Christian Media Resources

For immediate release:

THE APOLOGETICS GROUP ANNOUNCES A
Newly Released DVD Presentation:

the-real-jesus-dvd.jpg

The Real Jesus: A Defense of Historicity & Divinity of Christ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who is the real Jesus?

Since the dawn of modern rationalism, skeptics have sought to use textual criticism, archaeology and historical reconstructions to uncover the “historical Jesus”: a wise teacher who said many wonderful things but fulfilled no prophecies, performed no miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead in triumph over sin.

Over the past 100 years, however, startling discoveries in biblical archaeology and scholarship have all but vanquished the faulty assumptions of these doubting modernists. Regrettably, these discoveries have often been ignored by the skeptics as well as the popular media. As a result the liberal view still holds sway in universities and impacts the culture and even much of the Church.

The Real Jesus explodes the myths of these critics and the movies, books and television specials that have popularized their views. Presented in ten parts – perfect for individual, family and classroom study – viewers will introduced to the One who is “able to save to the uttermost” through “the power of an indestructible life.” (Heb. 7:16, 25) He is the real Jesus.

Featured Scholars:
Dr. George Grant (King’s Meadow Study Center)
Dr. Ted Baehr (Christian Film and Television Commission)
Dr. Stephen Mansfield (Bestselling author and historian)
Dr. Raymond C. Ortlund (Author and Old Testament scholar)
Dr. Jay Grimstead (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy)
Dr. Phillip G. Kayser (Biblical Blueprints)
David Lutzweiler (Lamplighter Educational Service)
James P. Holding (Tektonics Ministries)

Product Details
Producers: John Rogers & Eric Holmberg
Written and Directed: John Rogers
Studio: The Apologetics Group
Format: Color, Dolby, Full Screen, NTSC
Language: English
Running Time: 139 minutes
DVD Extras: Red Pill Forum “Who Is Jesus” by Erik Hollander and Eric Holmberg
Region: Region Free

Right now get 20% Off retail price!

To Order or for more information go to The Apologetics Group (TAG)
official website:

The Real Jesus DVD

**********************
**********************

Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism ReMastered

amazing-grace-pic.jpg

 

This is anything but a dry treatise on theology. Clever analogies, thoughtful commentary by some of today’s great reformed theologians and creative production will keep you engaged… and as always, Eric Holmberg’s gentle, sure voice of reason breaks through even the most dense fog of doubt or misunderstanding about the great gospel truths of the doctrines of Grace. Dr. George Grant, the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. Stephen Mansfield, Dr. R.C. Sproul, and others lend their voices to this colloquium…

This is undoubtedly a superb study tool that takes the deep doctrines of the great reformers and breaks them down so well that anyone with even a rudimentary Bible knowledge can understand it. I believe this should become a standard part of any church-goers library, whether you’re a leader or a layman. Another great production from The Apologetics Group – Way to go, Eric!

( Eric Holmberg is the founder and director of The Apologetics Group/ Reel to Real Ministries. He has been in ministry for nearly 30 years and lives with his wife and 5 children in Middle Tennessee.

First released in 2004, the newly Remastered version of Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism can be had at a fantastic discounted price at the Official Apologetics Group website… The Apologetics Group

To see a clip of this video go here: Amazing Grace : Jesus Christ’s Limited Atonement?

Advertisements

Religion Externalized

By Dr. George Grant  (posted on Grantian Floriegium November 20) 

Culture is simply a worldview made evident. It is basic beliefs worked out into habits of life. It is theology translated into sociology. Culture is a very practical expression of the common faith of a community or a people or a nation. Culture is, as Henry Van Til famously quipped, “religion externalized.”

 

What a person thinks, what he believes, what shapes his ultimate concerns, and what he holds to be true in his heart—in short, his faith or lack of it—has a direct effect on his material well-being, behavior, and outlook; on his sense of what is good, true, and beautiful; on his priorities, values, and principles. After all, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

 

What is true for one person is equally true for a whole community of persons. In 1905, Max Weber, the renowned political economist and “founding father” of modern sociology, affirmed this fundamental truth for modern social scientists in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He argued that the remarkable prosperity of the West was directly attributable to the cultural, personal, and ethical prevalence of the Christian tradition. In contrast to so many other cultures around the globe, where freedoms and opportunities were severely limited and where poverty and suffering abounded, Weber found that faith brought men and nations both liberty and prosperity.

