency to see ourselves as having two separate parts (our heart vs our head) with one part being the emotions, which we refer to as the heart, and our head (brain), which houses the mind. This is how we end up with descriptions of people who we say, allow their heart to rule their head, or we might refer to someone who likes to make decisions based on logic alone, as “having no heart.”

In the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments use the word “heart” to refer to the whole of the innermost part of the human, NOT merely the emotions. Basically the Bible speaks of the heart as both the physical and metaphysical part of us where our emotions and desires dwell. “Heart,” refers to that inner aspect of man and consists of some combination or mixture of: 1) emotion, 2) a mental process and 3) the will (free will).

The Mental process is where action and reaction take place. Thus it is the process which is most involved with making decisions and leading a person in their life. Generally we process our emotions (feelings) as reactions to what we know and/or experience. Emotions also serve to enrich our experiences by adding feeling to our lives. Our will refers to that part of ourselves where decisions are made between the rational and the emotive; it is also reflective of one’s determination to follow through as evidenced by the effort expended.

Thus we can see that the heart plans, makes commitments and decides. It is within the heart where we deliberate, engage in self-talk and make decisions. “In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps” (Prov 16:9). Due to this extremely important function, the father instructs the son: “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov 4:23). Proverbs 6:18 tells us the Lord detests “a heart that devises wicked schemes.”

The heart is the core of our being, and the Bible sets high importance on keeping our hearts pure. God’s work of creating a new heart within us involves testing our hearts (Psalm 17:3; Deuteronomy 8:2) and filling our hearts with new ideas, new wisdom, and new desires (Nehemiah 7:5; 1 Kings 10:24; 2 Corinthians 8:16). It is clear that the heart must be changed in order for a person to be saved. This change can only happen by the power and grace of God in response to faith. “With the heart one believes unto righteousness” (Romans 10:10). By His grace, God can create a new heart within us (Psalm 51:10; Ezekiel 36:26). He promises to “revive the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah 57:15).

“No one can make himself pure by obeying laws. Jesus Christ does not give us rules and regulations— He gives us His teachings which are truths that can only be interpreted by His nature which He places within us. The great wonder of Jesus Christ’s salvation is that He changes our heredity. He does not change human nature— He changes its source, and thereby its motives as well.” Oswald Chambers

Finally, to this point, we’re reminded the greatest commandment according to Jesus is, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” (Matt 22:37). Love here is more than emotion; it is a conscious commitment to the Lord. It is my belief that we don’t need more and better laws, we need to get our hearts right and our behaviour will follow.

Road Ahead (Part 2)

For a significant portion of my life, especially prior to 2012, many people knew me as a dog trainer and the owner of Tsuro Dog Training. Others (within the world of pure-bred dogs) knew me, along with my wife Susan, as breeders, exhibitors and dog-owners that attended and participated in numerous dog shows throughout much of Ontario and parts of the United States. For roughly thirty years most of our social life, our friends and our free time centered on breeding, showing, trialling, travelling and attending dog focused events and related activities.

Moving into the present and jumping ahead three years finds me having very little involvement in what (at one time) made up the major part of my life. As I prepare to close the dog training business, I'm struck by just how much has changed in a relatively short period of time. There has been a reordering of many of my interests, a huge change in things I have a passionate interest in and an almost complete adjustment of my priorities.

The evolution of these changes has been brewing for quite some time. At first I tried to just put things off for awhile and deny the decisions and changes I would have to ultimately make. Even after resolving the issues in my own mind and discussing the processes with those closest to me, I still resisted announcing the changes and moving forward. My recent announcement that I would be closing Tsuro Dog Training caught some by surprise but others had guessed and anticipated this was coming.

After Susan and I had jointly invested about thirty years of effort and energy into our joint passion for working with dogs, this path we’d been on was to come to a sudden and unexpected halt in just a few short months. In late summer of 2011 Susan became ill with gallbladder cancer and four months later – on January 5, 2012 she passed away. During that short period of time, as we battled her illness and tried to come to grips with what the future might hold, we quickly made provisions for our dogs and set aside all our other plans and pursuits.

