Religious Nuts

RELIGIOUS NUTS By Bill Dunn

Chapter 1 – WHO ARE THE RELIGIOUS NUTS? As a citizen of this great democracy, the United States of America, I’ve got one thing to say: Religious nuts are ruining our society, and they want to take away our freedoms and force everyone to live in a totalitarian police state! Most members of the mainstream press, the entertainment industry, college faculties, the A.C.L.U., and the Democratic Party would wholeheartedly agree with the previous sentence. And, of course, they would identify the religious nuts in question as Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics. (Actually, they would identify them as “intolerant, hate-filled, homophobic, anti-choice, extremist, Bible-thumping, Constitution-destroying, vast-right-wing-conspiracy Nazis.” But what’s a little hysterical rhetoric among friends?) As I said, I’m convinced that religious nuts are ruining our culture. But the true religious nuts today are not the usual suspects. There is another groups of people—far greater in number than all fundamentalists, evangelicals, and conservative Catholics combined— whose religious behavior is truly nutty. You see, there are three types of people in the world: (1) those who believe God is real and live their lives accordingly; (2) those who believe God is a myth and live their lives based on this view; and (3), those who believe God is real but live their lives as if He can be completely ignored. The people in the first group (usually described by the parenthetical quotation mentioned above) actually behave very logically. If God is real, if each human being possesses an eternal soul which will dwell for all time in either Heaven or Hell, and if our eternal destination is based on how we relate to God during our lifetime here on earth, then trying to make religious faith the most important aspect of life is not nutty, it’s smart. You may disagree with the original premise—that God is real and that He’s personal and that He cares—but you can’t disagree with the behavior which results from that premise. The people in the second group (generally referred to as atheists, humanists, agnostics, etc.) also behave very logically. They believe the concept of “God” is superstitious nonsense invented by our ignorant, pre-scientific ancestors. Since they are certain that God is a myth, modern society is foolish to remain shackled to ancient religious customs and values. If there is no God, then, as the humanists proclaim, “Man is the measure of all things.” The wisdom of educated, intelligent, rational mankind should determine what’s right and wrong, not some dusty old documents attributed to a non-existent deity.

Although I passionately disagree with the initial premise of people in the second group, I can relate to the way they think (especially after having been an atheist for many years), and I would never describe their behavior as nutty. Wrong, yes. Nutty, no, given their philosophical starting point. The people in the third group, however, are the true religious nuts. These are the folks who claim that God is real, that people possess an eternal soul, and that Heaven and Hell are real, but live their day-to-day lives as if God can be ignored. Just imagine if a person comes home from work one evening and finds a 600-pound lion prowling around the living room roaring at the top of its lungs. Now imagine that this person acts as if the lion is nothing more than a six-pound house cat sleeping on the couch. He just goes about his usual routine, nonchalantly calling toward the kitchen, “Hi, honey, I’m home. Boy, traffic was a mess. What’s for dinner?” We would not hesitate to describe this man’s behavior as nutty and downright dangerous. Why is it any different with God? If the Bible is true (as most people in the third group acknowledge), then God is infinitely more powerful and awesome than a lion. To nonchalantly waltz through life as if God was no more majestic and mighty than a house cat is irrational. This is exactly where we are in modern America. Not too long ago the Barna Research Group found that 66-percent of American adults say they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today.” Also, 60-percent of American adults “maintain that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.” If that’s the case, then why are professing Christians statistically indistinguishable from non-believers when it comes behaviors such as divorce, abortion, adultery, cheating on your taxes, filing frivolous lawsuits, and swiping pencils from the company supply room? This is nutty behavior. These people are the true religious nuts. They claim God is real and the Bible is true, but then they completely ignore it. They call themselves “Christians” but behave exactly like atheistic humanists. They act as if God’s clear commands about morality are optional, as if we have been granted the final authority on whether or not we need to obey. Truly nutty. History has shown that no civilization has ever survived without morality, and morality is not possible without firmly held (and practiced) religious beliefs. This is why the religious nuts threaten our freedoms. When a society ceases to be moral, the government must use heavy-handed tactics to control the resulting anarchy. As Francis Shaeffer observed, “Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure.”

The religious nuts may not consciously seek to ruin society and force us all to live in a totalitarian police state, but that’s where we’re heading. If we don’t wake up and notice that the Lion of Judah—in all of His majesty, glory and power—is prowling our living rooms, then our fate is inevitable. Usually, discussions of religious doctrines focus on how to get our souls into Heaven for all eternity, rather than how to have a just and free and prosperous society here on earth. But the two issue are interrelated, yet another paradox of Christianity. If we focus on Heaven, we will have the best possible situation on earth. But if we ignore Heaven, then earth will become Hell. Chapter 2 – ATHEISM: NATURE IS ALL THERE IS The first thing we need to look at to get a better handle on the subject of religious nuts is the issue of worldviews. By worldview I mean a person’s view of ultimate reality: his or her most basic, fundamental understanding of what is real, what is true. A worldview is a person’s explanation of our existence: Who are we? How did we get here? Why are we here? Where are we going? What does it all mean? When you boil it down, only five different worldviews are possible: atheism, polytheism, pantheism, deism, and theism. In this chapter, let’s take a closer look at atheism. Atheism is often known by other names nowadays: Materialism, Scientific Naturalism, Agnosticism, Anti-theism, and Secularism, to list a few. But regardless of the particular name, the worldview is the same. It is a belief that the natural world is all there is. There are no supernatural gods; there is no Heaven or Hell; there is no life after death; there is no spiritual dimension to human beings; and there are no miracles. Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen is explained by purely natural causes. Atheism believes the entire universe is made up of matter and energy, shaped by blind random chance—and that’s it. By the power of natural evolutionary forces, non-living material accidentally formed into living creatures here on Earth. Then after billions of years, mankind emerged. But it all just happened randomly. There was no plan or purpose behind it. Life on Earth is really one big cosmic accident. A naturalistic worldview, one that denies the existence of God, leaves a huge vacancy for the position of “supreme being.” Some atheists, notably the animal rights activists, simply say there is no supreme being. All living creatures are equal. Which calls to mind the startling statement of Ingrid Newkirk, the co-founder and president of the radical group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” This is why P.E.T.A. members can say with straight faces that Frank Purdue’s chicken processing facilities are no different than Adolf Hitler’s gas chambers at Auschwitz. When you truly believe chickens are indistinguishable from human beings, a death camp is a death camp; a holocaust is a holocaust.

However, most atheists do not ignore reality and take such a stridently egalitarian view. If there is no God, then the most logical creature to take the position of “supreme being” is the Earth’s most highly evolved creature, mankind. This view is summarized by “The Humanist Manifesto, parts I and II,” which are creed-like statements of faith for Secular Humanists. Some of the more interesting statements include: • • • • •

“We begin with humans not God, nature not deity.” “We can discover no divine purpose for the human species.” “We regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” “Humanists believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, is an unproved and outmoded faith.” “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

Let me reiterate at this point, I do not consider these atheists and secularists to be “religious nuts.” Their behavior is not “nutty.” In fact, most atheists and secularists behave in a very logical and consistent manner—given their underlying worldview. “Nutty” behavior occurs when the behavior does not match the underlying worldview— for example, as previously mentioned, the great number of Americans who claim to believe in God but then go through life ignoring Him. The issue with atheists and secularists is not whether their behavior is consistent with their beliefs; the question is whether their beliefs are true. If a particular worldview turns out not to be true, then it’s very likely that that particular worldview will produce some incorrect assumptions about how to live, which in turn will produce harmful and destructive behaviors. The atheistic worldview produces two key assumptions which shape much of the behavior of secularists. The first is the belief in the inherent goodness of mankind. If there is no God and mankind is the de facto “supreme being,” then despite overwhelming evidence that human beings are by nature selfish and cruel, one simply must believe that mankind is basically good. It’s just too uncomfortable to define the “supreme being” as weak and petty and mean. This, of course, is the exact opposite of the Bible’s view of mankind, which says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and, “The (human) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). Most secularists believe that mankind is basically good, but occasionally some people do bad things. The biblical view, which is supported by historical evidence, is that mankind is basically sinful, but occasionally some people do good things. (Before you conclude the biblical view is too negative, remember that human beings, despite their sinfulness, have inestimable worth because they have been created in the image and likeness of the holy and perfect God.)

The other key assumption produced by the atheistic worldview is relativism. If there is no God, no supreme law-giver, than values are not objective, they are subjective. The definitions of right and wrong, good and evil, are no longer something handed down to mankind by the Creator, they are reduced to nothing more than personal opinion or group consensus. As we shall see, these two key assumptions—the inherent goodness of mankind and moral relativism—shape the behavior and policies of secularists. Although countless surveys and opinion polls consistently reveal that less than 10-percent of the American population believes in the atheistic worldview, the secularists and atheists have done a phenomenal job of spreading their views throughout society. Secularism is the foundational worldview of many influential institutions in our society today, especially the three primary sources of information for most Americans: the entertainment industry, journalism, and public education. The atheists and secularists have been very effective in promoting their views because they understand—usually much better than Christians—that worldviews are mutually exclusive. If one worldview is true, than another worldview must be untrue. In other words, God cannot be real and a myth at the same time; human beings cannot possess an eternal soul and have no soul at the same time; life on earth cannot be the creation of a supernatural God and the result of impersonal, random, natural processes at the same time. This is why an organization called the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” displays a sign each year among the Christmas decorations inside the Wisconsin state Capitol. Their message reads: “At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Now, these atheists not only present their view of reality: “…no gods, no devils, no angels….only our natural world,” but they also mention the harmful and destructive behaviors they believe occur when people do not hold their atheistic worldview. These harmful behaviors include: a lack of reason, hardened hearts, and enslaved minds. As we continue our examination of worldviews in subsequent chapters, hopefully we will better understand the underlying assumptions that shape peoples’ behavior, and be able to determine exactly who is living their lives with a lack of reason, hardened hearts, and enslaved minds. Chapter 3 – POLYTHEISM AND PANTHEISM This chapter examines the next two worldviews, polytheism and pantheism.

