Christian Fiction Book Reviews is running a sweepstakes which could win you a $300 Amazon Gift Card.

What more needs to be said?

So-Called

So-Called

 

    No one not reading this while sipping fresh-squeezed orange juice from their own tree will be unaware that the doctrine of manmade global warming has suffered a terrific setback.  Beginning with the "Climategate" incident of late last year and continuing with both record cold weather and almost daily revelations since, the breadth and depth of the web of falsehoods which underpinned this cruel hoax take one's breath away.  The worldwide impact of this very real conspiracy of lies on jobs, health and daily life approaches and may well exceed the impact we might have felt had it actually been true.  Yet the exposure of the deceit has not removed its teeth, for as "science falsely so-called" [1 Tim 6:20] is not based on facts, neither will opposing facts remove its danger.  This is well illustrated by the almost incredible parallels of general evolutionism, the former contender for the title some have already conferred on Climategate, that of "greatest scientific fraud of all time."



    Perhaps the most familiar banner waved by those who preached manmade global warming was the famous "hockey stick" graph which purported to show a precipitous rise in average temperatures coincidental to the industrial age.  Dismissed by serious climate scientists almost as soon as it first appeared, the "hockey stick" nonetheless formed the centerpiece of one politician's famous "documentary" on the subject, and has become part of many textbooks and other curricular materials.  One of the first of the Climategate revelations was the fact that data was purposely misrepresented to form the "hockey stick" graph, which would seem now to be widely and permanently disgraced.  History shows otherwise.  In 1866, desperate to lend credence to Darwin's theory, Ernst Haeckel created a set of drawings which seemed to support what was called "the law of recapitulation."  Within a very short time, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fraudulent, and he was tried, found guilty, and soundly rebuked by the scientific community.  Nevertheless, Haeckel's drawings became a staple of biology textbooks, not as a warning but exactly as he had intended, to "prove" his clearly disproven "law."  These drawings and Haeckel's "law" remain in textbooks throughout the world today, including those used in public schools across the U.S. and Canada.  When I studied biology in college -- which I assure you, dear reader, was long after Haeckel's demise -- these drawings and the "Law of Recapitulation" were still part of the college curriculum.  How many generations of our children and grandchildren will be taught to believe the global-warming "hockey stick" if we do not demand it, and any movies or other materials presenting it, be removed permanently from our schools?



    The parallels continue.  Most readers will recall how news organizations, laboratories, publications, schools and others were sternly warned over the past few years not only to avoid hiring, but in fact to fire, anyone who expressed the slightest doubts about the doctrine of manmade global warming.  At least one highly respected climatologist, a true pioneer in the science of meteorology, was famously fired a few years ago for exposing fraudulent "global warming" claims.  Anyone who has seen author and actor Ben Stein's sobering film entitled "Expelled" is aware of the extensive use of the same tactic by proponents of general evolutionism; many highly competent scientists and teachers have had their careers maliciously ruined for nothing more than a questioning (properly scientific!) attitude toward evolutionary doctrine.  Another startling parallel -- popular culture has taken not only a supporting but in fact a leading role both in global warmism and evolutionism.  How often have we seen musicians, actors or artists expend so much effort toward supporting, let us say, 11-Dimensional M-Theory or Tensor Geometry as we see committed to promoting the two hoaxes which are the subjects of this column?  But the most offensive parallel is this: to the same degree that evolutionism brazenly denies the power of God, global warmism arrogantly exaggerates the power of man.



    Darwinian evolutionism is the doctrine -- I call it doctrine because it, like manmade global warming, is based primarily on misplaced faith -- to which most of the worst abuses of humanity in the past century and a half can be traced.  As the justification for Marxism, abortion, euthanasia, and genocide all over the world, evolutionism has led to the brutal murder of countless millions.  Global warmism has already come very close to negating the God-given rights of virtually every human being now alive, and of our descendants; for the moment it seems to have been turned aside, but as we have seen the threat remains and could now be empowered with the wrath of the cornered beast.



    Ultimately, we know, God is in control; his Word accomplishes His purpose and will not be thwarted by fraudulent "science" nor by any other effort of the father of lies.  Yet as we commit this hoax to God's hands, let us not forget that God uses means; as living sacrifices, when we do His will, our hands are God's.  We cannot stand idly by hoping that others will write the letters, attend the school board meetings and contact the politicians through which such "science falsely so-called" may be exposed and combated.



"Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. [2 Timothy 3:8,9]



=======
Gary Fisher

So-Called

So-Called

 

    No one not reading this while sipping fresh-squeezed orange juice from their own tree will be unaware that the doctrine of manmade global warming has suffered a terrific setback.  Beginning with the "Climategate" incident of late last year and continuing with both record cold weather and almost daily revelations since, the breadth and depth of the web of falsehoods which underpinned this cruel hoax take one's breath away.  The worldwide impact of this very real conspiracy of lies on jobs, health and daily life approaches and may well exceed the impact we might have felt had it actually been true.  Yet the exposure of the deceit has not removed its teeth, for as "science falsely so-called" [1 Tim 6:20] is not based on facts, neither will opposing facts remove its danger.  This is well illustrated by the almost incredible parallels of general evolutionism, the former contender for the title some have already conferred on Climategate, that of "greatest scientific fraud of all time."



    Perhaps the most familiar banner waved by those who preached manmade global warming was the famous "hockey stick" graph which purported to show a precipitous rise in average temperatures coincidental to the industrial age.  Dismissed by serious climate scientists almost as soon as it first appeared, the "hockey stick" nonetheless formed the centerpiece of one politician's famous "documentary" on the subject, and has become part of many textbooks and other curricular materials.  One of the first of the Climategate revelations was the fact that data was purposely misrepresented to form the "hockey stick" graph, which would seem now to be widely and permanently disgraced.  History shows otherwise.  In 1866, desperate to lend credence to Darwin's theory, Ernst Haeckel created a set of drawings which seemed to support what was called "the law of recapitulation."  Within a very short time, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as fraudulent, and he was tried, found guilty, and soundly rebuked by the scientific community.  Nevertheless, Haeckel's drawings became a staple of biology textbooks, not as a warning but exactly as he had intended, to "prove" his clearly disproven "law."  These drawings and Haeckel's "law" remain in textbooks throughout the world today, including those used in public schools across the U.S. and Canada.  When I studied biology in college -- which I assure you, dear reader, was long after Haeckel's demise -- these drawings and the "Law of Recapitulation" were still part of the college curriculum.  How many generations of our children and grandchildren will be taught to believe the global-warming "hockey stick" if we do not demand it, and any movies or other materials presenting it, be removed permanently from our schools?



    The parallels continue.  Most readers will recall how news organizations, laboratories, publications, schools and others were sternly warned over the past few years not only to avoid hiring, but in fact to fire, anyone who expressed the slightest doubts about the doctrine of manmade global warming.  At least one highly respected climatologist, a true pioneer in the science of meteorology, was famously fired a few years ago for exposing fraudulent "global warming" claims.  Anyone who has seen author and actor Ben Stein's sobering film entitled "Expelled" is aware of the extensive use of the same tactic by proponents of general evolutionism; many highly competent scientists and teachers have had their careers maliciously ruined for nothing more than a questioning (properly scientific!) attitude toward evolutionary doctrine.  Another startling parallel -- popular culture has taken not only a supporting but in fact a leading role both in global warmism and evolutionism.  How often have we seen musicians, actors or artists expend so much effort toward supporting, let us say, 11-Dimensional M-Theory or Tensor Geometry as we see committed to promoting the two hoaxes which are the subjects of this column?  But the most offensive parallel is this: to the same degree that evolutionism brazenly denies the power of God, global warmism arrogantly exaggerates the power of man.



    Darwinian evolutionism is the doctrine -- I call it doctrine because it, like manmade global warming, is based primarily on misplaced faith -- to which most of the worst abuses of humanity in the past century and a half can be traced.  As the justification for Marxism, abortion, euthanasia, and genocide all over the world, evolutionism has led to the brutal murder of countless millions.  Global warmism has already come very close to negating the God-given rights of virtually every human being now alive, and of our descendants; for the moment it seems to have been turned aside, but as we have seen the threat remains and could now be empowered with the wrath of the cornered beast.



    Ultimately, we know, God is in control; his Word accomplishes His purpose and will not be thwarted by fraudulent "science" nor by any other effort of the father of lies.  Yet as we commit this hoax to God's hands, let us not forget that God uses means; as living sacrifices, when we do His will, our hands are God's.  We cannot stand idly by hoping that others will write the letters, attend the school board meetings and contact the politicians through which such "science falsely so-called" may be exposed and combated.



"Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. [2 Timothy 3:8,9]



=======
Gary Fisher

The Offense

The Offense

    We've probably all been offended at one time or another, perhaps by a poorly chosen word or a perceived slight, a lapse of manners or lack of courtesy by others.  Often these are accidental, though sometimes we find them difficult to excuse.  Other offenses, such as that which we should feel (and respond to) when the Lord's Name is misused [Q&A 99] are far more serious, but most, if we look closely, are not so much active offenses against us as overactive defenses of our own pride.  An offense is best defined as an active effort -- where no offense is meant, none should be taken, and scripture warns us generally to avoid causing offense.  But there is an exception, an offense which is required of us, which is in fact at the heart of what defines Christianity itself.  In 1st Corinthians 1:23 the Greek word used is skandalon, "scandal."  Galatians 5:11 states it clearly: the Gospel itself depends on an offense, "the offense of the cross."