 

The Christian faith changes people. Therefore, the Christian faith changes culture. The reasons for this are multitudinous:

 

First, true faith reorients all of us fallen and sinful men to reality. Because of our selfish proclivities we are all too naturally blind, foolish, ignorant, and self-destructive. More often than not, we are ruled by our passions, our lusts, and our delusions. We simply have a hard time facing reality without the perspective of faith. Faith in Almighty God, however, removes the scales from our eyes and the shackles from our lives. In Him we are at last acquainted to what is right, what is real, and what is true.

 

Sociologist James Gleason has said, “Faith serves us all well as a kind of reality-check. It is a transcendent value that enables us to more adequately and objectively evaluate our most bewildering situations and circumstances. In other words, it gives us a perspective beyond our own purblind vantage.”

 

A culture shaped by what is right, what is real, and what is true will manifest significantly art, music, literature, science, and ideas just as surely as a person shaped by them will.

 

Second, the Christian faith counteracts the destructive effects of sinful actions and activities. Sin is not a concept that has much currency with modern social scientists, economists, politicians, community organizers, civil rights activists, and social service providers. It has become rather politically incorrect to even speak of it. Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident. They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality. And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction. On the other hand, faith reforms us with new and constructive values. We are provoked to moral and upright lives of diligence, purity, sober-mindedness, thrift, trustworthiness, and responsibility.

 

According to psychologist Nancy Hellman, “Where poverty, violence, and destruction germinate in the rotting soil of sin, productivity, harmony, and hope flourish in the fertile field of faith. If we were to recover the concept of sin in our society—even from a moderately secularized perspective—we would go a long way toward eradicating the evils of modern life.”

 

In other words, a culture that understands the character and nature of the Fall is going to be tangibly, substantively, and manifestly different than a culture that does not.

 

Third, the Christian faith establishes a future orientation in our hearts and minds. All too often the modern men and women either flounder in a dismal fatalism or we squander our few resources in an irresponsible impulsiveness. Many of us are terribly short-sighted, unmotivated, and naive. And “where there is no vision the people perish.” On the other hand, genuine faith provokes us to live thoughtfully, to plan, to exercise restraint, and to defer gratification in order to achieve higher ends. We are induced to self-control, wisdom, and careful stewardship in order to build for the future.

 

Bartok Havic, the great Czech historian, has said, “History’s record is clear: a people who cannot look past the moment, past the fleeting pleasures of fleshly indulgence, will be a people whose culture vanishes from the face of the earth. Ultimately, only faith gives men a sustaining vision for that which is other than their own selfish desires.”

 

Fourth, the Christian faith provokes us to exercise responsibility. Outside of the bounds of faith in God we are all naturally prone to selfishness, wastefulness, and sloth. Faith on the other hand enables see past ourselves, growing into selfless maturity. We are able to become more responsible to redeem our time. We are able to become more responsible to make the most of every opportunity. We are able to become more responsible to fulfill our calling in life. We are able to become more responsible to use our money wisely, to care for our families, to serve the needs of others, and to be an example of redemptive love before all men everywhere. It is this very kind of diligent responsibility—this very fruit of faith—that we most need if they are ever to fully recover the vision of life and culture that brought the Western world to flower.

 

“It is faith,” says George Gilder, “in all its multifarious forms and luminosities, that can by itself move the mountains of sloth and depression that afflict the world’s stagnant economies; it brought immigrants thousands of miles with pennies in their pockets to launch the American empire of commerce; and it performs miracles daily in our present impasse.”

 

Senator Ted Kennedy once asserted that, “The ballot box is the place where change begins in America.” Although he has been fiercely and vehemently wrong in the past, Kennedy has never been more wrong than this. As George Will has argued, “There is hardly a page of American history that does not refute that insistence, so characteristic of the political class, on the primacy of politics in the making of history.” In fact, he says, “In a good society, politics is peripheral to much of the pulsing life of the society.”