Polytheism is exactly what the name implies, and exactly what your 6th grade World Civ teacher taught: a belief in many different gods. The most familiar polytheistic religions, the ones we studied in 6th grade, are the ancient Greek and Roman and Scandinavian religions. They believed many different gods existed, and most of the phenomena of nature were controlled by a specific god. For example, Zeus was the god of the sky; Venus, the goddess of love; Thor, the god of thunder; Helios, the god of the sun; Bacchus, the god of wine; etc. The gods of the ancient polytheistic religions possessed supernatural powers—after all, it was thought they controlled nature—but their powers were limited and their personalities and behaviors in many ways were quite similar to human beings. The gods were often vengeful, immoral, indecisive, impulsive, lacking in wisdom, and dysfunctional in family affairs. Unlike the God of the Bible, who is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect is wisdom and goodness, the ancient polytheistic gods were basically human beings expanded to super-human proportions. Polytheism is probably the least believed and practiced worldview in modern societies nowadays. In fact, certain denominations, most notably the Unitarian churches soon after the Protestant Reformation, were formed in opposition to polytheism, mistakenly believing that the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity was polytheistic. That’s where the group’s name came from—Unitarian as distinct from Trinitarian. (Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God in three persons, which seems somewhat polytheistic on the surface. However, traditional Christianity has always asserted that there is only one God. The fact that this God exists with three distinct “persons,” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is a mystery that must be accepted as an article of faith.) One modern faith system that can be described as polytheistic is the Mormon Church. Mormons believe there is one all-supreme God, but human beings are given the opportunity to become gods if they live their lives properly here on earth. Jesus Christ, it is believed, was the first human to achieve godhood. Most Mormons hope that when their lives end here on earth, they too will become gods and be given their own galaxy in the universe to rule. In practical terms, Mormons live their daily lives as monotheists, since only one god is presently ruling over this particular world. But in the grand scheme of Mormon theology, many gods exist, each out there ruling over his or her assigned galaxy. So, to summarize, unlike atheism, which holds that the natural world is all there is, polytheism very obviously believes in a supernatural dimension to existence. The gods have abilities and knowledge far surpassing those of mere mortals, and the gods can perform supernatural miracles.

Unlike monotheistic faiths, which hold that there is only one supernatural deity in existence, polytheistic religions believe the various gods are separate and distinct from one another, each with his or her own personality. The gods of polytheism are also separate and distinct from nature, making the polytheistic worldview different from pantheism. Pantheism holds that deity—the supernatural spiritual dimension to existence—is a part of the natural world, without a specific personality. Pantheism is the worldview which underlies many well known religious faiths: Hinduism, the New Age movement, Earth-worshipping environmentalist groups, and anyone, such as actress Shirley MacLaine, who teaches that people need to “release their inner god.” Also included on this list is “the Force” from the Star Wars movies, and Disney’s animated film from the 1990s, Pocahontas, which contains the song “Colors of the Wind” with the following lyrics: You think you own whatever land you land on The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim But I know every rock and tree and creature Has a life, has a spirit, has a name Now, let me just say I think “Colors of the Wind” is a lovely song by Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. The point of quoting the lyrics is not to claim Hollywood is pantheistic, despite numerous references in the preceding paragraphs (they’re much more atheistic and secular than anything else), nor to debate the destructive behavior of European settlers four centuries ago. The point is to demonstrate the core beliefs of the pantheistic worldview: rocks and trees and all creatures have a spirit; they are all a part of the spirit world. The divine force present in the universe is not separate and distinct from the natural world; it is a part of the natural world. Pantheism is a very attractive faith because of the conclusions that must be drawn from the basic worldview. The first conclusion is: If the divine force is in everything, then what we call good and evil also are a part of God. This means there is no absolute morality, no divine proclamation that certain things are always right while other certain things are always wrong. Morality is relative; it depends on the situation. The second important conclusion is the idea that religious life and practices are subjective and based on personal experiences. The thinking is: whatever works for you is right for you. In pantheistic faiths, whatever path brings a person to peace and enlightenment is fine. In monotheistic faiths, the divine Creator reveals the true path to Heaven, regardless of how we feel about it. The third key conclusion of a pantheistic worldview is the notion that individuality is an illusion, and therefore, so is free will. If humans really do not have free will, then there is

no sin and no Hell. Possibly the strongest attraction of pantheistic religions is the denial of sin and guilt and Hell. As Professor Peter Kreeft explains in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, “If there is no sin, no salvation is needed, only enlightenment. We need not be born again, only to wake up to our innate divinity. If I am a part of God, I can never be really alienated from God by sin.” Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College, goes on to say, “Such pantheism is very popular today. Most of my Catholic college students believe we are parts of God and that God is in everyone. Thus we need not be ‘born again’ but need only recognize our intrinsic value and accept ourselves as we are. They have been educated by pop psychologists masquerading as theologians.” The final two worldviews we need to discuss are the two monotheistic worldviews: deism and theism. Deism believes that God created the world, but then left us on our own. The God of deism is neither concerned with nor involved in the affairs of humanity. He doesn’t care and He doesn’t hear prayer. Theism, on the other hand, believes God created the world, but also that He takes an active role in the affairs of humanity. The God of theism is aware, does care, and hears prayer. Chapter 4 – DEISM: THE DISTANT, INDIFFERENT GOD Deism is the belief that a supernatural God exists, and this God created the universe and the universe’s natural laws, but then left it all to run on its own. The God of deism has not directly revealed anything about Himself to mankind. The only way man can know anything about this indifferent God—and about mankind itself—is through human reason and rational scientific study. In other words, unlike the God of theistic religions who cares, shares, and answers prayers—the God of deism does not particularly care and He (or it) has not and will not engage in any communication with human beings. The God of deism is the “First Cause,” the not-very-personal mysterious force that set the universe in motion at the beginning of time, but then apparently went on a very long vacation and left no forwarding address. In contrast, theistic religions claim that God has revealed Himself directly to mankind. The God of Judaism made a covenant with Abraham, talked face-to-face with Moses, and spoke through the prophets. The God of Islam communicated to the prophet Mohammad. The God of Christianity took on human flesh and became a man to better communicate with His beloved human creatures. The God of deism has done nothing of the sort; He is silent and distant. Mankind’s understanding of God is entirely a one-way street, entirely based on our own efforts to understand Him. We are able to learn about God only by studying nature, the system of the universe He created.

St. Paul touched on this concept in the Bible. In his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote, “Ever since the creation of the world [God’s] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made” (Romans 1:20). Now, of course, Paul was not saying the only way we can know about God is by studying the created world. Paul passionately believed that God frequently took the initiative to interact directly with human beings. In fact, as Paul explained many times, he became a Christian after being knocked off his horse by Jesus Christ Himself, and then receiving personal tutoring on the details of the faith by the Lord. In this verse from the letter to the Romans, Paul was referring to those people who had yet to hear the Good News of God’s direct interaction with human beings. He was saying that even before a person was taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he still should have an idea of God’s basic nature, along with the universal moral code, because God has revealed those things through the created world. Deism was very popular in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the founding fathers of the United States—most notably Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine—were deists. In his book The Universe Next Door, author James Sire explains that there were many areas of disagreement among 17th and 18th century deists. Sire writes: “These men held a number of related views, but not all held every doctrine in common. John Locke, for example, did not reject the idea of revelation, but he did insist that human reason was to be used to judge it. Some deists, like Voltaire, were hostile to Christianity; some, like Locke, were not. Some believed in the immortality of the soul; some did not….Some believed in a personal God; others did not.” An impetus for the rise of deism was the elevation of human reason to almost divine status. This is why it was often spelled Reason, with a capital “R,” in the same way personal pronouns for God—He, Him, His—are often capitalized. Human reason was referred to as “the inner light” and “the candle of God.” Essayist Peter Medawar says, “The 17th-century doctrine of the necessity of reason was slowly giving way to a belief in the sufficiency of reason.” If human reason was sufficient to discover all truth, even truth about God, then it was no longer necessary for God to communicate with mankind. Mankind, it was believed, would eventually figure out everything that was needed to be known. Deism also rose in popularity as a reaction to the constant squabbling between organized religious groups, not to mention the frequent hypocritical and pompous behavior of clergymen. Most of those quarrels centered around divine revelation—“God told us this, and you believe in that, so we’re right and you’re wrong!” Any faith system which rejected divine revelation, putting an end to the squabbles and removing the clergy’s privileged position, was viewed as a breath of fresh air.

However, when the deists of the 17th and 18th century rejected revealed, organized religion, they didn’t just reject prevalent religious structures, doctrinal squabbles, and pompous clergymen. They rejected the whole idea of a loving and caring God. They rejected miracles. They rejected Christ. The so-called “Jefferson Bible” is evidence of this. Thomas Jefferson cut verses out of the New Testament of his Bible with a razor, eliminated all the passages that described miracles, the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and any claims to Jesus’ divinity. Jefferson’s edited version of the Gospels focused on Jesus’ philosophy and human reason, traits Jefferson greatly admired, but completely rejected any possibility that Jesus was anything more than a very wise man or that God had ever communicated with mankind. The deists of the 17th and 18th century had become naturalists. They believed only in nature. The only difference between the naturalists of two or three centuries ago and the atheists of today was that nagging question of how the universe got here in the first place. The deists had no natural answer to that question, so they acknowledged that God must have been the initial Creator—but nothing else—and everything that has happened since the time of creation was the result of natural laws. However, deism proved to be merely a transitional faith. It is no longer very popular at all today because in the mid-19th century a theory was proposed to answer the nagging question of creation. The theorist, of course, was Charles Darwin, and the theory was evolution. Or as Darwin referred to it, the origin of species through natural selection. Our purpose here is not to analyze the evidence for or against Darwinian evolution. There are many fine books which address the subject in detail. Suffice to say that Darwin himself proposed his theory as just that, a theory, with the hopes that future generations of scientists would prove it either true or false. Although there is a great deal of evidence that physical changes can take place over time within species (micro-evolution), there is little evidence that life on earth came into existence by accident without any outside guidance (macro-evolution) or that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species. Despite this lack of evidence, the acceptance of macro-evolution—the belief that “Chaos + Chance + Time = Intricate Precision”—has become the dominant philosophical view of the scientific community in the western world. So, to summarize, the deists claimed that mankind did not need God, except to explain creation. After Darwin, the secularists claimed that mankind did not need God…period. The deists were predisposed to reject God altogether; they just needed a good excuse. Darwin provided the excuse. My personal opinion is that if Jefferson and Paine had lived after the time of Darwin, rather than before, they would not have described themselves as deists. They probably would have been quite comfortable using any of the present day atheistic labels:

naturalist, materialist, agnostic, secular humanist. Deism proved to be just the transitional phase from belief in the God of the Bible to atheism. Chapter 5 – THEISM: THE GOD WHO COMMUNICATES WITH US The fifth and final distinct worldview is theism—or more specifically, monotheism. Theism differs from the other four worldviews in its understanding of the nature of God and the nature of mankind. First, let’s look at the theistic understanding of God. Theism believes in one God, who is the creator and ruler of all the universe. This single supernatural being can be described with the three O’s: Omnipotent (all-powerful), Omniscient (all-knowing), and Omnipresent (exists everywhere at once). Theism is the worldview of the three most prominent western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The God of theism, like the God of deism, is the “First Cause,” the self-existing, eternal being who created everything in the universe from nothing. But unlike the God of deism, after creating the universe, the God of theism did not step back and remain hidden. He did not put a huge gulf between Himself and mankind so the only way people could know anything about Him was by studying His created world. According to theists, God is personal. He is not merely energy, or a mysterious force, or the laws of nature. God has personality. (That’s why theists call Him “Him,” by the way, rather than “It.”) God has self-consciousness; in other words, He knows Himself and He knows that He exists. And God has self-determination; that is, He thinks and He makes decisions and He acts. These are not the traits of mathematical laws or of some impersonal force. Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawkins explains that the fundamental laws of the universe “may have originally been decreed by God…but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it.” Hawkins is using the term “God” to embody the laws of physics that govern the universe, but there is nothing personal at all about his description of God. Hawkins’ belief about God is deistic at best, and more likely atheistic, with the word “God” used simply as a way to avoid slamming the door shut on the possibility of a supernatural dimension to reality (or, in my skeptical view, as a way to avoid offending his many God-believing readers and fans). The God of theism, unlike the God of deism or Hawkins’ “laws of physics” God, is not silent. The major difference between theism and deism is the belief that God has communicated directly with mankind—and continues to do so even today. He is the God of revelation. He reveals His thoughts and His will and His purposes to mankind by direct communication. Judaism believes that God, among other things, made a covenant with Abraham, spoke directly to Moses through the burning bush, gave Moses and the Israelites the Ten