    In this season it is common to hear much about one offensive aspect of the cross, as various writers and speakers inform us of the horrific torture and death which surrounded the barbaric practice of crucifixion.  The medical and psychological effects were terribly offensive, to be sure, and purposely so.  But this aspect of Calvary is not the Gospel; those who shake their listeners' emotions to wrest from them a sobbing profession of pity have failed to fully grasp, and in many instances completely missed, the purpose of preaching.  "Passion Plays," and even a major motion picture of a few years ago, make this mistake, promoting an attitude which falls barely short of asking us to save Christ rather than the opposite.  This is not the offense of which, through Paul, the Holy Spirit speaks.

    Another view of "the offense of the cross" is found in images of that instrument of death.  The early New Testament Church, most of us have been taught, used the symbol of the fish, Ichthus, to represent Christianity.  A few centuries later the lamb came into fairly common use as a symbol of Christ.  Sometime around the sixth century, the image of the cross began to be adopted within the Church.  Over time, as Rome exerted more power over the Church, this symbol became more elaborate and eventually developed into the crucifix.  Though defended by Rome as a means of teaching, the use of the crucifix was (and remains) idolatry.  Superstition elevated this image to the level of magic, believing "the offense of the cross" to be some mystical power the image held over evil.  It was this belief which appears to underlie the original use of the cross as a grave marker, a supposed means to ward off evil spirits.  Today the cross is frequently seen worn as jewelry by many who are far from the Christian faith; clearly the image of the cross does not instruct, nor is that image truly an offense to those outside Christianity.  As an idol, however, the image is an offense to God, certainly not the offense meant in Galatians 5.

    John Calvin deals decisively with the entire question of the physical image of the cross.  In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 11, he argues as follows: "Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3:1.) Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone."

    First Corinthians shows us the true meaning of "the offense of the cross."  It is not the mere physically offensive description of the crucifixion, and it is most certainly not the offense of idolatry.  Rather, the cross of Christ is an offense to works righteousness, for we cannot save ourselves.  It is an offense to reason, for it depends entirely on faith.  The cross is an offense to the social structure, for the truth of it is revealed to babes and children and makes wise the simple; it offends the powerful for it displays, demands and is revealed to humility.  And most offensive of all, it offends human pride, for it requires surrender.  The offense of the cross, the foolishness of preaching, is the one thing which can make us wise unto salvation and remove our own offenses.

    "I live and will declare Thy fame
    Where brethren gather in Thy Name;
    Where all Thy faithful people meet,
    I will Thy worthy praise repeat."
                        [Psalter Hymnal #34]

===========
Gary Fisher

Embellishment

Embellishment
 
    In his 1931 Presidential Address to the American Historical Association, historian Carl Becker suggested a definition of history as "a foreshortened and incomplete representation of the reality that once was."  To an extent his point was that no historical record is likely to include every detail, nor would such a record be necessarily useful -- we need not have the name of Churchill's tobacconist to know he smoked cigars.  However, Professor Becker went beyond this, adding in the same sentence that history may legitimately include "an unstable pattern of remembered things redesigned and newly colored to suit the convenience of those who make use of it."
 
    Recently my wife and I enjoyed a pleasant evening with friends screening a film which purported to recount the history of an English political leader who was compelled by his Christian convictions to campaign against a monstrous injustice.  Because of its Christian theme, the film had achieved significant success not only in its theatrical release but among the Christian community as well, and has in fact been shown in over 5,000 churches.  Beautifully photographed, well casted, the film might have been very satisfying had it been presented as fiction; unfortunately, though offered as history, the story had, to use Becker's words, been "redesigned and newly colored to suit the convenience of" the producers.  Numerous details, some small, some of great significance, had been altered, added or removed, presumably to enhance the dramatic appeal of the story; in the process, history and fiction became so mingled as to become indistinguishable.
 
    Embellishment is "To make more beautiful and attractive; to decorate; To make something sound or look better or more acceptable than it is in reality, to distort," according to one dictionary, and it is that last phrase, "to distort," which reveals the true nature of the practice.  Embellishment is nothing new; even before partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve embellished God's command [Genesis 3:3], adding to it in a way which might have seemed quite innocent but which in fact opened the door to further distortions.  In the case of the film we watched, as in every "docudrama," the introduction of seemingly innocent falsehoods, embellishments, may have made the story more interesting but diluted and thus tarnished the truth.  The danger, of course, is that just as pure water mixed with mud is no longer pure, truth mixed with falsehood is no longer true.
 
