"History #2" Response

           The Holy Bible is, indeed, one of the most influential ancient documents in history. Passed down through the centuries, it has formed a major role in the formation of the Western world and the human rights it advocates. However, the Bible is also frequently maligned for what critical scholars believe is its historical inaccuracy. Specifically, the New Testament is often targeted for such errors, because of its account of the life of Jesus Christ. Four common objections against the New Testament’s credibility are a) Oral tradition (through which much of the Biblical texts/narratives were passed down/recorded) is unreliable, b) The New Testament (and the Bible, in general) was written by flawed men, c) The writers were biased, and d) Too much time had passed between the writing of the original and the writing of its various copies. Despite allegations seeking to undermine its authority, the Bible, and especially the New Testament, can be proven to be a historically reliable document—the infallible Word of God.

            The first objection, which attacks oral tradition, is a culturally and historically ignorant assumption. A full examination of the use of oral tradition in ancient/Biblical times shows that oral tradition was held in the highest regard. Jewish children, especially, were taught to remember oral material accurately. Seeing that many of the New Testament authors were Jewish, any oral tradition they used while writing the New Testament would have been extremely accurate, or at least as close to accurate as possible, because of this upbringing. Next, oral tradition was handed down collectively to the entire community; therefore, granting the existence of even minor textual errors, the general populace would still have agreed on the ideas of the New Testament, such as Christ’s miracles, as well as the accuracy of more significant historical events during that era. This kind of public consensus would be much more troublesome for secular scholars, since it would still affirm the existence of both New Testament characters and the supernatural abilities of Jesus Christ. Also, an overall examination of the Bible, through verses such as Exodus 24:4; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Isaiah 8:1; I Corinthians 14:07; and Revelation 1:19, shows that Biblical writers often physically wrote down the Words of God, right after He shared them. The inclusion of literal writing removes any final doubts regarding oral tradition.

            The second objection to the New Testament’s reliability is that it was written by mere men. The first response to such an accusation is that the writers never claimed to have exclusive Biblical knowledge. They always attribute their work to God’s inspiration, which, according to Ron Rhodes in the book, Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics,

“may be defined as God’s superintending of the human authors to that, using their own individual personalities—and even their writing styles—they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind in the words of the original autographs” (Rhodes). Scripture shows to what extent the writers were controlled by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21 states, “Prophecy [or Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from god as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” In I Corinthians 2:13, Paul says that he spoke “not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.”  God’s influence in the writing of the Bible, specifically through His inspiration as the Holy Spirit during the New Testament, fully debunks the claim that man is responsible for fabricating Scripture. 

            Thirdly, critics allege that the New Testament writers were biased. Reality and logic prove just the opposite. For instance, some of the most reliable reports of the Nazi Holocaust were written by Jewish people. This more modern example shows that authors who are closely involved with their subject matter do not always have to become subjective. Rather, their ardent desire to prevent historical mistakes from repeating themselves is a sufficient reason for these writers to create as truthful a narrative as possible. In addition, New Testament writers have much to say regarding the objectivity of their message. II Peter 1:16 affirms, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” Concurrently, 1 John 1:1 states, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” It is also important to remember that Christianity originally began as an unpopular sect branching off from Judaism. Therefore, by writing the New Testament in the manner that they did, New Testament authors were risking nearly everything in their lives, from their credibility to their lives. In fact, the Apostles had little to gain and almost everything to lose by writing the New Testament. In fact, such New Testament writers often gave up their lives in defense of what they saw. Such a strong conviction among these authors of what they had experienced reveals an extremely selfless and unbiased aspect to what they had done. In addition to this, the Apostles often included embarrassing details about themselves in their accounts—things that a biased writer would have omitted. Events such as the Jewish people’s unfaithfulness to God, Peter’s thrice denying Christ, Peter being addressed as Satan, the disciples’ scattering at Jesus’s arrest, and Thomas’s doubts at Christ’s Resurrection, are excellent examples of such embarrassing details. The New Testament authors’ risks, sacrifices, and ultimately altruistic motives for helping to write Scripture prove that the New Testament is objectively true.

            The fourth objection to the New Testament’s validity is that too much time had passed between the writing of the original and its early copies. In reality, the time between the writing of the original New Testament and the copying of the oldest extant manuscript is extremely short. This is important because the shorter the time is between two such events, the more reliable a text is considered. There is ample archaeological evidence for this. For instance, there are over 24,000 partial or complete copies and manuscripts of the New Testament. They vary in age from fifty to 500 years of the original. Most scholars consider any copy of a document within 700 years to be good and reliable. Even though there are some variants throughout the copies, these differences are minimal. Even controversial/missing sections of the New Testament, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, pose no doctrinal or moral contradiction to the rest of Scripture. In fact, most of these “discrepancies” are extremely trivial; for instance, one copyist may say “Jesus Christ” instead of “Christ Jesus,” as in other copies, and one copyist may misspell “world” as “worl” or “wrld.” In addition, ancient classics have an average gap of over 1,000 years—about three hundred years more than the ideal 700-year gap. There are several other manuscripts that confirm the New Testament’s reliable “time gap.” John Ryland’s manuscript, the oldest copy of the New Testament, contains fragments from John (John 18:31-33, 37-38) and dates to approximately A.D. 117-138. The Bodmer Papyri contains most of the Gospels of Luke and John, and dates to approximately A.D. 200—less than one hundred years after John Ryland’s manuscript. The Chester Beatty Papyri contain almost all of the New Testament (including large portions of the Gospels) and dates to approximately A.D. 250. The Codex Sinaiticus at the British Museum contains the entire New Testament, and even parts of the Old Testament; dating to approximately A.D. 340, it is less than a century younger than the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus, at the Vatican Library, contains most of the Bible. It dates to approximately A.D. 325-350. The Codex Alexandrinus at the British Museum also contains most of the Bible, and dates to approximately A.D. 450. The Codex Bezae at the Cambridge University Library contains parts of the New Testament and most of the Gospels, written in Greek and Latin. It dates to approximately A.D. 450-550. When compared with other authors and their works, the magnitude of the New Testament’s reliability is seen even more strongly. For instance, Caesar’s writings (in the First Century B.C.) only have ten known copies, the earliest of which was found during A.D. 900. The copies’ accuracy cannot even be fully ascertained, as with the writings of Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Tacitus’s writings (in A.D. 100) have twenty copies, the earliest of which were discovered in A.D. 1100. Thucydides’s Fifth Century B.C. writings have eight copies, the earliest of which, like Caesar’s copies, were discovered in A.D. 900. Herodotus’s writings share Thucydides’s discouraging statistics. Countless other authors, such as Livy, Plato, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Sophocles, Catullus, Euripedes, Demosthenes, Aristotle, and Aristophanes, are similar; none of these authors has a known time span closer than 750 years, and no more than 200 known copies. Homer’s writings, from the Ninth Century B.C., have 643 copies (the date of the earliest copy is unknown) and a 95% accuracy rate. The New Testament, with its original writing in the First Century A.D., has its earliest copy a mere one century later, with over 5,000 copies and an accuracy rate of over 99%. The New Testament’s “time tables” have a far more promising (and accurate) record than any other early writers. As such, both history and logic will lead even an amateur historian to acknowledge the New Testament as historically accurate and trustworthy.  