Commandments and many other rules and laws, and spoke through prophets over the course of many centuries. Christianity believes all this, too, but also that God took the ultimate step of communicating with mankind: He became a man, to walk among us and talk directly to us. Islam believes that God revealed His will by communicating with the prophet Mohammad. The followers of these three theistic faiths also believe that God hears prayer—in fact, He commands mankind to pray, as a way of keeping the lines of communication open. Prayer is one of the most prominent features of theistic religious practice. As a being with personality, albeit a supernatural being, God is able to experience various emotions: love, anger, disappointment, joy. Possessing personality, God is able to enter into relationships with other beings who also possess personality. This is, according to theistic faiths, the primary reason God created mankind in the first place: to have other beings with which He can have personal relationships. Theism is the only one of the five different worldviews that gives a clear explanation of why mankind exists. The old Catholic Baltimore Catechism summarized it this way: “Question: Why did God make you? Answer: God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” Theistic faiths believe God created mankind to have other personal beings with whom He can share His overwhelming love. In contrast, atheism says there is no reason why we are here; our existence is simply a cosmic accident. Polytheism occasionally gives various and vague explanations, but none with a clear-cut explanation of why we’re here. Pantheism focuses on the belief that humans, along with everything else in the world, is a part of the vast mysterious deity of the universe, but again, no clear explanation is given as to why. And finally, deism purports to know some aspects of God through the study of His created world, but there is no way of knowing exactly why God created the world in the first place. Theism has no such confusion or lack of information. The theistic faiths claim to know, for one simple reason, exactly why God created the world and mankind in the world: God Himself has told us why. All of the major theistic religions hold similar views about the nature of mankind. Mankind was created, it is believed, “in God’s image.” This means man possesses some of the same traits God possesses: personality; the ability (some would say the compulsion) to communicate; and the ability to enter into relationships with others, including God. Human beings have self-consciousness—we know ourselves and we know that we exist. And humans have self-determination—we think and we make decisions and we act. This self-determination is often referred to as “free will.” Theistic faiths believe God created mankind with free will, despite the obvious risks, because without it there can be no true love. If we are forced to love God, in other words, if He created man so that we

were emotionally wired to love God always, it would not be real. Only when we have the choice to freely reject God, is love genuine when we choose to embrace Him. Theistic religions believe that mankind was created with an eternal soul and spirit. They believe in life after death. They believe each and every human soul will spend eternity either in some kind of paradise with God, or in some state of permanent separation from God, often referred to as “Hell.” The eternal destination of each human soul is determined differently from religion to religion, but generally speaking it is based on entering into a proper relationship with God during natural life. In addition to revealing why mankind was created, theism teaches that God also has revealed a very clear-cut moral code by which mankind must live—at least if a person wants to spend eternity in Heaven. This explains why theists are so reluctant to accept certain new ideas about morality and ethics proposed by people of differing worldviews. Some of these ideas include the secular attempt to legalize homosexual marriage (atheistic worldview), and the claim of animal rights activists that there is no real difference in value between human beings and, say, chickens or mice or cats (pantheistic worldview). These kind of ideas are not simply new and different interpretations of morality and values. They are, to the theist, direct insults to God and willful disobedience of what He has clearly commanded. These kind of ideas lead to, according to the theist, complete separation from God and ultimately to eternal damnation. This explains why the culture war in society is truly a war rather than a polite debate. The various factions in society’s culture war are not defined, as is often claimed, by race or economics or gender or geography. The combatants in today’s culture war are defined primarily by worldview. Each of the five basic religious worldviews are distinct from the other four; and each worldview is convinced that the other four are fundamentally wrong in their understanding of reality. This is not the recipe for polite discussion and friendly debate. Chapter 6 – FIVE DIFFERENT WORLDVIEWS – ONLY ONE MAKES SENSE In our ongoing study of “religious nuts” (people who believe one thing but do another), we’ve just finished examining the five distinct worldviews. As a reminder, the word “worldview” means a person’s view of reality, his or her understanding and belief about who we are, how we got here, why we are here, where we are going, and what it all ultimately means. To summarize, the five possible worldviews are: atheism, polytheism, pantheism, deism, and theism. Atheism is the belief that the natural world is all there is—no gods, no spirits, no angels, no souls, no life after death. Everything that exists or has ever existed can be explained in

natural terms. There is no ultimate plan or purpose to the universe; it is all nothing more than matter and energy, shaped by random chance over the course of billions of years. There is no grand Designer or Planner or Shaper of the universe, because that would be a good starting description of God, and atheists by definition do not believe in God. Life here on earth came into existence, according to atheists, as the result of a series of biological accidents. Billions of years ago chemical molecules randomly swirled and combined until a particular chance arrangement yielded a living organism. Then, over the course of many more billions of years, that living organism reproduced and occasionally mutated, and eventually all the known species of plants and animals emerged—again, all by chance accident. Currently, mankind is the most highly evolved creature on earth, but still, since everything exists because of unplanned, unguided accidents, no matter how loudly atheists proclaim that human beings have value and purpose, a nagging and relentless thought is always just below the surface with atheism: it’s all meaningless. The second distinct worldview is polytheism. This is the belief in many gods, each with supernatural powers and each ruling over a particular aspect of nature. The gods of the most popular polytheistic faiths throughout history were not good and perfect, like the God of the Bible. It was believed those gods had supernatural powers, but they also possessed many of the less-than-desirable traits of humanity: pettiness, vengeance, lust, dishonestly, etc. The gods of polytheism were basically human beings expanded to superhuman proportions. Over the last four or five-hundred years, as modern science has discovered the mechanisms behind natural phenomena, the belief in polytheism has waned dramatically, especially in modern nations. Now that science can explain in natural terms the causes of such things as wind, rain, lightning, earthquakes, etc., it is difficult to continue ascribing these events to a particular god. The third distinct worldview is pantheism. Pantheism believes that deity—the supernatural spiritual dimension to existence—is a part of the natural world, without a specific personality. With pantheism, God is not separate from His creation; rather, everything in creation is a part of God. The divine essence exists within everything: rocks, trees, birds, the wind, and mankind. Pantheism is the underlying worldview of Hinduism, the New Age movement, and the fictional “force” of the Star Wars movies. In pantheism, God is not distinct and separate from the created world—“out there,” as it were, to be sought and found. Instead He is located within each person, and needs to be released. As such, pantheistic faith is very subjective. It is based much more on personal experience, discovering whatever particular path brings peace and enlightenment, rather than on statements of objective fact, as is the case with theistic religions. The fourth worldview is deism, the belief in an all-powerful creator God who set the universe in motion at the beginning of time, but who then stepped aside and refused to have any communication at all with mankind. Our only guiding light here on earth is

human reason, the vehicle by which mankind studies and understands the universe. In the deistic view, there are no divine revelations, no sacred scriptures, no answers to prayer. God created us and then left us on our own. The final worldview is theism. Theism believes in a single all-powerful creator God who not only set the universe in motion at the beginning of time, but also gets intimately involved with the affairs of mankind. The God of theism communicates with the human beings He created, periodically in spectacular ways, and daily in more subtle ways, such as in prayer. Theism is the worldview of the three major western faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This essay is not intended to be an evangelistic piece, but in case you didn’t know it, I personally hold the theistic worldview, more particularly, the Christian theistic worldview. (And even more, more particularly, the Roman Catholic Christian theistic worldview.) To me, the atheistic worldview—the view I held from my early teens to my late 20s—is really an irrational leap of faith. The more that modern science discovers about the complexity of living organisms at the biological and chemical levels, the more preposterous it is to believe that Chaos + Chance + Time = Intricate Precision. At the molecular level, a single living cell is more complex than even the most sophisticated machine or computer program created by mankind. If a computer program is the obvious result of a great deal of intelligence and design, does it really make any sense to believe that a living organism—far more intricate and complex—came into existence without any intelligence or design at all? The fact that I can look at myself in the mirror each morning, and my eyes and my brain can process the reflected image (and think, “Wow, you look awful today”), argues powerfully for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Polytheism also seems quite unlikely. We now know the various aspects of nature—wind, rain, thunder, etc.—are not ruled by individual deities. If there is a supernatural, divine dimension to reality, it makes more sense to me that a single all-powerful God is in charge, rather than an inefficient subcommittee of petty, quarreling semi-powerful gods. Pantheism doesn’t strike me as a likely worldview either because the God of pantheism has no personality. We know that human beings have personality and identity—our selfawareness. Is it possible for the lesser being to be greater than the greater being? In other words, how likely is it that mankind—the finite, lesser being—can possess something as complex as personality, while God—the infinite, greater being—does not possess personality? If we the created beings have personality, then it’s only logical to think that our creator also has personality. Using similar reasoning, I’m convinced that deism is also a false worldview. The God of deism has no interest in communicating with His creation. And yet we humans not only have personality, we have a burning desire to communicate and enter into relationships

with others. Again, we can logically conclude that our Creator possesses at least what we possess: personality and the ability to communicate and enter into relationships. If so, what are the chances God went to all the trouble of creating us, and then refused, against His nature, to communicate with us and enter into a relationship with us? It makes no sense. Theism is the only worldview that answers all the questions about our existence: how we got here, why we are here, where we are going, and what it all means. Theism also offers the most logical definition of God: a supernatural being who possesses mankind’s most distinctive traits: personality, self-awareness, and a desire to communicate. Of the three major theistic faiths, Christianity is the only one, in my view, that answers the two most nagging issues facing mankind: sin and death. We all know that people are not perfect; even the best among us are at times selfish and cruel. (And the worst among us start World Wars and build death camps.) Christianity offers true forgiveness of our sins in the form of the substitutionary atonement: Christ dying on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Christianity also offers an answer to the problem of death: the Resurrection. When Christ rose from that grave on the first Easter morning, the bonds of death finally were broken. A path to eternal life finally was forged. Christianity teaches that if people put their faith in Jesus Christ as the Way and the Truth and the Life; express contrition and seek forgiveness on a regular basis; and strive to “love God and love your neighbor as yourself” each and every day, then they will receive peace and serenity in this life and eternal life once their days on earth are over. As I mentioned earlier, the main focus here is not an evangelistic attempt to persuade anyone to become a Christian. The main focus is to describe the Christian worldview— the worldview held by a sizable majority of American citizens (assuming they’re being truthful when they answer opinion polls)—and to contrast this Christian view with the other possible worldviews. Are most Christian Americans living according to their self-professed view of reality? Or are many of them claiming to believe one worldview but living each day as if a different worldview were true? And if so, the most important question of all, why? Chapter 7 – WORLDVIEWS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE The primary reason it is “nutty” to believe in one worldview but live as if a different worldview were true, is the fact that the five worldviews previously discussed are mutually exclusive. When things are mutually exclusive, it simply means that they cannot be true simultaneously.