I’ll not attempt to describe the actual process of grieving and adjusting – but anyone who has lost a most valued loved-one knows something of what that’s like. At some point, after she was gone and I was trying to decide where to go from there, I thought about picking up what we had set aside and getting on with that. Trouble was, there just was not the interest…oh, I could do the work…I just didn’t want to…“maybe it’s still too early,” I thought.

Several months after Susan's passing, I tried describing the process in which I felt caught. In a short piece called, “Road Ahead,” I attempted to describe the contemplation of unexpected endings and uncertain new beginnings.

“So you’re travelling along – sometimes, barely paying attention – when out of nowhere, life happens. Well, you stop (you’ve kinda’ been forced to)… oh, and you also wake up.

So now you’re sitting and waiting till its time to start moving again. How long do ya have to wait? I don’t know. Life is like that – sometimes you get to set the pace and sometimes the pace sets you.

OK, its time. Time to start moving again… but not on the road you’ve been travelling. Nope, ’cause you see, that road is now closed – permanently. You’ve still got numerous possibilities open before you – just one road has been closed… oh, and you can’t go back. But wait, all my plans lay along that road and that’s where I thought my destination was… and now I find out the bloody road’s closed.

How ‘bout the road beside it, where’s that one go?
Don’t know…”

What’s on that road?
Don’t know that either.

Well then, how’m I supposed to choose?
Good question.

Can I just sit here for a while and figure this one out?

Sure – but know this, the answer ain’t where you’re sitting – sooner or later you’ll have to begin moving.

Think I might need some help with this one. Think I’ll close my eyes and ask. This might take awhile.”

Since writing that, life has indeed moved forward; it always does. But in making an attempt to get moving again, I went through several starts and stops. In trying to go back to several things I’d always enjoyed in the past, I was only able to confirm, “you can’t go back.” In trying to revive past interests, I discovered many of my interests had changed. Many of those activities were actually things I had enjoyed doing as part of a couple and now they no longer held the same interest for me. Other personal interests and pursuits I’d enjoyed in the distant past seemed worthy of renewed exploration.

One thing that became clear was that I did not wish to remain alone and so I joined “Christian Mingle” through which I met several great people and experienced a number of new opportunities and possibilities. Christian Mingle was also the vehicle through which I ultimately met Brenda – the lady who was to become my new wife. Meeting someone new (when you are both in your 60’s) is a very interesting experience because both people bring a life-time of learning and experiences to the new relationship – and the challenge is to somehow fit these two lives together. When you are young and still growing and developing, you come together and grow; whereas when you are older, you have pretty much finished growing as an individual and must somehow try to fit together instead. With our new marriage, besides the interests Brenda and I already had in common, came a whole host of new pursuits and possibilities to explore together.

An area that has become increasingly important to me is my spirituality and rediscovering my Christian faith. Even before Susan had become ill, I had begun searching for something that was missing in my life…something that I thought I had left behind me many years ago. While I may have abandoned God, I began to realize He had never abandoned me and as I began to grow and change spiritually, I began to find a peace I’d not known before – in fact this peace helped me through a very dark period as we battled through Susan’s terminal illness. This one element has continued to grow in importance to the point that it has become the lens through which I view my existence and all the other items I may choose to include in my life.

So what happened to Roger the dog trainer? Well, in a sense, he served a purpose and he's moved on. Whatever he might have been, the plans and the passion (that sustained him) have gone - and he along with them. Oh he tried picking up what he had laid down, tried getting back into the dog stuff and discovered what he had suspected...the desire was no longer there. Instead of looking forward to the next appointment and next dog/client challenge, he found they were getting in the way – as he hoped instead for that call to say they were having to cancel. Might he ever return? Perhaps...I just don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I still have and value my old friends and I'm not likely to forget where I've come from or all that mattered to me up to this point. I still like dogs and have several of my own. I still am seeing a few clients (though I've greatly reduced my availability) and I really enjoy the people I see; I like talking to and helping dog owners. While I find I no longer am interested in working with dogs, as I once did, and I no longer have the passion for building and working the business, I will probably continue meeting the occasional dog owner on a consultation basis and may still agree to work with former clients. However, any efforts I may make in attempting to help others with their dog will not be as a result of owning and operating a business.