    The Church has long struggled with our human tendency toward embellishment.  Virtually every heresy has arisen from "additions" to the truth of God's Word.  Roman Catholocism is deeply mired in "traditions" which may once have been such embellishments but have grown in many aspects to supersede the Holy Scriptures.  But the Reformed community is not immune to the temptations which have ensnared the Church in the past.  Many of these come before us as "improvements" to worship, careless and perhaps even well-meant disobedience of the Second Commandment's prohibition against worshipping God "in any other manner than He has commanded in His Word." [Catechism Answer 96]  These  temptations often arise in our music, where, amidst what may well be good theology, an extrabiblical or even decidedly unbiblical phrase is woven into a popular hymn.  Perhaps the most insidious and dangerous of these embellishments, however, are those which appear in materials used to teach our children.  Pastors and Elders spend countless hours evaluating Catechism and, in some churches, Sunday School curricula, much of which is tainted by error, the Gospel "redesigned and newly colored to suit the convenience of those who make use of it."  I well recall a conversation some years ago with a widow in her seventies whose faith was shaken by an error she had believed since childhood, learned at the knee of a well-meaning but misinformed Sunday School teacher.
 
    In many churches, committees are now preparing for summer missions activities, often including Vacation Bible School programs.  Sadly, most of the published VBS materials available today, including some promoted by publishers associated with the Reformed churches, are filled with such embellishments.  The intention, as in the film we saw, is presumably to make the story more engaging and appealing, but adding to the truth actually detracts from it.  We must be diligent, in our own reading and entertainment but especially in that of our children, to reject and flee from that which conflicts with God's Word.
 
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book." [Revelation 22:18]
 
=========
Gary Fisher

Our Task

Our Task

    A constant refrain which has played in the background throughout much of our generation is the now-familiar chorus "You can't legislate morality."  Like a pervasive advertising jingle, this statement, in one form or another, has bounced through our minds so often that we are unlikely even to question it, yet like Goebbels' "big lie" it is accepted only because it has been so often, and so loudly, repeated.  It is impossible to legislate the will, of course -- neither court, nor congress, nor constitution can alter the convictions, right or wrong, of the individual citizen -- but in fact, a standard of morality is precisely and only what IS legislated.

    "Morality" is defined as "(1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; (2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality; (3) Virtuous conduct."  Each of these refers to or implies a model or standard of behavior which is accepted as universally true, whether that behavior is the speed at which one drives through a residential neighborhood or the way in which two people may settle property issues.  We consider these standards "universal" at least in the sense that, for example, the speed limit does not vary to accommodate those from other areas where speed limits might be different.  Nor do we -- or at least did we -- adopt these models of behavior arbitrarily; rather, it has been our practice, especially in democracies, to choose and define our standards very carefully, very seriously -- to debate, then legislate.  The result is laws which impose such standards of behavior only on those who are not already predisposed to behave in the manner those laws define.  The person who recognizes as a matter of common sense that driving fast on a shadowed residential street is irresponsible does not need a posted speed limit to restrain him; the law exists as a model, a standard, for those who might, if left to themselves, act otherwise.

    It is the source of those standards which must especially concern us as Christians in the world, but we must likewise train ourselves and our children how to deal with the standards of behavior the world would impose upon us, for they could very well, as in the past they often did, force us to wrestle with the decision faced by the apostles in Acts 5:29 -- "But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men.""  All of the apostles were persecuted and imprisoned for living according to that decision, that standard of behavior -- and almost all were killed for doing so.  This has been the pattern for believers since before the time of Enoch, who "... prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."" [Jude 14b, 15]

    This is the purpose of the efforts we must make toward renewal as Christians -- not ultimately to change the way we behave in church, but how we behave AS Church, as members of Christ's Body.  As Christians it is not our duty merely to sit on the sidelines and comment among ourselves about society -- as we have too often done in the past -- but first of all to act and live according to God's model of behavior regardless of the whims of secular society; and second to do all we are able, as individual citizens, to influence that society according to God's perfect model, His law.  Where Christians in Europe and North America have neglected this duty, having failed to hold back the wind, it is now more vital than ever to equip the next generation to face the whirlwind.  And yet we have this comfort -- "that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, [God] also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him." [Catechism Ans. 1]

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." [Romans 12:2]

===========
Gary Fisher

The Conversation

The Conversation
 
    Some of the most memorable passages from literature are the soliloquies, those speeches in which a character reveals his or her inmost thoughts, as though the reader or audience could listen to the mind of the character.  There are few, for example, who would not recognize the soliloquy which begins "To be, or not to be: that is the question ..." from Shakespeare's "Hamlet"  That such lines stand so clearly in our memories is not surprising; this dramatic form is intended specifically to draw a mental picture of the character who utters it.  The soliloquy has no purpose but to create an impression in the minds of those who, quite intentionally, "overhear" it, and thus is crafted specifically for that audience.
 