If I am a male of the human species, I cannot at the same time also be a female. Gender is mutually exclusive. If I am at this moment in the state of Connecticut, I cannot at this moment also be in the state of Wisconsin. Physical location is mutually exclusive. Regarding worldviews, if atheists say there is no god, while people of faith believe that God exists, they both cannot be correct simultaneously. God cannot be a myth and real at the same time. There cannot be many gods (polytheism) and only one God (deism or theism) at the same time. God cannot be a part of nature and impersonal (pantheism), and also separate from nature and personal (theism) at the same time. God cannot be silent toward humanity (deism) and actively involved in human affairs (theism) at the same time. Because of the concept of mutual exclusivity, only one of these five worldviews is correct. The other four must be wrong. Some people may want to say something like, “Well, maybe some parts of pantheism are sort of true, and some parts of theism are sort of true. It all depends on how you look at it and, of course, what works for you.” A statement such as this, no matter how well-intentioned, is illogical and intellectually lazy. By definition, worldviews make objective statements about the nature and the reality of our existence. If two statements are making mutually exclusive claims, they both cannot be true, “sort of” or otherwise. The reason people are quick nowadays to take the “sort of” and “what works for you” path of least resistance, is the fact that so many of us have forgotten the difference between subjective and objective. A subjective view is one based on personal feelings or preferences. An objective view is one based on fact and reality, regardless of anyone’s feelings. If I say, “I like broccoli,” and someone else says, “I hate broccoli,” we are making subjective statements about our tastes for a particular food. Even though we are making completely opposite statements, we are both correct. But if I say, “I am a piece of broccoli,” and someone else says, “No, you are a human being,” we are making objective statements about what type of living organism I happen to be. Since we are making completely opposite statements, we both cannot be correct. I am either a piece of broccoli or a human being (or possibly some third type of thing), but I cannot be broccoli and human at the same time. When discussed in these absurd terms, the difference between subjective and objective is clear. When it comes to worldviews and religious beliefs, however, the difference is often quite muddled. In his book, How to Stay Christian in College, Professor J. Budziszewski discusses what he calls the “myth of sincerity,” the belief that truth is whatever someone sincerely believes it is. He describes a girl named Julie who went off to college and made a point of

sharing her Christian faith with her three new roommates. At first Julie was excited because her roommates listened to her receptively and seemed open to the Gospel message. But then Julie became confused. Her roommates responded just as receptively when Sally explained that she was into the New Age and believed in “the god within all of us.” And when Amy said she believed God is a “force,” like in the Star Wars movies. And when Ruth said she was a “very spiritual” person but did not believe in any god at all. Finally, Julie was baffled when her three roommates agreed that “we’re all saying the same thing in the end.” Julie knew enough about her faith to realize that Christianity makes some very bold and distinct claims about objective reality, including: God is real and personal, Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus died on the cross but then rose from the grave three days later, and if we put our faith in Jesus we will receive eternal life. These objective claims are either false (and therefore anyone who believes them is quite misguided), or they are true (and therefore the most important, life-changing message that anyone can ever hear). Unlike her roommates, Julie understood the difference between subjective and objective. She probably also knew that discussions about religion which focus on objective claims rather than subjective feelings occasionally become heated and result in arguments. Depending on Julie’s temperament, she may have been baffled by her roommates’ views, but relieved that they all pleasantly proclaimed the “myth of sincerity” and went out afterward to get a pizza. Some Christians are convinced we should never talk about religious faith in terms of objective claims. It can result in arguments and hurt feelings. It’s better if we all just get along and pretend that the “myth of sincerity” is true. Unfortunately, if we accept the “myth of sincerity” in certain situations, it will spill over and affect every aspect of our lives. This is because worldviews are not just about if and where and how we engage in religious worship for an hour on Sunday morning. Worldviews impact everything. Charles Colson, commenting on Budziszewski’s book, asks a powerful rhetorical question that gets to the heart of the matter: “Can we really make something true just by believing it?” If I sincerely believe I am a piece of broccoli, does that make it true? Colson also gives a concrete life-or-death example of how the “myth of sincerity” is often applied on college campuses, with Julie and her roommates in mind: “If a [college student] sincerely believes her unborn child is human, friends will call the child a ‘baby’ and congratulate her. But if she doesn’t, they call it a ‘fetus’ and encourage her to have an abortion.” As a result, an innocent child lives or dies based solely on another person’s feelings. And no one seems to notice or care that this macabre situation is grossly irrational. But such is the impact when a culture forgets the difference between subjective and objective.

Christianity makes some very startling claims about objective reality—certain things happened to certain people at precise moments in history. These startling claims either happened or they did not happen. Whether or not these historical events occurred, and whether or not God is active in peoples’ lives today, has nothing to do with our sincerely held beliefs about it. It is either true or it is false, regardless of anyone’s opinion about it. The difference between subjective feelings and objective claims of fact make Christianity quite mutually exclusive. If Jesus really is God Incarnate, then He cannot also be—as some people claim—only a good and wise human teacher. If Jesus physically rose from the dead, then the miracle of the Resurrection cannot also be—as some people claim— just symbolism for the rebirth and renewal of the spring season. If Jesus really said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” then it cannot also be true—as some people claim—that all paths lead to God as long as you are sincere about it. Many, many people in America describe themselves as Christians. They believe, presumably, that the claims of Christianity are true. But they also go through life as if the claims of Christianity are subjective feelings rather than statements of objective fact. They live as if the “myth of sincerity” is true and the concept of mutual exclusivity is a myth. It may be much more comfortable and less contentious to smile and, like Julie’s roommates, sweetly proclaim, “We’re all saying the same thing in the end.” But if the Christian worldview is true, and our eternal fate is determined by whether or not we put our faith in God during this life, then the “myth of sincerity” is not only illogical and intellectually lazy, it is also the path to eternal damnation. Chapter 8 – WHY DO CHRISTIANS SO OFTEN ACT LIKE PAGANS? All of the following statistics are provided by the Barna Research Group, and are based on scientific surveys conducted during the past few years. I strongly advise that you visit the Barna website when you get a chance; it makes for some fascinating reading. (<www.barna.org>) First the good news. (All percentages are of American adults nationwide.): •

85% describe themselves as Christians, and only 12% describe themselves as atheists or agnostics.

•

83% pray during a typical week.

•

43% have attended a church service in the past seven days, not including a special event such as a wedding or a funeral.

•

59% agree that “the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.”

•

69% believe in God, when God is defined as “the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today.”

So, an overwhelming majority of American adults consider themselves Christian and pray at least on a weekly basis. Close to half attend church services each week. Almost six out of 10 American adults believe the Bible teaches the truth, an almost seven in 10 hold a worldview which can only be described as theistic. The other four mutually exclusive worldviews are not possible for this 69% of the adult population. Atheism is not correct, obviously, because these people believe God is real. Polytheism is not correct because they believe in one God who is perfect. Pantheism is not correct because God is described as personal and separate from creation rather than impersonal and a part of creation. And deism is not correct because these people believe God rules the world today. Very interesting. Almost seven out of ten American adults hold the theistic worldview. Now let’s look at some additional statistics to see if they are living their daily lives based on this worldview. Here are percentages of American adults who believe the following behaviors are “morally acceptable”: •

Gambling, 61%

•

Enjoying sexual thoughts or fantasies about someone, 59%

•

Living with someone of the opposite sex without being married (co-habitating), 60%

•

Having an abortion, 45%

•

Having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married, 42%

•

Viewing pornography, 38%

•

Using profanity, 36%

•

Getting drunk, 35%

•

Having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, 30%

•

Using illegal drugs, 17%

These statistics are very intriguing. It’s curious that 38% of American adults think it’s morally acceptable to view pornography, but only 36% think using profanity is acceptable. This means there must be 2% of the public who think it’s OK to watch Xrated movies as long as you don’t say what they’re doing onscreen. On a more serious note, when compared to the original set of statistics—especially the 69% who believe in an all-knowing, perfect God who is ruling over the world at this very moment, and the 59% who believe the Bible is totally accurate—these statistics on “morally acceptable” behavior indicate that many folks have not read their “totally accurate” Bibles in a long time. Or maybe there’s another explanation. The Barna Group conducted a comprehensive study in 2002 about the basis for moral decision-making in America. The following are the top four methods used by American adults for making moral decisions: •