"History #1" Response

     The worldview to which one adheres also determines his or her view of history. Perhaps the most unique example of worldview influence on historical interpretation belongs to Postmodernism. In accordance with their vigorous defense of previously oppressed social groups, such as women, homosexuals, and racial minorities, Postmodernists believe that history is not objectively true, as it has mainly been written by the "winners" (i.e., biased, self-righteous white males). Rather, Postmodernists advocate what is called "Revisionist History," which is "[r]ewriting the past to serve an ideological purpose and to empower oppressed social groups" (Noebel, 424). Ironically enough, the Postmodern emphasis on subjectivity, if logically considered, renders Postmodernism's dogmatic rebuke on its definition of "the winners" useless and contradictory to Postmodern philosophy. By so heavily extolling the "oppressed minorities" in society, Postmodern historians actually make "the winners" the new minority (albeit, a more hateful kind of minority). The Postmodern approach to history in terms of its antipathy towards "the winners" and disbelief in objective historical truth point out the ridiculous ignorance of Postmodern history's underpinnings.
     There are a couple of historical examples that disprove Paige's statement. For instance, some of the most accurate descriptions of the Holocaust have been recorded by Jewish people during that time period. Obviously, the Jews were neither winners nor the "oppressive majority" during the Holocaust. In addition, Noebel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu's famous autobiography I, Rogoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala is a graphic narrative of "the plight of the impoverished Guatemalans languishing under government death squads" (Noebel, 424). In reality, however, "Menchu had told her story to French leftist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray, who actually wrote the autobiography, misrepresenting many 'facts' in her book" (Noebel, 424). Some of the facts she distorted include:

     ...[The] claim[ ] that Menchu, as a female, was denied school, yet she actually

     attended two Catholic boarding schools through seventh grade. The book 

     states that she worked on a plantation under horrible conditions, yet she never set

     foot on a plantation as a child. Also, the author claimed that the local

     villagers saw the Marxist guerrillas as liberators, when in actuality the villagers

     were terrified of them. (Noebel, 424)

Even though Burgos-Debray saw her actions as helpful to the minority (in this case, the Guatemalans), her distortion of historical truth is culturally ignorant and unforgivable. Her actions prove that there is such a thing as an objectively true historical narrative--in this case, such an account was even from what Postmodernists would consider the "minority," Menchu. The fact that Burgos-Debray even saw fit to twist the words of someone who Postmodernists are supposed to support reveals that Revisionist History does not originate in a desire to empower minorities. Rather, it is simply a humanistic effort to bury the one kind of Truth Postmodernism cannot avoid--that of a real historical account--under personal bias. This is not a valid way to interpret history; rather, Historical Revisionism is a desperate attempt to preserve a philosophy advocating personal preference over true morality.
     If history is really a non-objective/non-truthful account written by the winners, then history itself is largely fictitious. Postmodernist Michel Foucault readily admits this: "I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions...One 'fictions' history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one 'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth" (Noebel, 423). Foucault justifies "fictioning history" on the grounds that it may reveal or enhance "political realities" or "historical truth." However, if questions of truth, morality, and past beliefs can only be understood in the cultural/historical periods in which they arose (another Postmodernist assumption, known as Historicism), then neither political realities nor historical truth exist. Therefore, there is no reason to "fiction history," as Foucault puts it. The only reasonable solution to this dilemma, then, is to acknowledge that "the cultural/historical periods" during which issues of morality, truth, and past beliefs arose existed objectively and without need for revision.
     The Postmodern approach to history is indeed unsettling, and threatens to destroy what hundreds of years of archaeological findings, precise oral tradition, and meticulously written historical records have worked to achieve. Whether history is recorded from the perspective of "the winners" or "the minority," one must always remember that such views only differ in values and beliefs--not how to record a true historical fact. For instance, while an "oppressive" white male may describe Abraham Lincoln's assassination with less sadness than an African American whose ancestors were slaves, the truth of the event--that is, that Lincoln was killed by John Wilkes Booth--is unchangeable. The Postmodern aversion to objective historical truth, and subsequent emphasis on historical revision/"fictioning," does not seek to improve Man's understanding of his history. Rather, it only seeks to spread the seed of relativism, and an ultimate rejection of God, into His most significant tool for bringing about Creation's redemption.

Why Socialism Does not Work

"Mark and Sarah agree that the government should do more to redistribute wealth evenly and Mark went on to say that the State should own everything so people could learn to share everything equally.  
Why do you think socialism doesn't work?  Due Wednesday, May 2nd by midnight.
Bonus 5 points for the best video link you send me on this topic." 


Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA

            The most fundamental component of any worldview, theology, deals with the question of God’s existence. People who believe in a higher spiritual power of some sort also typically believe in some form of afterlife, whereas atheists find their “heaven on earth” in the form of the government. This idea trickles down into economics. For example, the Bible best fits with a capitalist/free-market economy, which grants humans free will and the duty of stewardship (2 Thessalonians 3:10). However, socialism and its militant counterpart, communism, rely on the government to control the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government (Noebel, 354-355). These forms of economy are held strongly by secular worldviews, such as Secular Humanism and Marxism. However, socialism has some detrimental flaws that point out the erroneous nature of the worldviews behind it.

            The goal of socialism is to “equalize” the poor and the rich in society; that is, to redistribute wealth in a way that supposedly benefits everyone involved. Socialism is best summarized with the statement, “Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.” However, the individual nature and talents of each person makes the very process of the human experience “unequal”; therefore, only a capitalist economy, which provides for private intuition and economic judgment, can best reflect human nature. Socialism, on the other hand, assumes that Man can be reduced to a mere “economic machine” that can, with time, be turned into a “just” sharer of wealth. This points out another flaw in socialism and its secular values—it assumes that Man is inherently good. For example, welfare programs (a largely socialist idea) is often abused by those who claim to require its aid. In addition, the secular philosophy behind socialism teaches that Man is a constantly evolving individual. Therefore, he always has “room for improvement.” In other words, it is impossible for Man to ever achieve the innate goodness that socialism relies on.

            Another problem with socialism is its transient nature. For instance, Marxists view it only as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism, with communism being the ultimate goal (Noebel, 354). Many people who advocate socialism neglect to envision the larger picture of communism that it precedes. Eventually, socialism, despite its ostensible altruism, must lead to the loss of personal wealth and rights in the name of making society “more equal”—which is a paradox in itself.

            Socialism also faces the obstacle of its failure in historical periods where it has been implemented. In fact, Postmodernist Richard Rorty acknowledges, “‘Just about the only

constructive suggestion Marx made, the abolition of private property [which is socialism], has been tried. It did not work’” (qtd. in Noebel, 388). In fact, many Postmodernists like Rorty have abandoned “pure” socialism in favor of interventionism, which “is not a totally state-planned economy or a completely free market economy, but a combination of the two, where the state plays a role in redistributing wealth created in a  partially or mostly free market environment” (Noebel, 388). Even though all economies are mixed with a certain amount of socialism, a strict adherence to socialism and its principles will only result in economic and social downfall.

Socialism’s “steal from the rich to give to the poor” philosophy is merely a futile attempt to appease personal problems by amplifying them with money. For instance, what society defines as “the poor” (i.e., the “ninety-nine percent”) may very well include individuals with legitimate needs, such as the homeless. However, the Bible also points out that poverty can arise from laziness (Proverbs 6:6-11; 13:4; 24:30-34; 28:19). No amount of socialistic equality can help a person overcome the innate laziness that has driven him or her to financial straits. A fool who is given money is not “improved”; rather, he or she is just a fool with more money, which he or she will imprudently use. Furthermore, not all of the rich people in the world are built on ill-gotten gains. Just like a student who works hard for his or her high grades, many successful men and women have achieved wealth through work ethic, honesty, and, for some of them, obedience to God. Another interesting statistic is that if America really were to use the upper class’s money, it would only run American government for thirty-one days. The problem, then, is not a “money issue.” It stems from the government’s over-involvement in a socialist economy, which has been seen to hinder economic progress whenever it is applied.