    Christian prayer can never be a soliloquy; in fact, when He taught us to pray, our Lord identified the soliloquy as the very opposite of proper prayer.  In Matthew 6:5, we can almost picture the hypocrites -- the Greek word is one which means "actors" -- posing before a crowd, "For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men."  No matter how beautifully composed, no matter how spiritual they may sound, such prayers are directed not to God but to a human audience, and from Jesus' dismissal -- "they have their reward" -- it appears they go no farther.
 
    The word "monologue" is often used as a synonym for "soliloquy," but in fact has an entirely different meaning.  While the dramatic soliloquy is openly directed to the audience, the monologue is ostensibly directed to another character or characters.  Returning to Shakespeare, one well known monologue begins "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears."  With this opening, the character of Antony defines his audience; what follow are his petitions to those "friends, Romans and countrymen."  The Christian's prayer is sometimes offered as though it were a monologue.  Beginning with an address (in a manner sometimes reminiscent of a written letter) the prayer continues with a list of items falling into various categories -- petition, praise, intercession and so on -- proceeding finally to a closing statement and an "Amen."  Such a prayer may be perfect in style, but oh! -- what treasures are missed when prayer becomes such a one-way exchange!
 
    That the Christian's prayer is heard we can have no doubt.  Our Catechism reminds us that we are to "be fully persuaded that He, notwithstanding that we are unworthy of it, will, for the sake of Christ our Lord, certainly hear our prayer, as He has promised us in His Word." [Q&A 117]  That the Christian's prayer is necessary is equally sure; it is, after all, "the chief part of the thankfulness which God requires of us." [Q&A 116a]  But the second part of Answer 116 shows us a glimpse of the richness of true prayer.  The Catechism, pointing us as always to Holy Scripture, shows that "God gives His grace and Holy Spirit only to those who pray continually and groan inwardly, asking God for these gifts and thanking Him for them."
 
    This is the "secret" of a blessed prayer-life, and yet no secret at all; prayer cannot be a soliloquy, ought not be a monologue, but, if we will simply listen, becomes a dialogue, a two-way conversation.  Like all listening, this requires that we pay close attention to the One with whom we would converse, and for that He has given us His Word, the Bible.
 
    "At early dawn I prayed, Thy promises my trust;
     At night I thought upon Thy Word, Most holy and most just."
                            [Psalter Hymnal 254:1]
 
=========
Gary Fisher

Two Journeys

Two Journeys
 
    February 12th, 1809 was a momentous day, for on it were born two men whose lives continue to affect us two centuries later.
 
    In Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on that winter's day, Charles Robert Darwin was born to Christian parents.  Baptized as an infant, young Charles was raised in an atmosphere steeped in Christian influences.  He recalled later that as a youth "... I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my [efforts], and marveled how generally I was aided."  As a young man he believed himself called to the Ministry, for which he began to prepare.  Called upon to comfort a grief-stricken friend during his three years of pre-seminary training, Charles wrote of "so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords, compared with how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear."  Graduating tenth in his class of 178 from Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1831,  Darwin then joined a research voyage aboard the HMS Beagle as a friend of the devoutly Christian Captain Robert FitzRoy, for what was to have been a two-year study along the coast of South America.
 
    On the same day as Charles Darwin entered the world, Abraham Lincoln was born in rural Hardin County, Kentucky.  His parents were members of the local Baptist church, but young Abraham found no attraction there and never joined; in fact, there is evidence of his having ridiculed religion in general and Christianity in particular.  His mother may have had some influence on young Abraham, but she died when he was nine years old.  By the age of 22 Lincoln left his family and struck out on his own, eventually teaching himself law and becoming a lawyer in 1837.  The same year he met Joshua Speed, who was to become his closest friend.  Lincoln remained staunchly opposed to religion.
 
    While Abraham Lincoln was launching his legal career, Charles Darwin had returned from what had become a five year voyage on the HMS Beagle with his Christianity in a shambles.  Having slowly replaced his study of the Bible with literature bitterly opposed to the very concepts of God and Creation, Darwin had gradually come to reject his faith.  By 1837, he had given lectures and published papers promoting the view called "uniformitarianism," which professes that "... all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." [2 Peter 3:4]  Having rejected first Genesis, then the entire Old Testament, and soon the concept of the miraculous, Darwin finally abandoned the Gospels and the hope of salvation.  Darwin married in 1839 and in 1841 his beloved daughter Annie was born.
 