Do whatever feels right or comfortable in a situation, 31%

•

Follow the values learned from parents, 15%

•

Follow the principles taught in the Bible, 13%

•

Do whatever will produce the most personally beneficial results, 10%

Soon after this study was completed, George Barna, the head of the firm that did the research, discussed these findings. He noted that substantial numbers of Christians in America believe that activities such as abortion, gay sex, sexual fantasies, cohabitation, drunkenness and viewing pornography are morally acceptable. Barna went on to say, “Without some firm and compelling basis for suggesting that such acts are inappropriate, people are left with philosophies such as ‘if it feels good, do it,’ ‘everyone else is doing it’ or ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, it’s permissible.’ In fact, the alarmingly fast decline of moral foundations…has culminated in a one-word worldview: ‘whatever.’ The result is a mentality that esteems pluralism, relativism, tolerance, and diversity without critical reflection of the implications of particular views and actions.” It appears that Barna is correct. If you combine the first and the fourth responses in the study, it means more than four out of every 10 American adults—a large portion of whom believe in God and believe the Bible is true—base their moral decisions on themselves, choosing either what feels right or what is in their personal best interest. This means many, many people who claim to hold the theistic worldview actually live their lives as either atheists or deists or pantheists. (I don’t see too much evidence for polytheism these days.) These people act as if God is either non-existent, or irrelevant, or

some kind of impersonal warm fuzzy blob God. They have assumed the right to create their own personal moral code. But it’s clear that when values and morality are based on selfish, subjective feelings, many problems quickly result. (And if it’s not clear to you, just take a moment to read the morning paper or watch the evening news. Our world is a mess precisely because of spurof-the-moment, self-centered moral decision-making.) It’s a simple fact that our feelings are not a very good guide. Being human, our hearts contain a fair measure of pride, lust, and short-sightedness. If we create our own definition of right and wrong as we go through life—based on each situation and, more importantly, based on our selfish feelings—society is sure to devolve into total chaos. The Bible describes what happens when people base morality on their own personal feelings: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12). The only one in a position to define right and wrong properly is the One who created the world and us in it. God has defined right and wrong, a clear moral code, and He has communicated it to mankind. As the prophet Isaiah said, quoting God: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret…I have not said… ‘Seek me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right” (Isaiah 45:18-19). Putting God’s moral code into action is not easy. But not putting it into action is far worse. St. Paul explained the consequences: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). I realize many people nowadays find these verses from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians very distasteful. They think Paul was being way too judgmental about sexual issues. Some folks even claim that Paul was obsessed about sexuality, especially gay sexuality, to the point of having a major hang-up about it. But really, who is more obsessed with sex: Paul or Planned Parenthood? Paul or the A.C.L.U.? Paul or Hollywood? Anyway, Paul did not list only sexual sins. He also mentioned a few other items that ought to give even the most chaste among us pause: idolatry (worshipping anything other than God), greed, getting drunk, and slander. You want to know where the whole problem began? Look in Genesis, chapter 3. The very first words ever quoted from the mouth of Satan: “Did God really say…?”

That “father of lies” planted a seed of doubt in the minds of Adam and Eve. It was enough to convince them that they could define right and wrong based on their feelings, and, as we all know, it didn’t work out so well. Although six out of 10 American adults claim (at least to pollsters) that the Bible is “totally accurate” in its teachings, it seems many people have fallen for Satan’s lie, not quite sure anymore if the “Word of God” is really the word of God or just the word of some middle eastern religious leaders thousands of years ago. A sizable portion of the population needs to stop and think for a minute. If they really believe in the theistic worldview, if they really believe in the existence of a personal God who communicates with mankind, then they ought to take His written word a bit more seriously. If they do—if they take the Bible down from the shelf, blow off the dust, and actually read it—they’ll discover that God not only created us and communicates with us, but that God also loves us. He loves us so much He gave us a clear moral code, one based on His perfect, objective wisdom rather than our selfish, subjective feelings. And most important of all, God’s moral code is not meant, as St. Paul’s critics charge, to take away all our fun. His moral code is meant to protect us from ourselves. It is meant to give us freedom and peace of mind. When people follow God’s moral code, they end up having better relationships with other people, and they end up having a better relationship with God Himself. And that’s the best feeling of all. Chapter 9 – THE FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM FROM RELIGION? Since there are five possible worldviews a person can hold, and since these worldviews are mutually exclusive, there are bound to be some serious disagreements in a pluralistic society. After all, if people have completely different beliefs about the nature of God, the origins of mankind, and the ultimate purpose for our existence here on earth, they will surely have very different views on a whole range of everyday topics. This is certainly true in the United States. Some people are atheists; a few are polytheists; many are pantheists; some are deists; and a significant majority of Americans at least claim to be theists, although their behavior is often at odds with their professed belief system. When it comes to topics such as education, law enforcement, sexuality, national defense, the family, and entertainment, various camps have formed with polar opposite opinions about what is right and what ought to be done. The so-called “culture wars” are not, as many people claim, based on economics, geography, race, or gender. The culture wars are based much more on worldviews. The root causes of the culture wars in America are spiritual in nature.

Because religious views are at the heart of many societal arguments, there has been a concerted effort over the last four decades to remove religious views from the public square. But there is one major problem here: when we insist that all religious-based worldviews must stay out of sight, we are by default allowing the one non-religious worldview (atheism) to control the public arena. The most common argument used to silence people of faith is the constitutional “separation of church and state.” The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it is argued vehemently, clearly prohibits the public expression of religious views. Regrettably, many people of faith really believe this is true. Let’s take a look at what the First Amendment actually says. The phrase covering religious freedom states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It’s a simple two-part declaration. First, the federal government shall not ordain a particular denomination as the official “Church of America” (to avoid the same problems the founding fathers saw with the government-sanctioned Church of England), and secondly, the federal government shall not interfere with anyone’s right to exercise his or her religion freely. (You may have noticed that in both instances I emphasized the word federal. The U.S. Constitution was designed to govern the actions—and limit the power—of the federal government only. When the Constitution was written, individual states were free to set down their own rules and regulations, and in fact, at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, many states recognized and subsidized official state churches. You may argue whether this was wise or not—no state does it today—but it is strong evidence that the people who founded this nation had no intentions of removing religious-inspired values and ideas from the public arena.) The oft-cited phrase, “Wall of separation between church and state,” is nowhere found in the U.S. Constitution. That expression was contained in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of nervous Baptists in Danbury, Conn., who heard rumors that the Congregational church was about to be declared the official church of the United States. Jefferson, ever the shrewd politician, tried to establish common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of a famous Baptist preacher, Roger Williams, who had used the phrase “wall of separation” in a sermon. In Williams’ sermon, the purpose of the “wall” was to protect the church from the state, not vice versa. And lest we forget, Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The primary author of that document, especially the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) was James Madison. Madison was very outspoken about his desire to serve God, and about his views on religious values in public life. He said, “Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of

Government….We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves…according to the Ten Commandments of God.” So the intent of the founding fathers is quite clear. They wanted to insure that the federal government remained neutral regarding any particular church denomination (the states could do as they wished); and they wanted to insure that all citizens could practice their faith freely without interference from the federal government. The people who founded this country and wrote the Constitution wanted freedom of religion; they clearly did not desire freedom from religion. This is so radically different when compared to the commonly held view today. After many years of chipping away at the plain intent of the First Amendment by various judges and anti-religious activists, the current view of the religion clause is: “Keep your freakin’ religious views to yourself!” OK, well maybe that’s not exactly it. The current view is more like this: “The expression of any religious view by any person in any public setting is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.” Ironically, the strict interpretation of “separation” began because of Protestant bigotry toward Catholics. Anti-Catholic bigotry was so strong in the 19th century that a constitutional amendment was proposed to empower Congress to abolish the Catholic Church as a “foreign hierarchical power…founded on principles or dogmas antagonistic to republican institutions.” At that time the popular notion of American religious liberty was redefined in terms of separation—primarily as a way to stifle the growing influence of Catholic immigrants and their parochial schools. Finally, in the 1947 case Everson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court officially adopted Jefferson’s “wall of separation” as the fundamental principle underlying the First Amendment. The majority opinion in the case was written by Justice Hugo Black, a former senator from Alabama and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. In the words of one his political admirers, Hugo Black could “make the best anti-Catholic speech you ever heard.” To their surprise, however, Protestants found themselves trapped behind Jefferson’s wall, too. The Court was now receptive to the various demands of atheists, social progressives, and secularists for total separation. In the 1961 case, Engel vs. Vitale, The Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. In the 1968 case, Epperson vs. Arkansas, the Court ruled that the concept of “separation” forbids the government from favoring “religion” over “non-religion.” The founding fathers’ desire of freedom of religion had now effectively become a freedom from religion. And we can see that very clearly in these recent examples:

•

In 2003, two seniors at Windsor High School in Windsor, VA, volunteered to sing the song, “The Prayer,” at the school’s graduation ceremony. After reviewing the lyrics of the song made popular by Celine Dion, school officials refused to let the students sing because of the song’s “religious references.”

•

In 2000, Nancy Zins paid an extra fee to the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles to purchase specialty license plates for herself and her husband, which would read: “ROMANS5” and “ROMANS8,” referencing two of the Zins’ favorite chapters in the Bible. State DMV officials refused to issue the plates because the religious reference might be offensive to some people.

•

A high school in Oswego County, NY, had a fundraising program where people could purchase a brick, have it inscribed with a personal message, and then have it installed in a walkway to the entrance of the school. When school officials discovered some of the personal messages contained Christian expressions—for example, “Jesus Saves”—they ordered that the offending bricks be removed with a jack-hammer. The school stated that any bricks bearing the name “Jesus” were considered to be promoting a particular religion.

•

In a similar case, a parents group at Potomac Falls High School in Potomac, VA, raised money for field trips by selling engraved bricks for the school’s “Walkway of Fame.” When the parents of one student complained, school officials removed every brick that bore the Christian cross symbol, replacing them with blank bricks.

•

The Indian River School District Board of Education in Wilmington, DE, customarily opens its monthly business meetings with a brief, non-denominational prayer. In 2004 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent the Board a letter threatening to sue if this practice is not immediately discontinued.

•

Just before Easter in the spring of 2003, a kindergarten student in Kettering, OH, requested permission from her teacher to distribute to her classmates bags of jelly beans with a religious poem attached titled “The Jelly Bean Prayer.” The teacher denied the request and told the girl’s parents that it was against school policy to allow students to distribute religious literature (apparently even if the recipients of the literature can’t read yet).

•

After handing out religious tracts in a public park in Lebanon, IN, for 19 years without incident, the Rev. Grant Hodges was ordered by Parks and Recreation officials to cease distributing literature in the park. After Hodges sued the city for violating his First Amendment rights, the city proposed a new policy whereby citizens could apply for a permit to distribute literature in the park. However, this permit would be valid for only one day and would restrict distribution to one small area of the park.