The “generosity” that socialism advocates does not originate from a genuine sense of humanity. Rather, according to economist Milton Friedman, socialism relies on compulsory force rather than moral standards of sharing. For instance, even though Christians in the early church shared all things in common (Acts 2:44-45), it is important to remember that this giving was not coerced, as in a socialist or communist economy. In addition, Acts 5:1-4 describes the early Christians’ economic freedom to own and sell private property. These events show that true generosity, whether or not it is financial, must come from the Body of Christ—not the government. This is why programs similar to welfare, et cetera, are best controlled by the Church—its solid foundation in godly values gives a moral reason for sharing with the poor, not just because the law says so. This allows for a much greater sense of sharing that comes without the resentment of “robbed” rich people who are forced into giving away wealth.

Socialism and its many fatal flaws saturate its societal victims with anti-God reasoning under the guise of “social justice.” It is much more desirable to assess people’s financial needs as a result of their character and work ethic—not their location on the poverty line graph. The government’s superfluous power in socialism has as much potential to become corrupted as the rich people it steals from. In addition, socialism’s past failures and transient nature set it up to be an imperfect economic system that must inevitably become obsolete. In conclusion, true “fairness” results from favoring neither the poor nor the rich (Leviticus 19:15).

"Economics #2" Response

            The Christian worldview not only establishes that God created the earth and its inhabitants, but shows Christians everywhere how to interact with nature in a way that glorifies God. For instance, Biblical Christianity recognizes the value God places on all of His creation—especially the human race. While God calls His people to be good stewards of nature, He does not instruct them to place nature on a pedestal of worship, or even equality with Mankind (Exodus 20:4-5). Rather, Christianity states that humanity and nature are meant to exist in a non-abusive relationship, with Man using nature for his own purposes (i.e., building homes), while simultaneously “giving back” to the earth by not overusing its resources. For example, the lumber industry necessitates the destruction of trees to create houses, but many of these companies also hire people to plant new trees to replace the ones that were cut down. This God-centered inherent value of nature is known as theistic intrinsic value (Bergstrom). It reminds Christians that in the same way that they have dominion over nature, God has dominion over Mankind. Therefore, the ways in which we sustain (or abuse) nature will ultimately be accounted for by God.

            Even though it is important to respect and protect nature, the “Earth Day Constitution” established by the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth unnecessarily deifies the earth. For instance, many of its rules assume that “Mother Earth” essentially deserves the same amount of respect as a sentient human being. This kind of logic stems from a Cosmic Humanist idea known as the Gaia Theory, which asserts that the earth itself is a living organism (Noebel). However, the Gaia theory and the pantheism behind it are entirely unbiblical; by granting nature an exalted place of godlike honor, such extreme environmentalism topples the Creative Hierarchy that the Lord has established.

            Not only does environmentalism deny Man his God-given dominion over nature, but it reduces him to being just another “being,” at the same level of plants and animals, that is simply a parasite. Ironically enough, mandates with which environmentalism charges people in relation to protecting the planet highlights Man’s role as the earth’s steward. This high position reveals human dominion over nature—not any “debt” that we owe to it.  

Furthermore, environmentalism places the human race under the constant fear of potentially wounding “Mother Earth” at any given time (Global Warming/Climate change, enlarging the carbon footprint, etc.). Environmentalism also demands that people rectify any violations they make that contribute to the planet’s destruction. Requests to treat the earth in a kind manner, as well as to fix any abuses we perform against it (littering, etc.) are just, (and even logical). However, Christians need to understand the difference between true violations of natural safety, as opposed to the ways in which environmentalists define “violations.”  For instance, taking a weed out of one’s garden may kill the weed, but it protects the wellbeing of the other plants it would have affected. In a way, this seemingly insignificant act maintains the equilibrium of the garden environment. However, the Earth Day Constitution writers would see this as the violation of the weed (“a being”), and its right to life as a part of Mother Earth. The superfluous and irrational approach that environmentalism imposes on every human action ultimately limits our ability to keep the planet safe. For example, certain plant and animal species become prolific to the point that the species in question endanger more delicate flora/fauna around them. Without people to control the populations of such organisms, such an environment would eventually destroy itself—even if it requires killing the “beings” in question.

Environmentalism not only advocates the destruction of God’s Creative Hierarchy (nature below Man; Man below God), but places humans in perpetual guilt for hurting nature. While “planet protection” should be seriously considered in terms of Man’s stewardship of the planet, it is equally important to remember that God granted people dominion over nature. In conclusion, nature’s ultimate purpose is to teach Man to act responsibly, thereby glorifying the God who made them both. 

"Economics #1" Response

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient person. Every single human being has some sort of need that needs to be met, whether it is the need for food or the need for fiscal stability. To meet these needs in society, any country that wants to be successful must establish an economy. There are two kinds of “extreme” economies: The laissez-faire (or capitalist) style economy, such as the one endorsed in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, advocates minimal governmental interference in economy. In other words, people should be allowed to use their own capital, whether it is their ideas or their money, to increase financial gain in a competitive, free marketplace. On the other hand, Communist economies, as well as Communism’s diluted sister-economy, socialism, advocate “[a]n economic system in which the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution are controlled by the government” (Noebel, 354). In fact, Marxists view socialism as “the transitional phase between capitalism and communism” (Noebel, 354). While socialist approaches to economy can be found in both certain Christian and Secular Humanist groups, the most Biblically-oriented economic approach is free capitalism (see Proverbs 31; Isaiah 65:21-22; Jeremiah 32:43-44; Acts 5:1-4; Ephesians 4:28). Documentary director Michael Moore states that “Socialism is democracy. And socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism.” While the of democracy and unity that Mr. Moore claims socialism represents may cause one to view socialism in a friendlier light, it is important to understand that Mr. Moore is approaching democracy and religious unity from the faulty worldview of Secular Humanism.

David A. Noebel explains that “Secular Humanists do not agree about the ideal economic system although most support socialism in one form or another” (Noebel, 369). Specifically, the majority of Secular Humanists embrace interventionism, which is “[p]olitical activity undertaken by a state to influence aspects of the economy usually in order to uphold certain moral values” (Noebel, 370). Unfortunately, the term “moral values” loses its meaning when used within Secular Humanism; since Secular Humanism uses man as the ultimate standard of right or wrong, morality is subject to evolutionary change. Therefore, interventionism creates an economy that will never be truly consistent. As such, the Secular Humanist approach to economy is an untrustworthy system, as well as the socialism it endorses.

Working from a secular dependence on a socialist economy, Michael Moore declares, “[s]ocialism is democracy.” While the promise of democracy through socialism sounds like a worthy ambition, David Noebel points out:

 …the Humanist conception of democracy differs significantly from more commonly held attitudes. For Secular Humanists, democracy extends far beyond the realm of government…Secular Humanists’ motivation for the application of democracy to all of life is to change relationships…the process of democratization entails a process of equalization. (Noebel, 331-332). The truest definition of democracy that most people espouse is not a process of equalization; rather, it comes from the Greek roots demos (“people”), and kratia (“power”). Demokratia’s English translation is, “the people hold power.” In addition, the idea of democracy was primarily created to describe a government in which the people have a voice in national leadership—not to describe social relationships, or even be synonymous with economy. Democracy’s “power to the people”-based definition could even be used to justify an economic approach that contains less socialism and government interference. Also, the secular idea of democracy and its properties of equalization, if logically followed, become a set of dehumanizing forces that stifles individual talents—aspects which can never be “equal” from person to person.