 

This is the great lesson of history: it is ordinary people of authentic Christian faith who are ultimately the ones who best able to shape the outcome of human events–not kings and princes, not masters and tyrants. It is laborers and workmen, cousins and acquaintances that upend the expectations of the brilliant and the glamorous, the expert and the meticulous. It is plain folks, simple people, who literally change the course of history–because they are the stuff of which history is made. They are the ones who make the world go round. For, as G.K. Chesterton said, “The most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.”

 

Ultimately, that is our greatest hope for the future. It is simply that a new grassroots majoritarian emphasis on things that really matter–on the Gospel and its fruits–will emerge as we train up the next generation of culture-shapers. It is that a love for hearth and home, community and culture, accountability and availability, service and substance, morality and magnanimity, responsibility and restoration will capture hearts and minds and lives. It is a hope that may be stymied, obstructed, and hampered–but ultimately it cannot fail.

 

As the famed journalist H.L. Mencken once said, “The man who invents a new imbecility is hailed gladly, and bidden to make himself at home; he is to the great masses of men, the beau ideal of mankind. His madness must necessarily give way to right, sooner or later, though usually later.”

 

Or as the poet F.W. Faber wrote:

 

“For right is right, since God is God,

And right the day must win;

To doubt would be disloyalty,

To falter would be sin.”

 

(Dr. George Grant is the founder and president of King’s Meadow Study Center located in beautiful Franklin, Tennessee. He is also in high demand as a lecturer and is an accomplished author.) 

Atheism’s Aggressive Political Agenda

BY JOEL MCDURMON

The Village Atheist by Joel McDurmon

Note from Reformed Faith Weblog Administrator: I read this post by Joel McDurmon today and felt it extremely important to post this to the blog asap. You’ll see an “editorial plea” about 2 thirds of the way into the article to repost this quote wherever it can be posted… but I will go one better and just post the whole article. I feel if the quote is not posted in context of it’s background, the weight of what the man said will not come down and bring us to a realization of what kind of mindset, and yes, social agenda, Christians are and will be dealing with. So on that note, here is the post in it’s entirety…

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court . . . I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.” — (Atheist, Edward Tabash, on Democratic Candidates)

From my very first encounter with the writings of the modern atheists I have argued that the movement is not philosophically sophisticated, nor intellectually rigorous, and it was never intended to be. Despite their pretense to a monopoly on “reason” and “honesty,” these guys’ motivation has been a political agenda from day one.

Nowhere have I seen this agenda as brazenly presented as in the recent Convention “Crystal Clear Atheism” 2007, organized by the Atheist Alliance International. The Alliance, which claims as its purpose to “help establish and strengthen the religion-free community,” invited all the big names of atheism to address a crowd of — judging by the videos and audience applause — 200 people max. The convention was a mirror image of similar conferences put on by religious groups, with plenary speakers, nightly movies, a “secular parenting” workshop, advice on how to start local atheist cell-groups, and, believe it or not, even an atheist apologetics workshop entitled, “Snappy Answers to Religious Questions: How to Combat Common Questions Posed to Atheists in Formal and Informal Settings.”

Admittedly, I’m guessing about the small number of attendees, but there was no need to guess about the message these speakers where there to promote. Far from merely a rehearsal of their typical jokes and name-calling, the speakers spilled an overt agenda to insulate American public life from any and all religious influence (as if that is what the First Amendment meant), called for a concentrated effort to establish and solidify the U.S. Supreme Court as a secular and anti-religious tyranny, and appealed for a radical leftist vision of America.

Well, OK, you may think that as one who has an interest in painting these atheists as bad guys that I have exaggerated my description of their party. Not in the least. Hearing this has again confirmed my presentation in Return of the Village Atheist that the current popular atheism is a reincarnated Marxism. Let the reader decide.

Atheism, Socialism, Marxism: the Hope of America?