Unfortunately, this is just a small list of the numerous examples of usually well-meaning government officials or employees who truly believe the expression of any religious view by any person in any public setting is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. It is as if students singing a song, handing out jelly beans, or putting a personal message on a brick; or a minister handing out literature; or a husband and wife putting the name of a biblical book on their license plates is now the exact same thing as (remember what the First Amendment actually says) the U.S. Congress passing a law to establish an official Church of the United States. The last time I checked, kindergarten students were not members of Congress (although the real members of Congress often act as if they’re in kindergarten). It is remarkable to see how a small group of persistent atheists and secularists have manipulated the courts over the years into turning the original intent of the First Amendment religious clause completely upside-down. And as I mentioned earlier, when the four religious-based worldviews are outlawed, the one non-religious worldview, atheism, is granted a de facto monopoly in the public arena of ideas. Nowhere is this more obvious than public school curricula. Thankfully there are groups such as the Rutherford Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice which are willing to fight in court—usually without charge and usually with success—the many cases of religious discrimination occurring nowadays. But while activist groups on both sides of the issue battle in court, a more important battle needs to be waged at the grassroots level. Those of us who are Christian theists, who believe faith in God is the most important thing in the world and that the Savior has called us to share the Gospel message with others, must become better educated about the First Amendment. And we must be willing to take a stand (in Christian love, of course). Whenever we are told that expressing a religious view in a public setting is against the law, we must politely reply, “I’m sorry, but the Constitution clearly gives me the right to exercise my religion freely. It does not, however, give you the right never to be offended. Please get over it.” If more people of faith develop backbones and refuse to accept the current twisted view of “separation of church and state,” then maybe the public square will once again be a lively place where all ideas and opinions can be discussed and debated and defended. And maybe those “religious nuts” who believe one thing but do another, will finally start acting in sync with their worldview. Chapter 10 – THE ‘BIG 3’ ATTACK CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW In our ongoing study of the “religious nuts” in society, we need to examine how people get most of their information nowadays. Obviously people get a great deal of information from sources at the local and personal levels: families, neighbors, co-workers, and local

churches. As the old saying goes, “Parents are a child’s first teachers.” But in our mass media culture, there are some major institutions that disseminate information to the entire nation. Boston College professor Peter Kreeft, in his provocative book, Ecumenical Jihad, calls these major institutions “the teaching establishments in our society.” He identifies the three largest and most influential of these teaching establishments as journalism, entertainment, and public education. Journalism includes newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news outlets. Entertainment includes TV, movies, popular music, and video games. And public education includes the local public school systems plus most colleges and universities. (Since most private colleges now feed at the government trough of funding, grants, and student loans, they should be considered a part of the public education teaching establishment because their educational philosophies in most cases have become indistinguishable from those of true public universities.) These lists are not all-inclusive, but they represent the primary vehicles by which the big three teaching establishments deliver information to the general public. The key point to understand here is that although a majority of the general public holds the Christian theistic worldview, most of the people who control the big three teaching establishments very clearly do not. Ask Kreeft explains, “Parents today feel increasingly trapped and helpless. Control over their children’s lives and happiness seems to have passed into the hands of an educational elite whose philosophy of life is radically different from that of the parents and is often a moral vacuum….There is a wide divergence between the beliefs and values of ordinary people and those of the intellectual elite.” The people who run the big three teaching establishments are overwhelming secular and liberal. Generally speaking, they adhere to the current “politically correct” philosophy of moral relativism; sexual self-centeredness (which means strongly favoring promiscuous behavior, unlimited abortion, homosexual marriage, pornography, and graphic sex-ed classes beginning in elementary school); a distain for capitalism; and a condescending attitude toward religious faith and patriotism. Their worldview is either atheism or a watered-down version of deism, which when put into practice is essentially the same thing. Kreeft describes the problem when a relatively small number of decision-makers in the big three teaching establishments impose their minority worldview on the majority of society: “What is being ignored in our education and degraded in our entertainment are the moral values that every civilized society in history has believed in: things like selfdiscipline, character, loyalty, family, civility, courtesy…and the very idea of objective truth and objective values.”

In case you’re not quite convinced that the folks in charge of the media and education are much more secular and liberal than the rest of the population, and hold a completely different worldview, let me cite a few statistics. First, let’s look at journalism: Stanley Rothman and Amy Black conducted a survey of American journalists in 2001. They found that back in the 1988 presidential election, when only 46% of the general public voted for Michael Dukakis, over 76% of journalists voted for the Massachusetts liberal. And in 1992, when only 43% of the public voted for Bill Clinton (who won in a three-way race), over 91% of journalists voted for Mr. Clinton. A 1996 survey of over 1,000 journalists in the U.S. found that only 15% identify themselves as conservative/Republican; 24% identify themselves as independent/other; and 61% identify themselves as liberal/Democrat. (Since many journalist vehemently proclaim they are objective and independent—despite the obvious liberal bias in their work—it’s safe to say a sizeable chunk of the 24% who describe themselves as independent are really quite left-of-center in their views.) In a 1985 poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times, only 25% of journalists favored prayer in public schools, compared to 74% of the general public. A full 82% of journalists believed that abortion should be legal, while only 51% of the public agreed. Next, let’s take a look at the entertainment industry: OK now, really, do I even have to say anything here? A blind man could see that Hollywood, television, and the music industry are awash in secular sewage. The only thing rarer in Hollywood than a conservative, God-fearing show biz person is an actress with her original set of breasts. The place doesn’t have the nickname “Holly-weird” for nothing. The entertainment business can be counted on to present a consistent view of the world, whether through the films showing at the local Cineplex, the programming on network and cable TV, or the music blaring through the headphones of a teenager’s MP3 player. The messages contained in this consistent view include: to be cool you must have sex early and often (and don’t worry, there won’t be any negative consequences); you must always defy parents and other authority figures (after all, they’re uptight, judgmental morons); monogamy is silly; marriage is old-fashioned (unless you’re gay, then it’s a civil right); “family” can be defined any way you want; the earth is about to die because of evil capitalists; all values are relative since there’s no absolute right and wrong; and most of all, religious faith is nothing but ancient superstition, an odd behavior practiced only by weak-minded, ignorant people. Actually, religious faith is rarely mentioned in the entertainment media. In most movies and TV shows, it simply does not exist. Things such as saying prayers, going to church on a regular basis, making decisions based on biblical values, or reading Scripture— activities considered “very important” to a large percentage of the American population— are not a part of the on-screen characters’ lives.

On those few occasions when religious faith is mentioned at all, it’s almost always portrayed in a negative light—the fundamentalist wacko trying to impose his intolerant views on others, the child-molesting priest, or the greedy swindler preacher. The views and values of the entertainment industry could not be more out-of-touch with the mainstream public. The political view is radically left-wing, and the social view is radically hedonistic and narcissistic. As far as morality goes, the only thing immoral in Hollywood is when someone has any morals at all. Finally, let’s look at public education. When people think about the school systems, many say, “Well, I like my kids’ teachers. They’re hard-working, decent people.” I’m sure they are for the most part, at least at the local level. But what about at the national level, at the bureaucratic level where the overall educational policies are set, the curriculum shaped, and the text books written? The National Education Association (NEA) is the nation’s largest teacher’s union. Each summer the NEA holds its annual convention. At the 2003 convention in New Orleans, the NEA passed resolutions on abortion rights, gun control, homosexuality, terrorism, affirmative action, multi-culturalism, national health care, and international relations and immigration. The group’s official platform also states that “efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged.” Now you may ask yourself, “What does a teacher’s union have to do with abortion, gun control, homosexuality and all those other political issues? Good question. However, the NEA is not just a teacher’s union; it is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, political lobbying group in the nation. During the 1998 election cycle, the NEA ranked as the third-largest contributor to political candidates in the entire nation. (The Teamsters were 11th, the AFL-CIO was 13th, and the National Rifle Association was 22nd.) And here’s an interesting little fact: of all of the NEA’s financial contributions, 95% went to Democrats and only 5% went to Republicans. Furthermore, with all the resolutions passed and all the issues addressed at the NEA conventions, in every case the group favored the secular, liberal point of view rather than the traditional, conservative view. So yes, the teachers at the local level are probably good, decent folks, and you might even see them in church each week. But the folks at the top who set the educational agenda are as leftist and secular as the decision-makers in journalism and the entertainment media. And there may not be a more godless and left-wing place on earth than on a typical America college campus. When children leave the public school system and head off to college, the animosity toward traditional religious faith and the secular indoctrination get ratcheted up to unprecedented heights.

Many people naïvely think the ideas and values being promoted by the big three teaching establishments—journalism, entertainment, and public education—are being effectively countered by the values being taught in the home and at church. But think about your own kids for a minute. In a typical week, do they spend more time reading Celebrity Scandals! magazine or reading the Bible? Do they spend more time absorbing the messages of television or the messages of a sermon in church? Do they spend more time listening to educational professionals or their parents? Our culture is being bombarded relentlessly by a worldview which is in direct opposition to the theistic Christian worldview. Many professing Christians have absorbed the values of this secular worldview to such an extent they have become “religious nuts.” They claim to believe one worldview correctly defines reality, but they live their daily lives as if a completely different worldview is true. It’s a sad situation, and I often wonder: just how long is God going to continue to put up with such nonsense? Chapter 11 – STUCK IN THE ‘SUNDAY MORNING GHETTO’ As a result of the influence of the three teaching establishments—journalism, entertainment, and public education—countless Christians in America who hold the theistic worldview are living their lives as “religious nuts.” They claim to believe one worldview (theism, specifically Christian theism) but live their daily lives as if a completely different worldview were true (usually atheism or deism). Additional proof of the prevalence of religiously nutty behavior is the emergence of the “Sunday morning ghetto.” Faith, worship, and Judeo-Christian values are very important to millions of people in this country—but only on Sunday mornings. Once these folks get home from church, they put their Bibles and their values on the shelf, and live the next six and a half days as if God did not exist. I suppose the best example of this in recent years is the scandal that almost toppled a president. On Sunday morning—Easter Sunday, no less—Mr. Clinton walked out of church clutching his Bible and waving to the crowd. But later that afternoon he committed adultery in the Oval Office with an intern, the event which began the long, sordid impeachment saga. The reason many people (and some presidents) behave this way, is because of a concept call “compartmentalization.” This is the ability to put ideas and activities into separate compartments. I like to think of it in terms of a checkerboard. Imagine that your life is like a huge checkerboard. Each square represents a difference facet of your life. There’s your work square, your family square, your kids square, and your house square. There are separate squares for your hobbies, vacations, friends, books, politics, sports teams, TV watching, Internet surfing, etc.