The atheistic viewpoint from which Mr. Moore approaches the topics of socialism and democracy causes his argument to collapse, given his mention of the great religions’ connection to socialism. Obviously, a worldview that denies a higher spiritual power cannot peacefully coexist with a worldview that does—at least not for any significant period of time, or for any greater good. Therefore, the synonymous relationship that Moore builds between socialism, an economic theory most highly endorsed by Secular Humanism, cannot truly be “Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism,” as he says.

The secular bent from which Michael Moore extols socialism ultimately renders it incompatible with the Christian worldview, or any other religious worldview. Specifically, the high governmental influence that socialism calls for contradicts the Christian worldview because of its emphasis on the government over the church and the family. Essentially, while socialism may initially appear as a lovely picture of future peace, it robs Man of the role of stewardship that God has given him. By granting the government the power to make the final decision on economic issues, such as prices, socialism gives citizens an excuse to live in ignorance about proper resource management. In conclusion, socialism is neither synonymous with the true spirit of democracy, nor religion—rather, it is a secular attempt to create an “earthly heaven” through the government, rather than relying on God’s provision. 

"Politics #2 Abortion" Response: Prompt 2

2.
Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. 

Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenatal care, rely on public assistance to raise a child, develop health problems, or end up divorced. Many of these young mothers are enticed into the “solution” of abortion. They are often told that terminating their pregnancy “will be better for you, your family, and for society in general.” Unfortunately, in a postmodern society that advocates an absence of moral absolutes (including the sanctity of all human life, including fetuses), this message is accepted at an alarming rate. In reality, however, pregnant teenagers have no right to abort their pregnancies.

Even in cases of rape, many medical centers offer drugs which, if taken quickly enough, will prevent impregnation without killing a fetus. Secondly, there are very few times per year (almost less than one-tenth, in many cases) during which a woman can become pregnant. Therefore, women who are raped are often morally responsible for choosing to place themselves in situations or places that result in their being raped or impregnated (since chances are slim that they can become pregnant “by accident”). In addition, despite a young woman’s degree of innocence behind her rape, it is unrighteous to slaughter an innocent, unborn child for the sin of its father. Other “justifiable” cases for abortion include pregnancies that could endanger the mother; often, these abortions are a three-day-long process. If such situations are really that crucial, then a doctor could save much more time by simply performing a Caesarean section in a matter of minutes. These arguments for abortion, then, are easily refuted by using logic instead of appealing to inconsistent emotions, such as pity for the “victims” society portrays these mothers as.

As for teenage mothers who choose to engage in activities that result in their impregnation, they have a moral obligation to avoid abortion. Sins receive penalties equal to their magnitude; for example, serial killers are often justly given “the death penalty” and executed. A teenage mother’s acquiescence to her carnal desires, therefore, reaps the consequence of impregnation. Even if these teenage mothers do turn to abortion, the act of killing their child does not erase their sin; rather, it only compounds it. These teenage mothers, in aborting their pregnancy, only doom themselves to a life of guilt that will jeopardize all of their later relationships. 

While it may be true that teenage mothers must leave school early, such an academic fate is not surprising. The penalty of not being educated compensates for the irresponsibility with which teenage mothers acted when they decided to engage in intercourse. Now, the time that would have been spent preparing for their future must be spent paying for their moral frailty.

Although it is widely believed that teenage mothers receive inadequate prenatal care, this notion is not an absolute statement. Depending on a woman’s insurance policy, she could receive excellent prenatal care and medical treatment for her child. This gives some teenage mothers a good reason to keep their babies. Teenage mothers who do happen to receive poor prenatal care, however, can be reached by churches and Christians in the community around them. Hopefully, the love that they demonstrate will make a positive difference in the mother’s life, causing her to understand the sanctity of her baby’s life.

Teenage mothers must also rely heavily on public assistance to raise any children they have in their youth. Many doctors use this “your baby will be a societal burden” excuse as a reason to persuade teenage mothers to get an abortion. However, such mothers will feel grateful for public assistance, like welfare—even if they put extra strain on society. Likewise, this should teach them to view their baby as putting a similar strain on her body. Instead of using this as a reason to kill the fetus, the mother should logically liken the baby’s relationship to her body to her own dependent relationship with social programs of public assistance. In both cases, the mother and child are dependent on someone else for their well-being and security. If public assistance were to be completely taken away from the mother, both she and her child would suffer; why, then, should the mother take away her bodily support for the baby through abortion?

Teenage mothers have been said to develop health problems rather easily. Quite frankly, this is perfectly understandable and should be expected. I Corinthians 6:19 states that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, women whose bodies are defiled by sexual immorality must inevitably suffer physically. To allow one’s body to be misused is an insult to the Holy Spirit, whose temple has now been soiled. Since God and filth cannot coexist, health problems become a very real possibility for teenage mothers. Mothers who commit murder in this temple (abortion), should receive even higher consequences for their destruction of innocent life.

Sin is never private—it must inevitably be brought out into the light. Whether a teenage mother is raped or consciously (and carelessly) chose to participate in sexual immorality, the original perpetrator of the sin has infected both parties’ lives with corruption. This corruption becomes a kind of “baggage,” so to speak, on each person’s life—as mentioned before, this will go on to stain every future relationship each person is involved in, especially the mother. This is a significant factor in the numerous divorces that teenage mothers ultimately undergo. Also, teenage mothers who abort their baby must live with the guilt of the abortion, as well as the relationship problems just mentioned. They learn to live by emotionally punishing themselves with guilt, and by punishing other men for something they had no idea about.

Many teenage mothers do indeed have a very small chance of “getting ahead” in life once they find themselves with child. Whether or not they choose to keep the child may be their “civil right,” by society’s definition. However, in God’s sight, they have a moral obligation to respect the baby’s human right to life. Rather than fleeing the bodily and emotional stress of dealing with a child by turning to abortion, teenage mothers need to fear the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). 

"Politics #1" Response

            People who believe in God also reap the benefit of having hope for spending eternity with Him in Heaven after death. However, atheists, such as Secular Humanists, are forced to create Heaven on Earth. This goal is most often achieved through elevating the government to higher levels of authority. Formally, Secular Humanist political ideals are collectively known as the “secular world government”—“a non-religious political body that would make, interpret, and enforce a set of international laws” (Noebel, 333). Secular world government ideas include increased liberalism (“a political tradition based on a secular ethic an d a high degree of government control” (Noebel, 332)), universal disarmament, and the strengthening of the United Nations (Noebel, 333). A consistent secular world government would also adhere to evolutionary theory, praising the political arena as a significant catalyst for Mankind’s progress (Noebel, 332). Ultimately, a secular world government would eliminate religious biases, uniting the world under the “equalizing” democracy of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanistic democracy, however, does not just stop at allowing people to vote and thereby influence political development. Rather, it more strongly refers to the aforementioned “equalizing” of Secular Humanism. However, as idyllic and equitable a secular world government may initially seem, it is supported by a corrupt desire to eradicate individuality, morals, and religion (especially Christianity) from the public square and political arena. The only way in which a secular world government can “equalize” its citizens is to deprive them of their humanity.

            Because Secular Humanists see humans as the most highly evolved animal, they also see politics as an evolving field; as such, Mankind is called to use politics to control his own evolution. However, this approach to politics essentially undermines its own definition—political figures and governmental forms are meant to help rule the people, and are not meant to be manipulated to accommodate the random process of evolution. Not only is this evolutionary approach to politics detrimental to its God-given function, but it would sap all people beneath the secular world government of a conscience. By relegating politics to the status of a tool of evolutionary control, a secular world government obliterates the significance of morality and allows a people to fulfill their desires, no matter how evil, as long as they fit under “true democracy.”