The link between atheism and tyrannical socialism became very obvious when former Hollywood screen writer and author Matthew Chapman made an overt plea for American to be made into an openly atheistic and socialistic country. I say socialist, but the whole talk sounded openly Marxist to me. Chapman argued that religion won’t die away in America because it still provides so many great things for its people: community, support, help for the needy, etc. If the delusion of superstition were to be taken away, and government institutions were to take over the support roles, then the need for religion would die away too. He put it like this,

“The church takes care of people . . . and how does atheism compete with that? I don’t think it can. I don’t believe atheism actually can ever succeed in isolation; only as a result of a much larger political change.
. . . It’s quite clear that the better a country takes care of its citizens, the less religion there is. . . . I don’t think atheism can succeed in a country as primitive as this one [the U.S.] now is; a country where politicians deride their own profession, sneering at the political process as if it was the problem not the solution, who deride the idea that government should help, protect, and raise up its weaker citizens; where the current government has turned over the delivery of basic needs to religion and made them a matter of charity.”

Get that. We need less religion, less charity, and more government care-taking. Indeed, he argued that, “without gigantic social change, the church will have to remain the only place where ordinary people can go to find community, and equality (albeit under the eye of a very stern god) . . .”

Now if this sounds openly Marxist, it is for good reason: it is a direct repetition of one of Marx’s most famous ideas, that religion is the “opium of the people.” Marx wrote, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness.” This is the core of the atheist political agenda: religion is a false hope which must be destroyed in order to society to progress. Religion must go, and all the functions of religion must be replaced by non-religious institutions in order to convince people that religion was wrong to begin with. Thus, Marx assessed, “The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.” (Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Now, it seems to me that this is exactly the type of “social change” that Chapman calls for. Build society upon decidedly atheistic institutions, hijack the role of religion in society, and push religious groups to the fringes, then claim victory for atheism. Equally, with anti-capitalist odor, Chapman followed up, “If atheism, if reason is to flourish, it will only do so when people feel protected by a rational system in which they have involvement, and which is run on principles of compassion, not profit.” It is this profit, he argued — the greed and fear allegedly nurtured by the free market — that enables religious hunger to grow also.

Let me translate: for atheism to flourish in the marketplace, we must destroy the marketplace, and bring its role under the direct supervision of atheists.

All of this leads me to the obvious conclusion: big-government socialism is the opiate of atheism.

Chapman was hardly coy about this idea. He literally cursed the idea that “big-government” should be frowned upon, and retorted, “I am for big-government,” and to even my surprise — and having studied them for a while now, I usually am not surprised by the continued antics of the atheist crowd — the audience heartily applauded.

A View of the Atheistic Agenda

The second overt rally cry was given by crusading anti-religion lawyer Edward Tabash. Tabash caught my attention by name at first because I am familiar with his active role as a debater of the existence of God. I have heard a few of his debates, particularly one many years ago in which he did not fair too well under the acumen of Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Nevertheless, Tabash continues, primarily as chair of the activist legal group “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

At first Tabash merely called for the atheists to have two objectives:

1) “To secure an America in which the separation of church and state is absolute (in the words of John F. Kennedy), and to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently”
2) “To promote the atheistic idea to society at large, and use our powerful scientific and philosophical arguments to explain why the supernatural is non-existent.”

Related to these objectives Tabash foresees two possible futures:

1) One where “secular government” secures that “religion will be left as a matter of private conscience to the individual, and not be legislated by government,” or, conversely,
2) one where “by a shift of only one vote on the United States Supreme Court, we will essentially become a theocracy, in which all branches of government will be freed to favor religion collectively over non-belief.”

Tabash’s inability not to editorialize was already showing through. But his real feelings came out much later. For now, let us rehearse quickly what awful things Tabash fears that imminent “theocracy” threatens to take away. What is Tabash afraid such a “freed” government will cause atheists to lose? He gives a list:

1) “We will lose autonomy in every area of our private lives if the Supreme Court in a new decision nullifies government neutrality in matters of religion. We will not just lose the right of abortion for women, we will lose the right to use birth control even for married women . . . we would lose the morning after pill, … [and] all post-fertilization forms of birth control.”