Each item, each activity, has its own separate square on the checkerboard of your life. And down in the lower corner of the checkerboard is a square called “faith” or “religion.” Whenever you are on a particular square—that is, inside a particular compartment—you focus only on that particular activity. When you’re dealing with your kids, you are on your “parent” square and you assume your parenting role and duties. When you are at the office or shop, you are on your “work” square and you assume the role of employee or employer. And when it’s Sunday morning and you are at church, you are on your faith or religion square, and for that hour or so you focus on faith and religious ideas. But as soon as you leave church, you move from your religion square to a different square and you leave behind all the ideas, values, and underlying beliefs of religious faith. Personally, I’m an expert at compartmentalization. I struggle constantly with this issue. I can go to Mass on Sunday morning and sincerely pray, “Yes, Jesus, I love you and I want to serve you and do your will.” But then on Monday morning I can go to work and behave just as rudely and crudely and deceptively as anyone else in the business world. Since I’m not on my faith square on Mondays, faith is not a factor. For many years it never occurred to me that I was being hypocritical. Since I was not on my faith square during the work week, the various aspects and values of faith just didn’t apply. (Now at least I realize I’m being hypocritical, but it’s still a struggle.) It’s important that we understand that faith is not simply a single square on the checkerboard of our lives. Faith—and the Christian worldview on which our faith it built —is the entire checkerboard itself. A relationship with God must be the foundation that supports all the other squares of our lives. So it’s not just work, family, kids, home. Instead it should be faith-work, faith-family, faith-kids, faith-home. If the Christian theistic worldview is true, then it is true every day of the week, not just on Sundays. Referring to Jesus, the beginning of John’s gospel says, “Through him all things were made.” It says all things, not just Sunday morning religious things. In Acts 10:36, the Bible describes Jesus as “Lord of all.” He is the Lord of all of creation, not just the Lord of personal, internal, subjective feelings one day per week. This is a monumental proclamation, the idea that Jesus is the Lord of everything. Many people do indeed understand and accept that Jesus is the Lord of all—but they understand and accept it only when they’re in the Sunday morning ghetto. Once they leave church and move on to a different checkerboard square, they quickly lose sight of this monumental fact.

There is a simple explanation for why many people leave their Judeo-Christian beliefs and values neatly tucked away inside the Sunday morning ghetto: they truly believe that expressing religious views outside of church is against the law. For almost half a century now the secular elites in America have been pounding a steady drumbeat of “separation of church and state.” Using the big three teaching establishments to spread the “separation” message to every nook and cranny of our culture has convinced countless people that the expression of religious faith in public is forbidden. There’s no doubt in my mind that the secular elites would love to see religion officially outlawed. But they don’t have to take such drastic measures because their distorted “separation” message has been so effective. (See the discussion a couple of chapters ago about how this Jeffersonian throwaway line in a personal letter has now superceded the actual words of the Constitution). And for those who correctly understand that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not even in the Constitution and nothing in the First Amendment prohibits individuals from expressing religious views or bringing religious values into the public square, the secular elites have effectively employed a different strategy: the “it’s offensive” tactic. The prevailing attitude in the public arena of ideas today is “non-judgmental multiculturalism.” This means every single point of view is welcome—as long as it is a sincerely held point of view—and every single point of view is just as valid and true as any other. (Actually, there is one point of view which is not welcome: the point of view that says some points of view are better than others.) Religious beliefs—especially Christian beliefs—make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of God and the events in Jesus’ life. If the Christian claims are true, then by definition, certain other religious (or unreligious) beliefs are not true. Therefore Christianity violates the prevailing attitude of “non-judgmental multi-culturalism” because it very clearly makes judgments. (And by the way, have you ever noticed that the “it’s offensive” tactic only applies when Christians are expressing their views? What about when artists desecrate a painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung? What about anything that MTV broadcasts these days? If someone gets offended by that junk, well, it’s too darn bad. Artistic expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment, don’t you know?) It’s a good idea at this point to remember the words Jesus said to all of His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19). Jesus was simply saying that we cannot serve two masters. Either we will follow Him and be sneered at by the secular elites of this world, or we will embrace the values of the secular elites and end up denying the Lord. It’s our choice.

Fortunately, we do not live in a country where expressing Christian views can get us imprisoned or killed. The same cannot be said for places such as China, the Sudan, many Islamic nations, and the upper west side of Manhattan. We have the constitutional right in this country to express our faith and bring our religiously-inspired values into the public square—seven days a week. Many people do not realize we have the right to exercise our religion freely—in public. But not only is standing up for our faith perfectly legal, it is exactly what our Lord calls us to do. And if doing so causes the secular elites to become a bit hysterical, well, that’s bad because…?? Chapter 12 – THY WILL OR MY WILL BE DONE? In our ongoing study of “religious nuts,” a very important issue is authority. In other words, Who is in charge? Who sets the rules? Who decides what is right? Who determines how we should live? Who decides what must be done in order for us to get to Heaven? An important line in the Lord’s Prayer (also known as the Our Father) is, “…Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” With this statement, the person saying the prayer is asking that God’s perfect plans and desires—the same perfect plans and desires that are a reality in the heavenly realm—come to fruition here on earth. This line from the Lord’s Prayer is an acknowledgement that God is in charge, and a request for help in living according to God’s rules. The theistic worldview is different from the other four possible worldviews in that it claims God not only is real, not only is our Creator, but also that God is intimately involved in the affairs of mankind. So for those people who hold the theistic worldview, this line from the Lord’s Prayer makes sense. It is a request for God to help the pray-er conform to His will, and it is based on the trust and confidence that He is capable and willing to give that help. Although the Lord’s Prayer is recited zillions of time each day in America by people who claim to hold the Christian theistic worldview, based on the way many of these people think and act, it seems as if the important line in the prayer is really, “…My will be done.” Our culture has become so steeped in moral relativism, with each person assuming the authority to define right and wrong for him or herself, that it has spilled over to religious faith. Critical concepts—such as the definition of right and wrong, the proper way to live our lives, and the true path to eternal life in Heaven—are no longer communicated to us by our divine Creator; these concepts now are based on whatever a person “feels” about the issue.

A stark example of this is cited in Professor Peter Kreeft’s book, Fundamentals of the Faith. Each year Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College, asks his freshmen students a simple question: How do you get to Heaven? Now keep in mind that most of these students are the cream of the crop; they’re from the best Catholic families from across the county. These kids are smart, successful, well-educated, and have received at least ten or twelve years of C.C.D. and religious education training. Kreeft writes, “Well over three-quarters of all the ‘educated’ Catholic college students I have taught do not know, after twelve years of catechism classes, how to get to heaven! Their answer to that question is usually something like ‘be sincere’ or ‘try your best’ or ‘don’t hurt people’ or ‘work for peace’ or ‘have a nice day’ or some such trumpet blast. They rarely even mention Jesus when asked that question. Why should they? Warm fuzzies are not stronger than death.” Kreeft explains that despite all the catechism training, most of his students have never been introduced to Jesus, the Word made flesh; Jesus, the One through whom everything was made; Jesus, the Way and the Truth and the Life and the only path to Heaven (according to His own words). Instead, they have been introduced to Jesus, the kind and friendly 1st century version of Mr. Rogers; the warm and fuzzy nice guy who can give you a hug but cannot conquer death. These kids have been taught over the years, either explicitly or implicitly, that the way to get to Heaven is to do whatever feels right for you. They have been allowed to develop their own personal theology based on whatever they see fit. The very last verse in the book of Judges in the Old Testament reads: “Everyone did as he saw fit” (Judges 21:25). This concluding line to the book was not written as a good thing. It was not written to commend the people for their progressive, enlightened moral relativism. It was written, rather, as a lament. It was written as a condemnation. If everyone does as they see fit, then they are not doing as God sees fit. Now I can understand if someone says, “Hey, why should I mindlessly obey what some old guys at the Vatican tell me to do?” Or, “Why should I follow a bunch of weird rules in an ancient book written two or three thousand years ago?” OK, if a person truly does not believe that the Church was founded by Christ nor that it is currently being guided by the Holy Spirit, or if a person truly does not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then that person has a pretty good argument. It’s probably not a good thing to follow a particular authority blindly if you do not believe that authority is legitimate. (History is rife with examples of people or nations who followed an illegitimate authority blindly, and it eventually led to disaster.) But if you don’t believe that God’s Holy Spirit guides the Church today, or if you don’t believe that the Bible is truly God’s inspired Word, then what do you believe? Do you believe that God really does NOT exist? Then you are an atheist.

Do you believe God exists, but that He remains distant and has no desire to communicate His will to us? Then you are a deist. Do you believe God is not a personal being, but instead is some kind of mysterious spiritual force that can inspire us to come up with our own definition of what is right and good? Then you are a pantheist. But, if you believe that God is real and that He is our Creator, and if you believe that God has clearly communicated His will to mankind through His inspired Word, the Bible, and through the Holy Spirit, then you are a theist. (And since the New Testament section of the Bible clearly teaches the divinity of Jesus, more specifically you are a Christian theist.) As we discussed a few chapters ago, if this is what you believe, you are not alone in this country. Almost 70-percent of Americans believe in God, when God is defined as “the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today.” In addition, six out of 10 Americans agree that “the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.” So, if that is the case, then why do so many people in this clear majority of the population ignore what the Bible teaches, and act as if we have been given the authority to make our own rules? In my Bible, the words of Jesus are in red, and there is a lot of red ink contained in the four Gospels. Jesus said many things about many different topics, topics which are still very pertinent in our modern society. For example… Pride and vanity: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5). “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14). “Why do you worry about clothes?” (Matt 6:28). Greed: “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). Lust: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28). Anger and revenge: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). And Jesus also said a few things about how to get to Heaven: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father” (Matt 7:21). “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live,

even though he dies” (John 11:25). “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). On these various topics, Jesus’ views are quite clear and firm. He did not offer vague and wishy-washy opinions. And He did not in any way say, implied or otherwise, that we have been given the authority to make up our own rules. Nowhere in Scripture does it say, “Be sincere and you will be saved,” or, “Do whatever feels right and you will be saved.” The Bible does say—clearly—what must be done to be saved. Again, I’d like to quote Peter Kreeft from Fundamentals of the Faith, discussing the most important question we will ever face: What must I do to be saved? Kreeft writes, “I am horrified to report that I’ve asked this question of hundreds of Catholic college students, and far fewer than half have known the answer. This means that the Church’s religious education has been not a failure but an inexcusable disaster. Most reply either ‘God is good to everybody’ or ‘I’m basically a good person.’” Kreeft then continues, “If anyone out there is unsure of the correct answer, then for the love of God get out your Bible and study for your finals! To save you time—since you may die while reaching for your Bible—I will quote God’s scandalously simple answer to the most important question in the world, how to get to Heaven: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ (Acts 16:31).” The true path to eternal life in Heaven is simple and easy and available to every person on earth. The true path to Heaven, however, is not whatever we feel like it is. Only God has the authority to make that decision. Which is why “Thy will be done” is an awesome prayer, while “My will be done” is the height of religious-nut folly. Chapter 13 – WHAT HAPPENS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ETERNITY? A wise person once said, “No matter how many years you live, you’re gonna be dead a whole lot longer.” Hmm…I guess that makes sense. I mean, do the math. If someone lives to be 80 or 90 or 100, that’s a pretty long time. And if a person lives to be, say, 118, that person might even set some kind of longevity record within his or her family or in the local community. But still, even after 100 or more years here on earth, once a person dies, that’s it. The clock starts ticking and the years start piling up on the “afterlife” side of the ledger. Any way you slice it, “infinity” is a slightly larger number than 50 or 80 or even 118. The Christian theistic worldview offers three very clear teachings about the end of natural life. First, death is not the end of a person’s existence. Death is rather a transition to a different phase of existence, an eternal existence in the spiritual realm.