            In addition to the moral abominations presented by a secular world government, it is important to remember the universally acknowledged principle that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Theoretically, the equality that the secular world government would establish exudes the message that there is no God that anybody needs to follow. All people are equal, and must instead acknowledge their political unity under the secular world government. This kind of idea inevitably causes a person to believe his or herself the “god” of his or her own private life. The feeling of absolute power that such ideas grant their victims will only cause them to spiral downward in corruption. This flatly contradicts the Secular Humanist principle that Man is perfectible, a gigantic premise behind their belief in the inevitability of the secular world government.

            Finally, the secular world government would greatly dehumanize its citizens. By gathering beneath a secular banner, people would lose their individuality by forfeiting their right to freedom of religion, speech, et cetera, in the name of secular “democracy.” In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., such peace is not the well-earned result of earnest discussion—it is born from a kind of negative tension that is fueled by a fear of the majority opinion. Christians, especially, should be wary of a secular world government. Its rejection of the ultimate Lawgiver and His wisdom in influencing human politics is spiritually repugnant. For instance, David A. Noebel points out that in the United States alone, the secular world government would:

“…seek to eradicate Christian symbols and content from the public square by removing the Ten Commandments from public schools, removing ‘under God’ from the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance, replacing Christian ethics with values clarification, re[placing divine law with legal positivism, replacing the celebration of Christmas with winter holiday, standardizing sex education and alternative lifestyles into the public school curriculum, and disregarding references in the Declaration of Independence to God-given rights.” (336)

These potential results of the secular world government emphasize a sense of robbery than one of equality. In fact, the secular world government seems much more oppressive than democratic—especially in regards to Christianity.  It is useless to embrace a form of government whose real-life application steals from its formally defined intent. The fact that such a government seeks to control the entire planet, even though it cannot remain consistent within itself, is a hideous insult to the human intelligence it plans to “equalize” into submission. 

"ARTS blog" Response

Without exception, every person throughout the history of Mankind has had a worldview. Some of these people became artists, and learned to express their worldviews through the beauty of artistic expression. Some of these artistic pieces are paintings, musical compositions, buildings, and sculptures. Some modern-day artists even incorporate artistic designs into everyday drawings and clothing styles. However, just as society changes over time, so must the art that results from it. For example, Dutch Reformation paintings were meant to elevate the mundane, and “send out” a message about the beauty God has engineered into His creation. Postmodern art, however, like Dada art, is meant to be interpreted in any subjective manner, yet ultimately emphasizes the meaninglessness of life. Artistic trends, principles, styles, and significance find both commendation and judgment in Leland Ryken’s essay, The Creative Arts, and Roger Scruton’s 2009 documentary, Why Beauty Matters.

            I agreed with The Creative Arts and its opinions on the various levels of truth that a piece of art represents. This kind of classification accommodates the Christian’s morally firm task in evaluating art, and gives a kind of balance to the subjective bias most art-viewers bring. I especially appreciated/agreed with Ryken’s statement that an artist’s worldview, as well as fundamental artistic concepts, inevitably leak into a piece of art. Ideas have consequences, and the artist’s “consequence” is the message he or she portrays to the world through his or her art form—whether it be a novel, a painting, or a piece of music. I also agreed with Ryken’s reference to the creative aspect of God’s own Mind—without it, Creation would not exist. The repeated Biblical references to God’s creativity and love of fine craftsmanship offered firm validation of art’s value. God’s use of even pagan artists to create beautiful art reinforces the message that Christians need not fear engaging artistic culture in an effort to expand God’s Kingdom. The connection Ryken formed between the Fall and incorrect artistic expression created an objective way of examining the arts. Since I tend to believe more strongly in Man’s innate evil rather than his innate goodness, I fully agreed with the potential for an artist to distort the arts by using them to portray an erroneous worldview. However, I disagreed with Ryken’s statement that “…beauty is worthy in itself, just as truth and goodness are” (204). While it is true that beauty has value, it should be equated to neither truth nor goodness, which have more spiritual value. For example, moral truth has the ability to save someone (especially a Christian) from a sinful situation. However, artistic beauty can only invoke warm feelings and a sense of appreciation for somebody else’s talent. Beauty cannot save souls or stir the conscience, but it can aesthetically brighten a person’s day. Salvation is a beautiful thing, but beauty is not a “salvational” thing.

            Roger Scruton’s 2009 documentary, Why Beauty Matters, also discussed the role of aesthetic beauty in the arts and its role in human culture. He began by explaining how, in the past (i.e. the era of Premodern painting), people led painful lives that became alleviated through the presence of beautiful art. The beauty of art back then elevated even the mundane aspects of life, and taught people to appreciate life in general. In turn, people received hope to keep persevering, despite their harsh lives. I am in full agreement with Scruton on this point. Without the beauty of the arts to deliver a person from the stress of his or her everyday life, one will forget what it is like to truly appreciate other aspects of God’s Creation. If respect and admiration for the Creation is emphasized and encouraged, it brings a person closer to the God who made it all. The beauty of classic art is God’s way of strengthening ourselves as well as our faith in Him. Scruton also mentioned this (he says that the beauty of premodern/classical art reflected the artists’ and viewers’ desire to come closer to God, or at least some form of permanent spiritual fulfillment). I also agreed with Scruton’s scathing assessment of the effect of modern architecture. The absence of ornamentation and extra thought that plagues modern buildings is the antithesis of the Biblical message, “Do all as unto the Lord” (although Scruton would not use this Biblical allusion). The minimalism modern architecture endorses, therefore, may indeed exude a sense of directness that appeals to some people. However, the efficiency of modern architecture simultaneously connotes a lack of respect for the traditions of the past, which, if discarded, do not allow us to move forward as a society. Scruton also points out the mockery that the creative arts are reduced to because of artists like Duchamp, who sought to undermine the “snobbish” nature of the arts by creating postmodern art (the urinal; “ready-mades”; piles of bricks). While it is a good thing to encourage artists with new ideas, it is quite another to exaggerate that need to the proportion that artists like Duchamp did. In fact, this exaggeration drove the arts into a downward spiral—the arts changed from a field requiring talent and hard work, to something that can be “thrown together” in a few minutes. As Scruton puts it, even though such new forms of art may serve to shock the public, as they become more deeply involved in society, their shock wears off. The hideousness and common employment of such art is a cause of alarm for those who believe in real, beautiful art. I also agree with Scruton’s argument that people who embrace this “anti-art” are also victims of a culture that teaches them that they only need to satisfy their utilitarian appetites (which are only satisfied by finding useful items through spending). Scruton also stated that there is no room for ugliness in the world—beauty must be emphasized and utilized in all areas of life. I highly disagree with this declaration. To use Scruton’s own example: artistic beauty could never have come into existence without the abjectly hideous aspects of life and human nature that gave the artists such strong emotional inspiration. Scruton goes on to explain how humans can begin to understand the transcendental realm which houses God by experiencing beauty, both in art and in the human form. This leads to a kind of Platonic love—a respectful, appreciative sense of love/longing, sans corrupt feelings like lust. According to Scruton, we learn to recognize the eternal beauty of God by examining the “beauty” of a well-proportioned, youthful body—even in a wrinkled face, one can find the beauty of wisdom and experience. While learning to appreciate everyday physical beauty is important, and teaches a person about the true source of beauty and creativity (God), it is neither the best nor the only way to come to an improved understanding of God. God reveals His own character through general revelation (nature and the conscience) and special revelation (Jesus Christ and the Bible). People must learn to love God’s way (not Plato’s), through obedience to Him and serving others, not through examining a body’s physical features or classical sculptures with a Platonic lens. Rather, it is much more important to examine the beauty of the complexity of the mind, soul and emotions which God has given Man, so that he might appreciate beautiful art to begin with. For example, the Unity of Identity actually teaches about the changes and breakdown undergone by the body at regular intervals. That is because its chief argument is for the existence of a soul—the eternal “self” God has placed within each person. Any kind of physical appeal is always defeated by a sharper mind, greater spiritual depth, and emotional complexity. These features are, by far, infinitely better “fingerprints” of God’s creative power and Character, than are beautiful pieces of art. It is crucial to remember that the eyes, which are the most common tools used to absorb Scruton’s all-important beauty, also serve as the window to the soul—God’s real work of art within Man. Also, Scruton claims that beauty was not planted in the world by God—it was discovered by people. I disagree with this statement. People, who bear God’s image, can only recognize beauty because that ability comes from Him. Therefore, the fact the He (and by extension, humans) can recognize beauty, shows that He created beauty as well, planting it into the world for our benefit.