2) America will be plunged into scientific ignorance: citing a “shocking example of the attack on evolution,” Tabash added, “Not only would they bring about oppression here at home in America, the Religious Right is in danger of being able to actually cripple our competitiveness worldwide by destroying rational modern scientific education here at home.”

3) This includes stem-cell research: “we are going to forfeit our leading role in science to those nations who do not have a religious right that hampers the development of this most important aspect of modern biotechnology.”

4) Worst of all is the “overt effort to oppress gays and lesbians.” Referring to a 6-3 Supreme Court decision that decriminalized homosexual behavior to the extent that “no state can punish what two adults do with each other in private,” and lamenting that a more recent ruling reduced that decision to 5-4, Tabash gave the awful news : “Justice Scalia very chillingly said that the people of a state should be able to use their sense of tradition to criminalize all sexual behavior they regard as deviant.” (Imagine that. States actually determining their own laws without the Supreme Court forcing them! Why, it sounds almost like the Tenth Amendment.) Tabash will have none of that: “We don’t want this man to have a majority on the United States Supreme Court.”

5) Further, “We will lose modern sex education.”

6) “End of life issues” (read: euthanasia)

7) Further, tax money to “faith-based initiatives.” Eddie expounds on this one: “It is not the business of the President of the United States to appropriate billions of dollars of tax money to fund charitable programs through religious institutions, when it should be secular government that provides social welfare services to the people.”

So, in short, this is what Tabash fears his atheistic community will lose: abortion, post-fertilization contraceptives, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality, sex education, euthanasia, government socialism, and tax money. Condensing these into their fundamental concerns, Tabash fears the loss of atheistic powers to define and arbitrate life, family, and wealth.

In the face of imminent danger, how can atheists preserve these great delights of free society? Tabash advises: “This is what we must do. We must make sure that the next president of the United States supports church-state separation.” Further,

“Every single time there is a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, we must deluge our Unites States senators with as many letters as we possibly can, and phone calls, to make sure that they do not pass through a religious right-winger,” and, “we must vigorously oppose all United States Senate nominees who indicate a willingness to support the confirmation of religious right-wing judges.”

The agenda was becoming more clear. Rather than peaceful, freedom-loving people who simply have a “lack of belief in God,” the atheist conference courted and promoted a radical political agenda: to gain control of political power in strategic places.

Lying to Win

Then Tabash got really scary. It was not until the question and answer session when he revealed his most ominous side; perhaps due to the more informal nature of the format, he spoke as unguardedly as any liberal I’ve heard. One questioner asked that due to the abundance of religious talk coming from not just Republican (which is to be expected) but Democratic candidates as well, whether atheists should be concerned. Tabash responded with this gem:

“We don’t care what they say in order to get elected in this religious country. We care about what kind of judges they give us on the Supreme Court, because only the Supreme Court determines if we’ll have secular government.” So, he expanded, “Don’t look to the rhetoric they need to pander to, remember what country they’re running in. I don’t care what kind of verbal obeisance they pay to religion if that’s what it takes to get a person in the White House who will give us church-state separationists on the Supreme Court.”

[Editorial plea: Please mark the preceding quote down, copy it to every website you can imagine, email it to everyone you know, mail it to those who have no email. Distribute!]

Tabash’s endorsement of blatant dishonesty was unsettling even for an atheist audience. One questioner pushed the issue, arguing that we should hold the candidates’ “feet to the fire” for what they say as well as do. Tabash would not budge: “When it comes to Democratic presidential candidates, they all will give us the right judges on the Court, courts [emphasizing the plural, and thus the entire federal court system] . . . so let’s not make the fire too hot.”

Tabash could not get off the issue. When another questioner asked for his comments on how to stop the “the proliferation of church-based law schools,” like Regent and Liberty, and their “influx into government legal roles,” Tabash continued his campaign: “The only way to do that is to have a president who disfavors the Religious Right and will not be accepting those people into White House positions.”