As for me...I've moved further along the newest road I've chosen and thus far I've discovered some new people, new experiences and new sources of joy and happiness. Among the interests that have begun taking precedence in my life are certain kinds of travel, study (particularly as it relates to my faith) and connecting with other travellers on a similar journey. Of one thing I am certain, this road we're on does not end on this earthly plane; it continues on into the eternal tomorrow.

Golden Calves

There is a very well known story about a “Golden Calf” that I first heard when I was a child. Even now, in my mind’s eye, I can still see the book and pictures depicting this shiny golden calf surrounded by people dancing about with their hands high in the air. The story concerned the Israelites, their liberation from slavery and their worship of a “Golden Calf.” I hadn’t thought of this story at all until it came to mind just recently in a way I had not considered before. Somehow this story came to mind in a way that seemed both timely and relevant. The story is found in Exodus 32 and goes something like this:

The children of Israel had just come out of Egypt where they had been slaves for about 400 years. God heard their cries of suffering and provided for their deliverance through Moses.

During their time in Egypt the Israelites were likely much more aware of the gods of the Egyptians than they were of the God of their patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Indeed they may have begun to doubt the existence of the God of their fathers because Moses anticipated some hard questions from them (Exodus 3:13). To help Moses prove the existence and power of God, he was given a number of miraculous signs which would help the Israelites believe. After all of these miracles were done, including the ten plagues on the Egyptians, the Israelites left Egypt and began their journey with a renewed belief in the Lord God.

Very soon after leaving Egypt, they passed through the Red Sea on dry land. The pursuing Egyptian army, hot on their heels, was drowned trying to catch and recapture them. They then journeyed on to Mount Sinai to receive God’s laws.

Despite all the miracles and recent events leading up to their release from Egyptian bondage, Israel was quick to turn away from YHWH who had freed them. Soon after Moses left them to briefly go up on the mountain and receive God's laws, the people became increasingly anxious. Moses spent forty days (Exodus 24:18) up on the mountain with God and while he was there the people urged Aaron, their temporary leader, to make gods for them to follow.

At their urging, Aaron took the gold earrings they had brought from Egypt, and melted them down to make a golden idol. The idol he crafted for them was a calf, but Aaron maintained the name of the Lord in connection with it (Exodus 32:4&5). In so doing, he was merging the pagan practices they were familiar with, and the worship of the God they were just beginning to be re-acquainted with. When the people saw the calf Aaron made, they were elated and began worshipping it and crediting it for their deliverance. They were saying things like, Israel these are your gods — the ones who led you out of the land of Egypt.

So, what prompted me to remember this story and want to re-examine it after so many years? This after all, was just another story about idol worship (there are many in the Old Testament). How might this story be relevant today? On those past occasions when I’d heard the story, my focus had always been on the item itself (the calf) and not on the determined effort invested in first creating and then worshipping such an object (or idea). However, this time I felt prompted to look past the object and to consider the process and principles at work instead. How does a “Golden Calf” come to be… and can that somehow relate to life today?

The process I’m speaking of, is the passionate rejection of God, combined with re-attributing all He has created and declared, to other sources or authorities. In my opinion, there is a very determined world view which is prepared to invest extraordinary effort to destroy, pervert and/or undermine anything God formed or ordained. In fact it seems that throughout history, when it comes to the subject of God, there has been much more going on than simply a disagreement of beliefs. There has always been a zealously determined effort to deny, discredit, falsify, and/or eliminate God from all earthly equations. Often those who simply believe in Him, His created works, or His expressed will and values, have faced hostility (or worse). Such a hostile response is way out of proportion to what one might expect over differing views or opinions. It’s much more than simply a case of, “while I believe in God and you don’t, you are free to express your views while I freely express mine.”