            The Creative Arts and The Philosophy of Beauty have a mutual endorsement of fundamental artistic principles and their incorporation into a successful piece of art. For instance, Ryken mentions the concepts of line, symmetry, et cetera, that make up many impressive paintings. Scruton gives the highest praise to premodern art, which is known for its flamboyant use of artistic principles like emphasis, highlights, et cetera, that give it a sense of focus and enticement. In addition, both Ryken and Scruton discuss the connection between human spirituality/Man’s relationship to God, using art as a crucial bridge. Another similarity is that Ryken and Scruton understand the influence of an artist’s worldview and values on his or her art. Ryken uses the example of a musical composition that is either dominated by organization (showing a person with an orderly, i.e. Christian, worldview) or disorganization (a worldview that disagrees with submitting to any natural order). Scruton analyzes the disrespect towards the past inherent in the worldviews of modern architects. Such a modern disrespect for history has continued to lead the unsuspecting creative arts down into a cesspool of Postmodern art and its (literal) meaninglessness.  Because Postmodernists believe that “history is written by the winners,” they discard art’s past, because any extant masterpieces are assumed to have suppressed the artistic minority of their day (which, apparently, they had no right to do). Both Ryken and Scruton classify beauty as a value of its own—equal in merit to concepts like truth and goodness. That is because both of them recognize the importance of beauty as a form of general revelation. Both also go on to state how beauty often reflects God’s creative power. Both Ryken and Scruton also acknowledge the significance of nature on artistic history. Ryken uses the nature paintings of nineteenth-century English painters Constable and Turner to demonstrate artists whose goal is to “convince us not simply that physical nature is an important part of reality but also that it is something of great worth in human experience” (201-208). Scruton also uses famous nature artists, whose goal is to teach their viewers to simply take in natural beauty. He also explained the shift that natural art marked. The emphasis in paintings changed from the individual people, to the overall geographical landscape, with the people only occupying a small area of the canvas. Nature’s gigantic influence in art allows people to step back from their own lives, and revel in God’s Creation—whether or not God has anything to do with the artist’s intent.

            The Creative Arts and Why Beauty Matters also have some important differences in the way they discuss the arts. While Ryken delineates the goals and purposes of artists and their masterpieces with a Christian perspective, Scruton explains the beauty of art (more often than art itself) from more of a secular perspective—perhaps agnostic, at best. The Creative Arts emphasizes the arts’ audience to take a dynamic role in assessing the worldviews, truth values, and moral viewpoints of a piece of art. However, Why Beauty Matters portrays an artist’s ideal audience as a passive vessel for true artistic (and by “true artistic,” Scruton is referring to pre-modern, classical-type art) beauty to be absorbed by. The audience is only encouraged to aggressively critique a piece of art (preferably, negatively) when the piece lacks old-style structure and ornamentation. For instance, while Ryken would encourage viewers of both the Mona Lisa and Duchamp’s urinal to carefully and impartially analyze the artists’ inevitable portrayal of reality, morality, and values within the pieces, Scruton would probably happily bask in the presence of the Mona Lisa and condemn Duchamp’s urinal as a parody of true art. As the next step, Ryken would exhort Christian viewers not to shun any non-Christian worldviews these pieces offer. Rather, he would strongly recommend that they think through these new ideas, concede to its representational truth, and use the whole experience to strengthen their own Christian foundation. Scruton would be willing to acknowledge, but neither embrace nor put to use, the artists’ worldviews—so long as at least one of them remained beautiful.

Ryken comes to the conclusion that Christians need all forms of the creative arts. By examining the truth values, underlying worldviews, and other human reasons behind pieces of art, Christians will help the arts fulfill their highest calling—the ultimate glorification of God. I agree with Ryken. By coming to fully understand the importance of the creative arts in society, Christians can use all art forms to bring a respect for God back into a world that rejects Him. By learning how to maturely interact with different worldviews manifested in the arts, Christians can use them to strengthen their own faith. It is this kind of spiritual development that will bring about true beauty in an individual—not any amount of classical training, as Scruton would endorse. Why Beauty Matters concludes with these words of Scruton’s:

In this film, I have described beauty as an essential resource. Through the pursuit of beauty, we shape the world as a home, and in doing so, we both amplify our joys and find consolation for our sorrows. Art and music shine a light of meaning on ordinary life, and through them, we are able to confront the things that trouble us, and find consolation and peace in their presence. This capacity of beauty to redeem our suffering is one reason why beauty can be seen as a substitute for religion. Why give priority to religion? Why not say that religion is a beauty substitute? Better still, why describe the two as rivals? The sacred and the beautiful stand side by side—two doors that open onto a single space, and in that space, we find our home?

As mentioned before, I do not agree with Scruton—religion and art cannot be equated. A religion defines one’s way of life, and provides a foundation for his or her worldview. For example, Ryken embraces Christianity as the best worldview lens through which to view art. A religion like Christianity gives Man a God who calls him to holiness and righteousness. Religion empowers a person to “walk” the way he or she should in her own lifestyle, from Buddhism to Christianity to Islam. However, beautiful art lacks such a deep spiritual influence. While it has the potential to help someone achieve new emotional reactions, it does not force him or her to rise to a higher level of morality or spiritual depth.

"Shariah Law" Response

Laws are incapable of building a safe foundation for society, if the worldview from which they originate has a flawed approach to the nature of God and man. Christianity views law as a result of God’s Character, meant to save Man from his own fallen desires. This way of thinking about law best balances human rights, along with human boundaries, to create a peaceful society. Atheistic worldviews, such as Secular Humanism, believe God does not exist; therefore, there is no ultimate moral standard from which laws come into being. The freedom that secular law gives to Man enables him to evolve along with morality, allowing him to make laws that satisfy his evil cravings. Such an imbalance of freedom and boundaries portends societal chaos, not peace.