Here is a good point to note the hypocrisy in our crusader’s agenda. Aside from his open endorsement of lying when pragmatic for his cause, in his opening “objective,” he claimed to fight “to make sure that no branch of government is able to treat the believer and non-believer differently.” By the end of his talk, however, his agenda was noticeably opposite. Apparently, for him, it’s OK to reverse the prejudice and disfavor the Religious Right and bar them from White House positions.

When it seemed as if his rhetoric could sink no lower, Tabash closed his atheistic spin with this completely debasing comment: “We [atheists], the true First-Amendment patriots, cannot allow these vicious fanatics to take over our country.” He made no attempt to hide the atheistic political agenda, “Let us make saving the United States of America from the Religious Right our absolute number one priority.”

Conclusion

What have our atheists told us in just this one brief conference? Far from docile citizens hoping to live their lives quietly in private peace, these atheistic leaders have your government, your children, and your money in their sights, and they are serious about things. Society can only progress when religion is eradicated from society (Chapman) or at least driven to the dark corners of something called “private conscience” (Tabash). In addition, they say, we must fight for atheistic control over the definitions of life, death, family, sex, and taxes.

Worst of all, we have learned that these atheists believe it is acceptable for a presidential candidate to consciously deceive religious people in order to gain votes, and then work to promote a secular atheistic society in opposition to those who voted them in. As we have know all along, and now have Tabash’s own words, an atheistic society must be built on the foundations of deception and political strong-arming. Apparently, the only thing stronger than a Christian faith is the atheist’s faith in the dishonesty of Democratic candidates. Blessed be the lie than binds!

And we, Christians, we are the ones they call vicious fanatics.

Joel McDurmon is the author of Return of the Village Atheist
He is a graduate of Reformed Episcopal Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and an adjunct speaker, writer, and researcher for American Vision.


Response to Sam Harris – An Article From The Most Dangerous Man in the World.

By Jay Mathews, Nashville, TN

“How do we respond to the attacks of the ‘new atheists’ like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?”

Here is a response to Sam Harris’ article in last year’s Newsweek:

I Am the Most Dangerous Man in the World?

In the Nov 13, 2006 edition of Newsweek Magazine, renowned atheist, Sam Harris unleashed his heartfelt beliefs about people of faith…. we pose a “tremendous danger.”

The basic points of Harris’ arguments include (1) science has forever debunked faith, (2) Christians’ belief in the end of the world give them “no incentive to build a sustainable civilization,” (3) religion elevates morality over human and animal suffering, and (5) because of fanatical belief, religion is the most dangerous institution in the world. While I may be wasting time and ink writing a rebuttal to Mr. Harris, I can’t resist using my newly declared notorious state to ease the fear of all the atheists and agnostics within my reach.

I do want to make it clear that to treat all faiths as equal is the most improper presupposition of our post-modern carnage. All religions are not the same. They have different systems and practices. I do believe that jihadist Islam poses a violent danger to our world today. All religions have the possibility of perpetrating great oppression and harm. One has to look no farther than the Crusades to see the destruction that misguided human beings can cause in the name of religious belief.

But even in the case of the Crusades, there are fundamental differences in belief. The Crusades demonstrate followers of Islam doing what their faith requires them to do and followers of Christ ignoring what their Savior requires them to do. The Crusades represent Islam at its best and Christianity at its worst.

To lump all religions together for the purpose of generalizing criticism of faith makes as much sense as criticizing all people of non-faith by looking at the actions of Joseph Stalin.

I am a teacher and coach at a Christian School in the United States of America. I love my wife and three children. We read the Bible, pray, worship in a local congregation. We live about as simple a life as one can live in the 21st century. We give to missions and desire to tell others what the Lord has done for us. May I use this simple and dangerous position to counter a few of Mr. Harris’ assertions?

One, science has not eliminated Christian belief or doctrine. It is proper to say that the relationship between Christianity and Science is not without controversy. There has often been strenuous debate between the Church and scientists, who often held the same beliefs. As a believer in Christ and the Bible in 2007, I can say that we live in advantageous times because of the light of science and the truth of Scripture. Both are helpful when they are properly placed according to their use. Science is limited concerning many matters of life and faith.