Throughout history and right up to the present day, persistent attempts to remove any traces or references to God continue. Indeed I believe those campaigning against God would, if they could, remove all traces of Him from our minds as well! Of course a belief in a godless universe (known as atheism) has its own “religious” component with followers determined to write God out of every equation. But to be replaced by what?… evolution?… perhaps some form of secular humanism?

As I began looking into the history of atheism and the accompanying theory of evolution, I find they are not modern in any sense of the word. These are not theories and ideas born of sophistication and scientific enlightenment. Throughout recorded history there is ample evidence of atheism and antagonism toward God (and all who believe in Him). At the same time history records plenty of efforts attempting to credit our existence to some form of evolution or anything other than Divine design.

The obvious question (to me at least) is why create this golden calf… why God-less evolution… why Darwinism? If something is believed and accepted as fact, we do not try to replace it with something else; however, when we decide to reject a previously held belief, we then are faced with the task of replacing that belief with something else… an alternate explanation.

The idea of evolution grew as a consequence of denying creation and a Creator and was put forth as an alternate explanation to the question, “If no God, then where did we come from?” Indeed, a very interesting article includes the following:

“While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations…” For more see: “Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis” http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

The same article concludes with:

“Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."” - See more at: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Darwinism didn’t emerge as the result of strict adherence to the “scientific method” or observations to which a strict scientific protocol was applied; instead it was put forth as an alternate explanation for the origin of all life. As an explanation, in my opinion, it is grasped and clung to in a manner somewhat akin to a drowning man anxiously and frantically grasping at straws.

Now, it’s not my intention to disprove evolution – there are many sound arguments that do that job already; and they are put forth by folks far more learned on the subject than me. However, I am intrigued by how tenaciously this seriously flawed theory is clung to by academia and the lengths taken to shut down any opposing viewpoints within the scientific community. Darwinism, though remaining the prevailing paradigm which has become the status quo, is a theory that has never been proven. Basically, it remains at about the same place it was when Darwin first proposed his views. Since academia has adopted this theory, no other view is seriously entertained. Discoveries harmful to the theory, particularly those that are suggestive or point toward intelligent design, are immediately dealt with by expulsion, ridicule and/or deliberate obfuscation.

In fact, within the ranks of academia, the treatment of those that challenge Darwinism has become the subject of the documentary movie, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” by Ben Stein. In this movie Stein goes up against the status quo and the intellectual elite to expose the bias against any other form of thought that is an anathema to Darwin’s theory.

Despite the fact that this theory is now over a hundred years old, and despite the fact that it still lacks any substantive scientific proof, nevertheless academia continues to cling tenaciously and present it as “fact.” Some proponents of evolution acknowledge the fact that willingness to accept an intelligent Creator is so unpalatable they would rather cling to a flimsy unproven theory.

The following statements point to the desire to abandon the idea of a Creator and come from the article: “Why Do People Believe in Evolution?” By Bert Thompson, Ph.D. https://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-as-a-Threat-to-the.pdf “…Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1917, p. ix). Henry Morris noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).

Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.”

Finally I’d like to offer the following link as something the reader might find particularly interesting when considering this particular “golden calf.” http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htm It is titled, “Why did you reject evolution” and was written by Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

It begins: “As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told…”

Dr. Briney goes on to take a closer look at the science and just how he came to the conclusions he does.

Personally I have no problem with the creation model and believe strongly that all creation points to its creator. There was a time, a point in my life when I had rejected this point of view but not any longer. If you have not come to the same conclusion, I would ask that you at least not close your mind to the possibility and then really examine the evidence. There is no question that at some point faith must come into the equation… just be careful that you are not placing your faith in a “golden calf.”

What Church is God's Church? Body of Christ

Many different metaphors have been used in reference to the church; with the term “Body of Christ” being one of the most frequently used. During a morning devotional period not long ago, it occurred to me to consider all this term might include. It seems to me that it does a lot more than simply describe how all the individual parts of a body should work together to perform their tasks in the service of the whole body. I believe this metaphor can be useful for understanding more than just that one point.