One example of theistic law that fails to create a stable society is known as Shari’ah Law, the form of law espoused by Islam. Shari’ah law is made up of different law schools and law sources—such as the Qur’an, Hadith, Ijma’, and Qiyas. It has five categories of behavior: Commanded behavior (the Five Pillars and participating in jihad), Recommended behavior (charitable acts “above and beyond the call of duty”), Forbidden behavior (such as thievery, sexual immorality, and drinking wine), Disapproved behavior (essentially, the opposite of Recommended behavior—i.e. divorce), and Indifferent behavior (acts that have neither positive nor negative consequences). These five different kinds of behavior have one ultimate motivation in mind—to gain favor in the afterlife. Shari’ah law, then, obliges individuals to work for their salvation and spiritual well-being. Incidents such as the one mentioned in “Just Another Case of Sharia in America” are excellent examples of the result of the destructive effects of Shari’ah Law and its five components. Muslims such as Talaag Elbayomy, because of Shari’ah Law (and the terrifying consequences to defying it), must resort to societal unrest and assault to gain spiritual favor. The introduction of chaos that Shari’ah law subjugates its countries to is an excellent reason as to why it would not improve America, which is built on principles of freedom and peace.

The struggle to maintain control over one’s sinful tendencies (i.e. jihad), and therefore keep the law, also becomes even harder. Since Shari’ah law springs from Allah’s unknowable character (unlike the Christian God, whose moral character forms law), Muslims are forced to rely on their allegedly innate goodness to stay “legal.” In many Muslim/Shari’ah-dominated countries, this Muslim belief in Man’s ability to become perfected has led to a lack of division of powers (Noebel, 295). Ruthven puts it best:

“[B]ecause the Islamist model is predicated on the belief in government by morally impeccable individuals who can be counted on to resist temptation, it does not generate institutions capable of functioning autonomously by means of structural checks and balances. Political institutions function only as a result of the virtue of those who run them, but virtue can become widespread only if society is already Islamic.” (Noebel, 295)

These governmental ideas have led to dictatorships or monarchies in Muslim countries. Such totalitarian systems of government can only make laws that harmfully repress citizens. These ideas clash strongly against, and threaten to ultimately destroy, America’s sense of democracy and freedom of personal expression. Ultimately, if Muslims hope to bring Shari’ah law into America, the name “America” will lose any significance—if overtaken by Shari’ah law, the United States will lose the distinction of human rights that it was founded on to begin with. Only Christianity-based democracy or Shari’ah-based dictatorship can prevail—they cannot coexist.

"Law #1" Response

One could never even hope to live in a stable society, if that society does not have a stable set of just laws. The next most important question to forming a safe society, then, deals with the ultimate authority for creating laws.

In her article, “What are the Different Sources of Law?” Sandi Johnson establishes four ultimate sources of law that successful governments follow:  cultural customs, common law, precedent, and legislation. Cultural custom, also known as customary law, is “…based on cultural customs and beliefs regarding acceptable behaviors and practices held by tribal society and its elders. Such laws…seldom appear in written form, yet citizens adhere to such rules to the same extent as to written law” (Johnson). In other words, customary law is an implicitly understood set of unspoken laws, rooted in some overarching sense of a society’s moral convictions. Next, Johnson defines common law as:

“…a legal system that is largely formed by the decisions previously made by courts and not imposed by legislatures or other government officials. The reasoning used to interpret this type of law is known as casuistry, or case-based reasoning. It is a strict, principle-based reasoning that uses the circumstances of a case to evaluate the laws that are applicable.” (Venus)

The next source of law, precedent, is defined as “When a court of law or other official entity rules on a particular question of law not previously addressed...Such case law histories provide a documented record whereby common and legislative laws are applied to real situations” (Johnson). Johnson’s fourth law source, legislation, is “written law enacted by the official governing body of a particular people. Such laws are codified in specific language for use and interpretation by each country’s judicial system” (Johnson). After establishing the four sources of law, Johnson provides a scenario in which:

“…each of the four sources of law can be seen as a stage of development…a society may establish proper marrying age through cultural customs. As the society grows and advances, cultural beliefs and practices establish a more formal understanding of proper marrying age, forming the basis of common law. Precedent, meaning leaders make public decisions and thus a public record of such laws, backs up common law and establishes its validity through documentation. Eventually, such laws are written and codified, resulting in legislative law.” (Johnson)

The unifying factor behind all four of Johnson’s law sources is their employment by the government. However, no matter how well-organized these four sources may work together through the government, there is still a major problem with this kind of lawmaking. Mankind is not omniscient; therefore, it is not possible to foresee all the kinds of moral dilemmas that will influence future law. Therefore, people who argue for the government’s ultimate lawmaking authority fail to understand that an earthly-government-oriented approach to creating laws can never perfect the goal of government (maintaining peace in all of society). Yet, atheism’s adherents are forced to follow the futile system of creating Heaven on Earth through the government, since there is no God from whose nature we can borrow righteous lawmaking concepts. Also, people who find the foundation of law in cultural customs must ultimately recognize that their version of lawmaking does not come from an objective/divine moral order. On the contrary, the government and its laws only become subject to the transient beliefs that define a specific time period or culture. The danger of this dilemma is that Man will always maintain a bias towards his own gratification when making laws, even if it means that the law will ultimately justify his sinful tendencies.

            For Christians, the ultimate authority for creating laws is found in God’s morally holy nature. Unlike Johnson’s praise of governmental law creation, the Christian view of law states that “governments exist not so much to create laws as to secure laws—to apply divine law to general and specific situations and to act as an impartial enforcer of such laws” (Noebel, 286). The “divine law” mentioned in this passage is defined by David A. Noebel as “[a]ny law that comes directly from the character of God via special revelation [the Bible and Jesus Christ]” (286). In addition, “According to God’s plan, the responsibility of governments is to encourage people to obey divine law by punishing wrongdoers and protecting those who live in accordance with God’s laws” (286). This concept is supported in Romans 13:3-4:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

The Christian view of law also accounts for Man’s fallen nature and blindness to legislative future—something that the government-centric law sources of Sandi Johnson fail to do. To understand this aspect of Christian law, it is necessary to first understand that Christianity affirms that Mankind does have a fundamental sense of right and wrong (the conscience). While earthly lawmaking establishes this rudimentary sense of moral discretion as the only necessary guideline for making acceptable laws, Christians expand the role of the conscience. In fact, they believe that “we can know God’s will or natural law [physical and moral laws revealed in general revelation and built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to the laws imposed by human beings] through our conscience” (Noebel, 285). Despite the moral knowledge of the conscience, however, the Christian view of law acknowledges Man’s sinful nature, and therefore his inability to create a perfect law system through earthly governments. Noebel explains this point best: “…each of us is accountable to God for our actions: we know a transcendent law exists, yet we consciously flaunt it. This truth must be incorporated into any successful legal system” (285). By establishing Man’s moral accountability to God, rather than to governments and the laws they pass, the Christian view of law provides Man with an incentive to avoid twisting earthly law and government to accommodate his bias and sinful nature. Rather, scriptures such as 1 Peter 2:13-17 convey this message:  “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men…who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right…Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.” In other words, God has given people free will in choosing to follow the conscience He has created within them. Ideally, people should choose to follow the right moral path their conscience provides them with, and proceed to study God’s character through that choice. It is this kind of spiritual investigation that will give God the “invitation,” so to speak, to direct human law. In turn, yielding to the intrinsic moral purity of God’s character protects society from being driven by the whims of custom law, by extension affecting the other levels of legislative development (common law, precedent, and legislation). Finally, living “as servants of God” in everyday life and under the law helps us to see past sinful biases (the “cover-up for evil”) better than humanistic government.

"Feminism" Response

Since God’s creation of the Universe, men and women have been the two building blocks of the family, and, by extension, society. As such, both men and women reflect God’s image, although in different ways. For example, while God grants men a natural sense of emotional calm and “distance” that enables them to act quickly in decisions requiring rapid action, He gave women a nurturing side that enables them to bond with their children and “think out” more complex social dilemmas. Especially in the Genesis account, it is shown that God created men and women to complete each other. Therefore, the Christian view on the question of gender importance respects both men and women equally before God, whose image both sexes bear equally. 