    Meanwhile, Abraham Lincoln had become engaged to Mary Todd, a young lady to whom he was introduced by his friend Joshua Speed.  On January 1, 1841, the home of Ninian Edwards was gaily decorated for what was expected to be a grand wedding.  The guests were assembled, the bride waiting, the tables set ... but the groom was absent  As the hours passed, guests began to leave until finally the heartbroken bride was left alone with a few friends.  Joshua Speed, feeling both embarrassment and concern for his friend, searched the town until he found Abraham in the throes of deepest depression.  Lincoln wrote to another associate, "I am the most miserable man living. If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be a cheerful face on earth. Whether I shall ever be better I cannot tell; I awfully forbode I shall not. To remain as I am is impossible. I must die or be better."  It was at this point, as Charles Darwin, acclaimed as a great success, was confirming his loss of faith, that Abraham Lincoln, considering himself a failure, appears to have found his.
 
    Taken by his friend to the Speed's family home in Louisville, Lincoln was attended by his friend's mother, a devout Christian who read to him daily from the Gospels, who, biographers say, "spoke of God as Father, of Jesus Christ as brother," and witnessed to Lincoln of the hope and salvation he had once ridiculed.  A historian later said "The late but splendid maturity of Lincoln’s mind and character dates from this time; and although he grew in strength and knowledge to the end, from this year we observe a steadiness and sobriety of thought and purpose discernible in his life."  In 1842, after encouraging Joshua's courtship with and eventual marriage to Miss Fanny Henning, Lincoln wrote his friend "I believe God made me one of the instruments of bringing your Fanny and you together, which union, I have no doubt He had fore-ordained. Whatever he designs, he will do for me yet."
 
    From 1841 onward, Darwin's health and outlook both deteriorated.  When his daughter Annie died in 1851 he was thrown into a deep depression, writing that "Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life."  A few years later the now thoroughly bitter Darwin wrote "I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."  Surrounded by and steeped in animosity toward Christianity, Darwin had rejected not only the Bible but all hope of comfort.  In 1880, not long before his death, Darwin wrote to a correspondent that "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."  Though stories occasionally surface which claim Darwin returned to faith on his deathbed, his family and others who were with him during his final months and hours firmly deny any such thing.
 
    Abraham Lincoln, a changed man, rewon the love of Mary Todd, whom he married in November of 1842.  Over the ensuing years, both his actions and his words convey a sense of a growing faith.  The death of his young son -- within months of that of Annie Darwin -- led not to despair but to a recommitment to the Means of Grace as Lincoln continued to attend regularly the services at a conservative Calvinist church in Springfield and then in Washington D.C.  His biographer, Charles Carlton Coffin, writes "As this biography of Lincoln unfolds, there will be seen, as the years go by and the responsibilities of life roll upon him, a reverent recognition of Divine Providence, an increasing faith and childlike trust in God."  Indeed, no other US President and perhaps no other political leader came to be known more in speeches, writing and decisions for quotations from the Christian Scriptures and reliance on a Providential and Sovereign God.  His Second Inaugural Address is cited as the most openly Christian public statement by any American President.  Throughout his years as a member of Congress and finally as President, Lincoln acted in a way which seems to demonstrate a Christian faith, though he never formally joined a church.
 
    Charles Darwin began life with what seemed to be a solid faith but ended mocking God.  His theories have not only continued to do so, but led directly to movements, including Eugenics, Communism, Nazism, abortion and euthanasia which have cost hundreds of millions of lives.  Abraham Lincoln began his life ridiculing God but ended seeming to live by faith.  His actions ended the bondage of millions and set an example even political hypocrites seek to emulate and which has affected history not only in the US but around the world.
 
    Lincoln and Darwin, born on the same day into the same world, undertook two very different journeys, and bore two very different harvests of fruit, both of which remain before us after two centuries.

_________
Gary Fisher

A Heart For The Lost

A Heart For The Lost
 
    With the dismal US Presidential election now behind us, some might hope the vicious and often vacuous battles of the seemingly interminable and historically costly campaign would likewise have moved from the public forum to the policy rooms, some to be enacted, most to be forgotten.  One of the more contentious issues, that of one candidate's ostensibly Christian "spiritual mentor" and foul-mouthed Pastor, would be best removed from the stage and returned to relative obscurity.  But with the appointment of another Pastor, this one a widely-read success counselor from the mainline evangelical megachurch movement, to deliver the inaugural invocation, the battle has once again come to the fore.
 
    While the ensuing debate has its humorous aspects, particularly in the way those who saw no conflict in an association with an America-hating Pastor have suddenly discovered serious implications with a Pastor who is unafraid to identify the sin of homosexuality as sinful, the debaters have raised some significant issues as well.  Of particular interest, perhaps because of their "outsider" perspective, is the course of debate among those who have no spiritual affiliation to defend but who are avowed and practicing atheists.
 