Today, there is a scientific jihad as non-faith scientists try to use reason to trump faith. They use superiority of educational pedigree to intimidate the public. The average person today does not understand, for example, that traditional Darwinian evolution is no longer acceptable as an explanation for the origin of life as we know it. When scientists say, ‘Evolution is a fact” they are not honestly representing the actual assertion of that quote.

There is ample scientific data that supports ‘microevolution’ and many natural history museums have altars to that truth. Microevolution is the accepted and provable truth that certain species have changed through slight, successive adaptations based on the ability to survive the environmental challenges to their survival.

The problem with this scientific mantra is that it is the end of the statement of fact and the beginning of the propagation of the myth. In the study of evolution, there is no observable data to support ‘macroevolution” or the ability for these adaptations to change into new species. M.I.T. physicist Geoffrey Schroeder correctly points out his analysis of the impressive display and tribute to evolution that is found in the Natural History Museum in London. “It is all impressive. Impressive, until you are able to walk out and reflect upon that which they are able to document. Daisies remained daisies, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish. (The Science of God pg. 31).

When non-faith adherents attack intelligent design and other theories about the origin of the species as “faith” and their acceptance of evolution as “science” they are pulling a slight of hand. All debates about the origin of life are debates of faith and not observable by true science.

As a Christian, I see little controversy about what science has discovered and what the Bible teaches. I believe in the existence of God and the creation of life. I believe God has given science as a wonderful gift to uncover His grand design. Science does not discredit the Bible at all. If anything, it helps the Bible make more sense. My better understanding of the natural does not negate my belief in the supernatural. When science stays within its proper boundaries, it strengthens our wonder about the majesty of the Designer!

The second incorrect assumption asserted by Harris is that Christians have no vested interest in preserving civilization. I will admit that we often stumble in our mandates from the Creator, but Mr. Harris does not understand Biblical teaching on our responsibilities to our bodies, our nations, and our planet. God has instructed His followers to be good stewards of all with which they have been entrusted. C.S. Lewis correctly pointed out “If you read history you will find that Christians who did most for this present world were those who thought most of the next.” (Mere Christianity 134) A recent book suggests that current data demonstrates that Christians give more and do more than their non-faith counter parts. How many “Atheist Homes for the Poor or Orphans” exist in the world today? To assert that Christians have no vested interest in this present age because of the hope of Jesus’ return makes as much sense as a student wanting to destroy his undergraduate resume because of an eagerness to succeed in graduate school.

Christians are re-discovering our need to serve the poor and help the weak. History shows the church to often be slow in addressing human misery, but Christians are found in every hard circumstance loving. serving, and persevering. People of non-faith, if true to their world-view, should turn to destroy the weak as an act of nature’s law of survival of the fittest.

Harris’ weakest argument is his assertion that Christian’s obsession with right or wrong leads to unnecessary human or animal suffering. It is also the atheist’s weakest position. If there is no God, what is justice? What is love? Why is goodness even a pursuit? Why be unselfish? Why have any values at all?

The belief in right and wrong is what holds the world together. Even though we debate what is right and wrong, our belief in right and wrong is universal and necessary. The fact that values sometimes rule over human comfort is actually a comfort in and of itself. Values restrain our harmful human impulses. Restraint produces order.

As a Christian, I do value “life” as a gift from God and this belief requires me to hold life as sacred. I do believe God has clearly communicated his desires for love, service, truth telling, and unselfishness. The more we hold to these values, the better life is. Test tube ethics will always default to heartless pragmatism. In a world without values, the atheist’s utopia would be the horrible display of death and oppression that would make Joseph Stalin look like a saint.

Is the Christian Church “dangerous?” Christianity has done more to promote love and humility than any other movement in history. If you remove Christian work and influence, how many hospitals, homeless shelters, orphanages, educational institutions, good laws, powerful leaders, and beautiful artists would never have had the positive influence and redemptive power that the world has enjoyed?

The bottom line is that our greatest danger is that we ever lose the life and faith of Jesus in our society. The cultural landscape grows darker and colder as we stab at the Creator and deny His right for our adoration. The time for repentance is now.