            There are two alternatives to the aforementioned equality of men and women, both of which are polar opposites of the other. The first view upholds males over females. Such thinking prevailed in the days before women were allowed to vote or even own private property. A religious example this kind of sexism is Islam. Within this system, Muslim women are only good for bearing male children, and satisfying the sexual appetites of their husbands. Apart from these jobs, females have essentially no value in Muslim culture. The other extreme is known as Feminism, a movement that ostensibly exists to “empower” the common woman. Feminism has “positive” roots, such as the desire for women’s suffrage. However, as the movement gained momentum, Feminism also gained new (and evil) motives. The main three goals of contemporary Feminism, then, are the destruction of the traditional family, as well as eliminating homemaking as a viable career choice. Rather, feminists encourage women to pursue a life that revolves around a career dedicated to market production—without the burden of a husband and children. By aggressively pressuring women to join the world of market production, as opposed to granting them the right to choose between a domestic or corporate lifestyle, Feminism defeats its own purpose of empowering women to make their own choices.

A famous example of Feminism in practice is the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA. The ERA has one main idea: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” At first glance, the ERA sounds perfectly reasonable. To cite an earlier example, initiatives such as the ERA guarantee basic human rights to each gender—for example, women’s suffrage. However, upon closer inspection of the ERA, E. Carolyn Graglia notes in her essay, “Domestic Tranquility,” that the “equal rights amendment…was intended…to promote the feminist goal of an androgynous society.” For example, “It would…require drafting of women for military service, including combat.”  History and Biblical records show that combat is not an area God set aside for the typical nurturing woman. Rather, the battlefield is where men are meant to serve. For example, the kings of Bible times were known for fighting alongside their armies on the battlefield—queens remained in the palace). Disrupting this natural order only leads to emotional trauma and feelings of purposelessness for the female soldier—not utopian androgyny or sexual equality, as feminists hope. Measures like the ERA are meant to subvert the traditional family and force women to “abandon their traditional roles and refashion themselves after the feminist role models who promoted [the ERA]” (Graglia).  The ERA is the most aggressive, blatant attempt by Feminism to rip women away from the traditional family setting. By placing females at the forefront of a literal “fend-for-yourself” career and lifestyle, contemporary feminists fail to protect the value of women. Rather, they substitute the delicacy and elegance that should be highlighted in women with the bloody traditions brought upon the world by the Fall of Man.

Christians should view Feminism as a threat to the traditional family, and, by extension, the church and state—proper institutions that Christianity has fought to establish and preserve under God’s holiness throughout its lifetime as a worldview. By taking an active position in society and voicing support for the traditional family so reviled by Feminism, Christians can still save a form of sociology ordained by God. Verses such as I Corinthians 11:3 and 11:7-10 set a clear Biblical standard against Feminist principles:

“Now…the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

Feminists call for the overthrow of any kind of "sign of authority" over women; however, the removal of such a sign will lead to familial, and therefore societal, instability. In closing, Christians have a sociological and a Biblical duty to rescue the dignity of the traditional family, as well as the dignity of women who find homemaking more spiritually and emotionally fulfilling than market production.  

"Sexist? Homophobic?" Response

Every major religion has a fundamental set of laws, most often through the written word (like the Christian Bible or Muslim Qur’an). Such texts outline the lifestyle expected of the adherents of the religions they represent. For example, the Christian Bible, as well as its moral standards (i.e. the Ten Commandments), are assumed by Christians to be the holy Word of a perfect and righteous God whose expectations are to be met. Since God exists on a spiritual level beyond that of human affairs, the things He says through the Bible are perfectly objective and rational. That is, Christians understand that the moral system God establishes in His Word is free of any unrighteous hate, bias, or prejudice. Even when God punishes individuals in the Bible, He does so to achieve a greater spiritual lesson for the whole church, such as the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Therefore, one can only grasp the true message of the Bible if he or she is a Christian who believes in God’s existence, flawlessness, and omniscience.

Unfortunately, many people attempt to discredit the Bible by interpreting it through a non-Christian lens. This style of “analyzing” Scripture dooms the reader to an erroneous inspection of the biblical text, since he or she is now examining it using a different method than the one it was meant to be read with.

A common societal example of this dilemma is the accusation that the Bible teaches Christians to be “homophobes and sexist.” Such an assumption is created by most Christians’ aversion to homosexuality as a form of sexual immorality. The church often cites verses such as Romans 1:21, 26-28 to explain this aversion:

“For although [Mankind] knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion…Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” (NIV)

While this passage does point out that homosexuality is wrong, and God’s punishment for Man’s pride, it does not call for the church to embrace homophobia or sexism. In fact, passages such as Acts 15:19-20 even command the church to reach out to those in danger of sexual immorality, in order to help them turn to Christ. This confirms the old saying, “God hates the sin—not the sinner.” Christians who morally stand against homosexuality (calmly arguing for a “straight” position is different than the hatred of homophobia), then, are simply agreeing with the religion (and, by extension, the lifestyle) they have chosen to follow. For example, one cannot claim to be a Muslim without trying to emulate Muhammad’s actions. Likewise, a Postmodernist considers himself subject to the ethical standards of his culture—which he believes are correct, if even for a short period of time. In conclusion, what is commonly labeled as “Christian homophobia” is really the Christian community taking a moral stand for the God they represent. If Christians do not take this moral stand, they will become hypocrites in God’s sight—even if they gain the love of the world and its “tolerance.” Logically, however, Man’s applause should mean nothing to the Christian. Rather, it is much more acceptable to stand before God with a firm moral backbone, yet hated by the world.

            As to the charge that Christians are sexist, the aforementioned principles of Biblical examination also apply. For example, the Genesis account clearly establishes women as the “completers” of men. For example, after creating the sea and the land, God created the creatures that would fill them, such as fish, birds, and other animals. After creating Adam, God proceeded to take his rib to create the first woman, Eve. Just as the animals filled the other areas of the earth, God made Eve to bring fulfillment to Adam’s wife. In God’s words, “it is not good for man to be alone.” In fact, some people even use this event to make the argument that the Bible teaches that women are the pinnacle of Creation.  For instance, Biblical characters such as Deborah show the significance of women and their leadership skills. Even Rahab was used by God to help save the Israelites and their leaders, and Ruth’s actions ended up rescuing the Messianic Line. In fact, the Book of Proverbs often portrays Wisdom as a woman. Also, without women, it is impossible to obey God’s cultural mandate—for man to multiply in the earth and subdue it. As well, in a traditional, monogamous marriage, a man’s wife often saves him from making brash decisions. In addition, a woman’s stronger connection to her emotions is necessary to balance, and even enhance, her husband’s masculinity. Husbands and wives have one main duty to each other—to make the other stronger in Christ. Such a spiritual duty is not laid on one spouse alone, but is meant to be equally shared by both people in the relationship. In comparison with ideologies such as Islam and Secular Humanism, Christianity also elevates women. The respect Christianity gives to women, as well as their spiritual duties, fully outclasses the childbearing role granted to them in Islam. Even secular thinkers see both women and men as “matter in motion”—that is, there are no moral absolutes that govern the way women should be treated (“all is matter”); therefore, they have no spiritual or emotional significance, either. In conclusion, the Biblical/Christian view of women is far from “sexist;” rather, it renders all genders equal before the power of a holy God.