    In an ongoing conversation on the internet, British writer Christopher Hitchens (author of such books as "God Is Not Great"), who describes himself as not merely atheist but anti-theist, threw down the gauntlet with his assertion that Rick Warren is bigoted because he holds to the Christian doctrine that salvation can be found only in Christ.  Hitchens, who fervently denies the very concepts of God, heaven, salvation and religion in any form, nevertheless feels compelled to come to the aid of non-Christians who might feel excluded by Warren's (and Christ's) focus on the one Savior.  His might be said to exemplify a very mistaken "heart for the lost," one which cares more for potentially hurt feelings than for doctrinal consistency or, indeed, for souls.
 
    But where Hitchens' argument is mere political correctness, the response of writer and former lawyer Heather Mac Donald, also an atheist, is both more thoughtful and more thought-provoking.  Replying in her own online publication to Hitchens' statement, Mac Donald poses the following question:

"Do modern Christians still believe with the same fervor as in the past all those unyielding doctrines of eternal damnation for the unbaptised and unconverted? They sure don’t act as if they do. If they really were convinced that their friends, co-workers, neighbors, and in-laws were going to hell because they possessed the wrong or no religious belief, I would think that the knowledge would be unbearable. Christians surely see that most of their wrong-believing personal acquaintances are just as moral and deserving as themselves. How, then, do they live with the knowledge that their friends and loved ones face an eternity of torment? I would expect a frenzy of proselytizing, by word or by sword."

    Now, it is clear some of Mac Donald's speculation is uninformed; one is not converted at sword-point, and the heart of Christianity is not that one is more deserving, but that all are undeserving.  Nevertheless, her belief that Christians, at least in North America, have lost the convictions of their forebears is one every faithful Christian must consider.  If we, like the the Ephesians, have lost our first love [Rev. 2:4] and adopted what some have called a "Christless Christianity" based on a form of social gospel (of the sort even Christopher Hitchens might approve) we must return -- quickly! -- to authentic Christ-centered Christianity.  If, like Laodicea [Rev. 3:15] we are "neither cold nor hot" but have adopted a casual attitude toward our Lord and His commands, we must -- quickly! -- pray to recapture that zeal which Mac Donald finds lacking among the Christians she knows.  As another year opens before us, let us resolve to put our love for God into practice through a bursting, loving, committed heart for the lost.

    "Shall we, whose souls are lighted
    With wisdom from on high,
    Shall we to men benighted
    The lamp of life deny?"
        [Psalter Hymnal #401:3]

========
Gary Fisher

What Would The Neighbors Think?

What Would The Neighbors Think?
==============================

    There are few things, if any, which frighten the average person more than to be considered "peculiar" by those around him.  That fear forms the framework upon which is hung advertising, custom, and a great deal of what we call culture.  It is the reason books become best-sellers at a mere mention by a talk show hostess and why "popular" music is popular.  Many will risk everything to avoid the shame of becoming an outcast, and adopt ludicrous fads to conform to those around them.  Peer pressure is one of the strongest forces in society.

    Yet for all the effort devoted to doing that which might improve us in the eyes of others, far more damaging is the energy expended on avoiding anything which might label us as "different."  The reflective believer will sometimes recognize these as "sins of omission" -- the word of comfort or correction which was not spoken, the deed of mercy or aid which was not done, those things of which we might later say "I should have ..."  Showing our faith in public is, for many, the most common of these failings; an oft-repeated question asks "If Christianity were declared illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

    Scripture abounds with examples of those who were unafraid to own their faith.  Esther sets a standard before us, making her confession in a setting which she knew could bring about her death.  Daniel is remembered especially for declaring his allegiance to God even in disobedience to the civil government, knowing well that the "neighbors" were listening.  In the New Testament, Stephen's declaration of his faith made him a martyr, the first of many since the Resurrection who put faith ahead of fear.  In our own history as Reformed believers, the Calvinists who settled in Nova Scotia and Massachusetts were notorious among those around them, and occasionally vilified to this day, for their very visible refusal to participate in, among other things, the pagan celebrations which had been tied by Rome and the world to the birth of Christ.