Victory At University of Delaware – University President Ends Mandatory Ideological Reeducation Program

November 2, 2007

    FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., November 2, 2007—After an intense campaign led by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Delaware has dropped an ideological reeducation program that was referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The program’s stated goal was for the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on politics, race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Following FIRE’s campaign, which called the attention of the national media and the blogosphere to the Orwellian program, university President Patrick Harker terminated the program, effective immediately.

“FIRE applauds President Harker for recognizing the chilling nature of this program and ending it,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Under the First Amendment, state institutions have no right to impose mandatory ideological training on their students. We are thrilled that this unconscionable and invasive program is gone, but we will be keeping an eye on the University of Delaware to make sure future programs respect the individual right of conscience of its students.”

Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and “one-on-one” meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including “When did you discover your sexual identity?” A student who responded, “That is none of your damn business,” was, according to the university’s own materials, written up—along with the student’s name and room number—as having one of the “wors[t] one-on-one” sessions.

The program’s materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These “competencies” included: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” And in the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as “treatment” and defining “learning” as “specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.”

Following FIRE’s initial press release, the university’s administration first chose to defend its invasive and unconstitutional residence life education program. However, in a statement released late yesterday, President Harker stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes.

While FIRE commends Harker’s decision, concerns remain about some aspects of life in the residence halls. For example, FIRE would like to know if RAs are still required to immediately report “[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive.”

The assistance of the Delaware Association of Scholars was critical in the effort to eliminate the program, as was the willingness of Delaware students and RAs to attest to their experiences under this “treatment” program. The case also drew vast attention from the blogosphere, dramatically increasing the pressure on the university to either justify or abandon its thought reform program.

“Universities often cannot defend in public what they try to do in private, and the situation at Delaware was no exception,” Lukianoff said. “While we are pleased that this program is over, it is stunning that it ever existed at a public university in the United States. FIRE will continue to monitor the situation at Delaware and to fight against other ideological reeducation programs at schools across the nation.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting http://www.thefire.org.

CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org
Samantha Harris, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; samantha@thefire.org

San Francisco Paper Lambastes Christians as “Easily Terrified, Mindless Lemmings

(This Article Is Reprinted from a Recent Press Release.)

“If you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the sould of this country, just wait.” San Fransisco Chronicle, 10/24/07

ALEXANDRIA,VA.

On Wednesday, October 24, the San Francisco Chronicle considered it thought provoking to run a rant by one of it’s liberal columnists about the state of todays teenagers. Columnist Mark Morford criticizes the government for churning out students with a “decline in overall acumen.” But he also takes a shot at Christians as “bad for the soul of this country.”

The MRC’s Culture and Media Institute Director Robert Knight is appalled by Morford’s assumption that Christianity is killing America.

“Mr.Morford rails against miseducation in the public schools, but then inexplicably and gratuitously takes a vicious jab at Christians, calling them ‘lemmings.’ His remark is right down there with the notorious statement by the Washington Post’s Michael Weiskopf that Christians are ‘poor, uneducated and easy to command.’ Why has the Chronicle given a platform to someone who exhibits the same contempt and bigotry toward Christians?

“Morford also seems confused. He laments the loss of personal responsibility, and then attacks the group that is trying to live up to that all-American virtue. It’s not the Christians who have been turning public schools away from academics and toward ‘feel-good’ self-esteem centers; it’s the National Education Association and associated left wing groups who do not speak for all teachers but act as if they do,” Knight said.

CMI’s Senior Writer, Kristen Fyfe, is equally perturbed by Morford’s tirade:

“Perhaps if Morford traveled outside the liberal enclave of San Francisco, where the city grants permits for fairs celebrating sadistic sex on public streets but denies the Marines permission to film a commercial on those same city streets, and kicks the Boy Scouts out of the schools, they’d see a different American teen, ” stated Kristen Fyfe.

“Maybe if teachers and parents held kids accountable for making the most of their education, instead of blaming the government and the ‘power elite,’ the kids would be a little less despondent.”

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/