In the New Testament, there are a number of scripture references to the phrase, “the Body of Christ” and what it means. So how does the term, “Body of Christ” fit and how is it used? There is much written on this topic and a Google search quickly came up with hundreds of references but the following link provides a very good summary from which many of the following points were taken: http://www.gotquestions.org/body-of-Christ.html#ixzz3FSmtMxrD

“The phrase “the Body of Christ” is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church (all those who are truly saved). The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “the body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12, and “the body” in Hebrews 13:3. The Church is clearly equated with “the body” of Christ in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24.”

The article goes on to list a number of facts as to why the Church may be called the Body of Christ:

“1) Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15-16).

2) Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22-23).

3) Members of the Body of Christ are the physical representation of Christ in this world. The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world today.

4) Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).

5) Members of the Body of Christ possess a diversity of gifts suited to particular functions (1 Corinthians 12:4-31). “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ” (verse 12).

6) Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry. “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Corinthians 12:25).

7) Members of the Body of Christ are secure in their salvation (John 10:28-30). For a Christian to lose his salvation, God would have to perform an “amputation” on the Body of Christ!

8) Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12).

9) Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17).

10) Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17).”

Taking all the above into consideration and moving forward with the “body” metaphor, a wonderful point is made… for if the body is healthy and functioning optimally, it can accomplish all it was designed and created to do. Indeed, Psalm 139:14 speaks of the human body in the following manner: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” A truly complex and marvellous creation, each component of the body, down to the tiniest microscopic cell, reveals that it is indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.

However, just as our own human body sometimes breaks down and parts fail, resulting in a need for restoration and healing, the same can also be said of the church. Consider for a moment what sorts of things cause dysfunction and disease within the physical body; what happens when the body does not function as it should? Is dysfunction within the physical body similar in some ways to dysfunction within the church (the spiritual body)?

Both the body and the church have the same creator, and both, if and when they function as they ought, reveal the One by whom we have been “fearfully and wonderfully” made. However, we unfortunately also know that sometimes our health fails and our bodies break down resulting in dysfunction and disease. When this happens we not only cannot function optimally and sometimes we don't function at all.

Among some of the more serious considerations for bodily health is communication and what happens in the human body when communication is either interfered with or ceases altogether. With a bit of searching I came across this quote from The University of Utah Health Sciences Center:

“The cells in our bodies are constantly sending out and receiving signals. But what if a cell fails to send out a signal at the proper time? Or what if a signal doesn't reach its target? What if a target cell does not respond to a signal, or a cell responds even though it has not received a signal? These are just a few ways in which cell communication can go wrong, resulting in disease. In fact, most diseases involve at least one breakdown in cell communication.” (emphasis added) http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/badcom/

Fascinating… this article states that a breakdown in cellular communication is a factor behind most diseases. Might the same be said as well about most of the dysfunction within the church, the body of Christ? Might the breakdown in communication be such a huge problem as to contribute to periods of dysfunction, stagnation and even worse, atrophy? I believe these are certainly questions worthy of consideration.

While the church is made up of individuals and groupings of individuals, we have been given everything we need to come together as one body. Consider points number 3 & 6 above: (#3) “The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world today. And (#6) “Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry. “There should be no division in the body, but… its parts should have equal concern for each other.” Unfortunately it can not be said that we have been functioning as one body to manifest the life of Christ to the world; and it is here that we see some of the divisions and dysfunctions begin to emerge.

Today the Christian church is divided with many denominations and sects. Some of the differences and divisions are based on different interpretations and views on points of doctrine. Even within individual denominations there are further differences in beliefs, values or interpretations. How likely is the prospect of unity within such a diverse group, and how can legitimate views that differ (due to interpretation) be dealt with? Perhaps greater effort must be invested in looking at differences with a view to better understand the scriptural basis and historical context. To be completely free of such differences however, we would need to have perfect knowledge and understanding. We would need perfect wisdom to be able to apply that perfect knowledge with grace and discernment. We simply don’t possess that kind of perfection but we do have God’s word and the gift of His Holy Spirit who indwells us and guides us to the truth.