    The story of the nativity itself provides an oft-overlooked example of a man faced with the temptation to defend his respectability rather than to act in faith, a trial he passed by the grace of God.  Though sometimes presented as an impoverished and homeless man, he was in fact a tradesman successful in business and about to be married -- he had a reputation to protect!  When it was discovered that his fiancé was carrying a child, he had every right and a social obligation to call off the marriage and guard his own good name.  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.  And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."  We do not read that Joseph weighed the options in his mind; Scripture does not relate any struggle between faith and fear, between reputation and obedience.  What we read instead is "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him ..." [Matthew 1:19-21, 24a]

    In this of all seasons we find it easiest to look upon the tiny baby, adored by all, and to forget that He not only was but "is despised and rejected by men" [Isaiah 53:3], the One who, in Psalm 31 says "I am a reproach among all my enemies, But especially among my neighbors, And am repulsive to my acquaintances; Those who see me outside flee from me." [Psalm 31:11]  To be Christian is not to seek the approval of the world, not even to avoid offense on Christ's behalf, but to "Let this mind be in [us] which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation ..." [Phil. 2:5-7a]  We are not called to be accepted, to meet and match the standards set by the world around us.  "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." [1 Peter 2:9]  "A peculiar people?"  Oh, my, what would the neighbors think?

"Lord Jesus, can it ever be, A mortal man ashamed of Thee?" [Psalter Hymnal 457]

===========
Gary Fisher

Silver and Gold

Silver and Gold

Thirteenth-century theologian
Thomas Aquinas has enjoyed a somewhat checkered career among Protestants.  Some,
including Luther himself, considered Aquinas' theology to approach the epitome
of the Biblical presentation of salvation by grace alone through faith alone,
and in some circles Aquinas was considered the virtual "anti-Calvin" (though of
course they were not contemporaries).  More recently the works of Aquinas have
begun to achieve a degree of acceptance, approximately of the sort (though not
in quite the way) our Belgic Confession [Art. VI] applies to the Apocrypha --
useful so far as they agree with Reformed theology but neither to prove nor to
refute it.  With this in mind, a story told about Aquinas offers a helpful
insight into a situation the Church has had to face since the first
century.
 
According to the story, Thomas Aquinas was once shown some of
the tremendous wealth the Church had accumulated, and told "You see, Thomas, we
need no longer say as did Peter of old, 'Silver and gold have I none.'" [Acts
3:6]  "No," replied Thomas, "neither can we command the lame, as did he, to
'arise and walk.'"

The first-century Church was unquestionably, and
unreservedly, generous.  In the closing verses of Acts 2 we are shown thousands
of believers giving not just generously but sacrificially, doing in fact what
the rich young ruler of Luke 18:18-22 was told to do.  Yet a few verses later we
find Peter stating he has no gold or silver to offer the lame beggar. 


How things have changed!

In the recent U.S. Presidential
Campaigns, one candidate based much of his professed faith on what he openly
identified as a "Social Gospel," a theology which seeks first to offer things,
confident that the Kingdom of God will somehow be added unto the recipient, a
virtual inversion of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 6:33.  This view is not confined
to questionable big-city churches.  One ostensibly Reformed congregation offers
such "ministries" as a "Laundry Ministry" (a free alternative to Laundromats and
an "Oil-Change Ministry" (for cars, not lamps).  Not only do these withhold or
inappropriately link the Gospel, but in the process they undermine those, some
of them Christians, whose livelihood depends on offering those services for a
fair price. Many churches support an organization which distributes free
groceries with the stipulation that recipients may neither be approached for
evangelism nor given evangelistic materials.  Others receive offerings for aid
groups which similarly avoid any presentation of the Gospel.  The silver and
gold flows freely, while the Name of Jesus is lost somewhere on the package or
omitted entirely.

Perhaps even more odious, Christian Fundraising has in
many cases descended far into worldly practices.  Within churches this has
sometimes taken the form of high-pressure sales tactics, while outside the
church many organizations have adopted every trick and gimmick used by their
counterparts in the world.  A few years ago, one Christian leader decided to
collect every fund raising appeal he received for a month.  From school alumni
groups to political parties, from secular clubs to hospitals and libraries, from
advocacy organizations to Christian charities, every card and letter was set
aside.  At the end of the month he compared all of the appeals, and found that
nothing whatsoever distinguished the Christian requests from any of the others. 
In every case, the Christian solicitations encouraged supporters to give for
personal gain of some sort, whether prestige, tax deduction or some token
premium, mimicking the secular appeals.

None of this refutes the need for
Christian charity; after all, it was Jesus Himself who gave the command in Luke
18 to the rich young ruler to "Sell all that you have
and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven ..."  It has
been calculated that the Bible mentions possessions more than any other single
topic.  Clearly our relationship to the things God grants us is central to our
relationship with Him.  The work of the Church is supported by our giving, but
that giving must neither be coerced nor misapplied, and never should silver and
gold become more important than the Church's true mission, the spread of the
Gospel.

"And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature." [Mark 16:15]

_________
Gary Fisher