In the early church when thousands came to Christ daily and committed their hearts and lives to Him, I’m going to guess that they were probably not scholars given to heated debate on obscure theological points. The message was simple, accept the Lord Jesus Christ, the risen Saviour and you will be saved. The need for a grasp of sound doctrine was addressed and written about to help guide new believers and young churches. Indeed, Paul’s letters to the early church help pinpoint dangers when things threatened to go off the rails. It seems some early divisions were caused when attempts were made to add conflicting doctrinal views and rules to that simple gospel message. An example of such a divisive issue, in the early Christian church, was circumcision which is addressed in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

I came out of a tradition that believed differences were important… important enough to jeopardize one’s salvation. From talking to friends raised in other traditions, I’ve come to realize that my experience was not unique. Believing we were right and that all other denominations were misguided, our mission seemed to be promoting the “rightness” of our cause and correcting the doctrines and beliefs of other ‘well-meaning but mistaken’ churches. While many of the folks crossing our path each day may have known little to nothing about Jesus, far too much effort got invested in trying to polish the Christianity of others.

Ultimately, rather than contribute to building unity within the “body of Christ,” focusing on differences only served to strengthen the divisions. I wonder if this exercise of “who’s right,” while resisting efforts to come together, fellowship and communicate, isn’t perhaps one of the devils greatest strategies for slowing or even derailing the spreading of the gospel. Just thinking out loud here… but could this not equate in some way to the manner in which disease disrupts communication within the physical body? We do know the devil is a great deceiver and seeks to sow the seeds of discontent and strife wherever he can.

Thinking along this line for a moment… there is a parable found in Matthew 13: 24-30 I would like to look at because I think it applies. “The Message” records it as follows:

“God’s kingdom is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. That night, while his hired men were asleep, his enemy sowed thistles all through the wheat and slipped away before dawn. When the first green shoots appeared and the grain began to form, the thistles showed up, too.

“The farmhands came to the farmer and said, ‘Master, that was clean seed you planted, wasn’t it? Where did these thistles come from?’

“He answered, ‘Some enemy did this.’

“The farmhands asked, ‘Should we weed out the thistles?’

“He said, ‘No, if you weed the thistles, you’ll pull up the wheat, too. Let them grow together until harvest time. Then I’ll instruct the harvesters to pull up the thistles and tie them in bundles for the fire, then gather the wheat and put it in the barn.’”

When I consider the above, I am struck with the idea that the grain was not defined by what field it grew in and different plants can also grow in the same field. The time for separating the crop comes at the end and will be determined by what “fruit” if any, will be produced by the plant. Applying this to my own life, I am a Christian – not because of what church I have chosen to worship and fellowship in – and the final outcome to my life will not be determined by my having chosen the right denomination. The scripture says (in Matthew 7: 20) “So then, you will know them by their fruits.”

Now when I speak of different views, ideas and divisions, I want to be clear that I’m not opposed to healthy discussion and sharing of thoughts and convictions - indeed, I think it is critical for healthy growth and understanding. I also believe there are certain fundamental or core beliefs that make one a Christian i.e. make us each a part of that larger body. I also believe that if we come together to pray, read the Bible and study together, with an open heart and mind, that we will be guided by the Holy Spirit. He will guide each of us to that part of “the Body” where we need to be, doing whatever we need to do.

While I tend to associate more with those with whom I have much in common, I discovered a long time ago that if I waited until I found a group with whom I was in 100% agreement, I’d be an awfully lonely person. I know I’m not alone in this. None of us are perfect and no group, made up of imperfect people, is perfect or has the complete or perfect picture; instead we are instructed to “seek” Him. I wonder if in seeking we might not be something like the Bereans spoken of in Acts 17 who searched the scriptures daily seeking truth. Note: it does not say they had daily, unanimous agreement – just that they came together, searched the scriptures with an open mind and sought truth.

Finally, I believe it important to come together with other Christians regularly and often rather than separating from those with whom I might have a disagreement and essentially worshipping and studying as a church of one. This would be the ultimate division and separation from the body,. We are directed in Hebrews 10:25 “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” May God bless us all as we seek Him.