Second, a person’s ultimate destination for all eternity will be in either one of two situations: eternal joy in the presence of God (known as Heaven), or eternal sorrow separated from God (known as Hell). Third, we only get once chance at it. Reincarnation is not an option. The letter to the Hebrews in the Bible says, “Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb 9:27). So, there are a couple of very obvious facts about our natural life here on earth: it is a very brief period of time, relatively speaking; and our eternal destination is determined by what happens during our natural life. I wonder what happens when we die? The Bible gives some clues, but not nearly enough, if you ask me. There’s a lot of stuff about judgment. We’ll be punished for all the sinful things we’ve done, and/or rewarded for all the good things we’ve done. In other words, it’s a judgment based on the goodness or badness of our earthly actions. (To be honest, this does not give me any comfort.) But on the other hand, there is a lot of stuff in the Bible about forgiveness. If we put our faith in the Lord, repent, and ask for forgiveness, He will wash away our sins. In other words, we won’t receive the punishment we deserve. Instead we will be declared innocent and acquitted of all charges—IF we have sincere faith during our earthly life. Personally, just to cover all the bases, I like the advice I heard a radio preacher offer years ago: “Love God as if your salvation is based entirely on faith, and at the same time love your neighbor as if your salvation is based entirely on good works.” (The one thing the Bible is quite clear about, by the way, is the fact that God is not the warm fuzzy “Whatever God.” He will not let every single person into Heaven regardless of their behavior or belief. That would be rewarding evil the same as good, making a mockery of God’s keen sense of justice. Nope, the only way to Heaven is either to be sinless and perfect [not all that easy, I’ve come to discover], or to accept Jesus’ sacrifice by faith as payment for your sins.) But still, I wonder what happens when a person dies? And especially, what happens when a “religious nut” dies, someone who claimed to believe in the Christian theistic worldview but lived as if a different worldview were true? The Bible tells us that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. So I hope and pray the typical religious nut—someone who has a tiny bit of faith, deep down inside somewhere—will be granted admission into Heaven. (Remember our definitions from previous chapters: a religious nut claims that God is real but doesn’t act as if it’s true, while the confirmed atheist is certain that God does not exist. I suspect it won’t be very pleasant for the confirmed atheist moments after death.)

Assuming that a tiny bit of faith is enough to get the typical religious nut into Heaven, I wonder if God will spend time with that person reviewing what might have been. Maybe God will show a special personalized movie, a take-off of a Jimmy Stewart film, titled, “It Coulda Been a Wonderful Life.” The religious nut will see all the coulda, woulda, and shouldas of his life. Just as George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) got to see what the world would’ve been like had he never been born, the religious nut will see what the world could’ve been like if he had taken his faith seriously. There’s the religious nut’s son on the screen—once again a young child—sitting in the backseat of the car as mom drives to church, wondering why his dad gets to stay home. The young lad concludes that despite what mom says, church can’t be all that important. Then the movie flashes forward, and the religious nut sees his son as a college student at a raucous party. He sees his son taking a hit of the drug Ecstasy and washing it down with a shot of vodka, and then driving off into the night with his friends. He sees the moment of impact, as the car swerves off the road into a tree, the accident that paralyzed his son from the waist down. The religious nut winces as he remembers the phone call from the state police that changed his family’s life forever. Next, the religious nut sees what might have been if his son had not concluded that church and faith were a waste of time. His son is not at a raucous booze and drugs party. He does not get behind the wheel of a car that night. The religious nut sees his son as a successful professional. He sees the grandchildren he never had. He sees himself in middle-age, still married to his loving wife, rather than what actually happened, the nasty divorce after his stupid fling with a cute co-worker. He winces again. As the film continues, the religious nut sees scene after scene of his life, all the heartache and hurt feelings and arguments caused by his selfish, me-first attitude. Then he sees scene after scene of joy and peace and special friendships, the things that might have been if he only had let the Spirit of God enter his heart and guide his life. The film finally ends and the religious nut sits in stunned silence. God puts His arm around his shoulder and says softly, “I had such wonderful plans for your life. There were so many people who needed your help, but instead you either hurt them or just ignored them.” The religious nut looks God in the eye and pleads, “Can I go back and do it over? I swear I’ll do the right thing this time.” God shakes His head and says, “No, it doesn’t work that way. You only get one chance at life.” After a long, awkward pause, God says, “I’m very glad you at least had a tiny bit of faith in me and are now in Heaven. But I’m very sad about the other people who are not here,

the ones who would have been here if you had lived your faith and shown them the light.” Well, who knows? Maybe Heaven is not like that at all. As I said earlier, the Bible gives some clues, but many aspects of Heaven are still a mystery. The book of Revelation says, “[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more…mourning or crying or pain” (Rev 21:4). I suppose coulda, woulda, and shoulda Jimmy Stewart-type movies are too painful to be allowed in Heaven. (Hey, I just had a thought: what if the “It Coulda Been a Wonderful Life” movie is what we are forced to watch in Purgatory? Hmm…) To use another film reference, the theme of the award-winning Russell Crowe movie “Gladiator” is: “What we do in life echoes in eternity.” It’s a catchy line from a fictionalized account of a Roman warrior. But it is a very, very, very appropriate truth about our life with God. What we do in this relatively brief life here on earth has a huge impact in eternity—not only our eternal destination but also the eternal destination of our loved ones and friends. Maybe it’s time for the religious nuts among us to begin living as if the Christian theistic worldview is true. Chapter 14 – THE KEYS TO HAPPINESS A question we have yet to ask is, “Why?” So far we have been talking about people who truly believe God is real and He has communicated His will for us. And yet these people live their lives as if either God does not exist or that it’s perfectly OK to ignore Him. So the question is “Why?” Why do these religious nuts act this way? Well, I suppose we can go with the short answer: because they think it will bring happiness. Let’s face it, virtually every single thing done by human beings is done in the hopes of bringing happiness, either now or later—but mostly now—and either for ourselves or for someone else; but mostly for ourselves. Now I certainly don’t want to turn this into a deep, complex psycho-analytical study of human motivations and behaviors. For one thing, I’m not an expert in psychology. For another thing, I think the field of psychology is often nothing more than a scam designed to provide high-priced therapists with an endless supply of patients they have no intentions of ever curing.

But to look at this issue in a basic way, we can safely say that most of the things people do are done to bring happiness. Happiness is the goal. Happiness is the desire of every human heart. (What have millions of parents over the years said during arguments with their children when those children do something such as bring home a less than desirable fiancé or announce they’ve decided not to attend a regular college and instead will enroll in Rodeo Clown College? The parents say, “I’m not mad at you. I just want you to be happy!”) So religious nuts do what they do—ignore the God they believe exists and instead live their lives in a very secular fashion—because deep down they think it will bring them happiness. This is why, as I mentioned in a previous chapter, many people honor golf more than God, the Sunday funnies more than Sunday faith, and Miller High Life more than the Bread of Life. Another important question to ask is, “Does ignoring God actually bring happiness?” Generally speaking, I think it’s safe to say that even if most or the things people do are done in the hopes of bringing happiness, quite often the exact opposite occurs—the end result turns out to be misery and grief and sickness. Just think of some behaviors done in an attempt to bring happiness: drug use, adultery, theft, fraud, and Rodeo Clown College. The fleeting pleasures and benefits these activities bring are quickly offset by serious and devastating negative consequences. (Go to any bookstore and you’ll find hundreds of titles devoted to describing and explaining the self-destructive and dysfunctional behaviors people engage in on a regular basis.) More specifically, the same sort of situation exists for religious nuts. Many people choose to ignore God and His commands, and instead seek other activities which they think will bring greater happiness and pleasure. They are convinced that spending time doing church activities and “being religious” will surely take away all their fun. Even though they believe God exists, they just can’t bring themselves to put that belief into practice. Something these religious nuts don’t notice, however, is the fact that people who live very secular lives are usually a lot less happy than people with strong religious faith. Sure, there may be more moments of short-term pleasures—the booze, the drugs, the gambling, the promiscuity—but over the long haul, this lifestyle leads to heartache and sadness. The reason it is so difficult for secular people to have true peace and joy and happiness is the fact that true peace and joy and happiness come from God. As St. Augustine prayed, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” In other words, every one of us was created with a God-shaped hole in our heart, and until we fill that hole with God Himself we will never be complete; we will never be at peace.

When Jesus offered peace to His followers, He said, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid” (John 14:27). A couple of important observations: First, Jesus calls the peace He offers “my peace.” It is a supernatural, divine peace. Second, He explains that His peace is “not as the world gives.” The things people strive for in this world—the booze and gambling and power and prestige, etc.—can never give true peace. They can give fleeting pleasures, yes, but never long-term, divine peace. Only God can give that. So, how do we obtain this divine peace and happiness? Well, there are two major steps we can take to receive the peace and happiness Jesus wants to give to us. The first step is to realize that God is in charge and we’re not. Whew! What a relief. It’s hard work being responsible for the entire universe. Far too many of us have assumed this daunting duty and act as if we are personally responsible for everything. We worry and fret, we plan and scheme, we criticize and cajole, and we can’t sleep at night because we’re thinking about 8 million different things. We bark out orders and we manipulate others, and then we get angry and frustrated when these other people don’t appreciate all the hard work we do meddling into their lives. And the whole time we make ourselves miserable shouldering all of these responsibilities and worrying so much—not to mention the fact that we make most of the people around us pretty miserable, too. Now of course, we are responsible for certain things. We’re responsible for getting out of bed on time each morning to get to work. We’re responsible for making sure our kids are not exposed to the cultural junk that can poison their minds. But we’re not responsible for everything. Many of us worry about and take responsibility for such massive things as violence in the Middle East, hurricanes in Florida, cancer, car crashes, and rising gasoline prices. We feel responsible for major issues of life and death on a global scale, and it is simply wearing us out and making us miserable. We really need to let God be God. We need to understand that unlike us, God is big enough and strong enough to handle the entire universe. We need to, as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, “Let go and let God.” Another great thing I learned in A.A. is the “Serenity Prayer,” which says: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Many of us don’t know the difference. We worry and try to change things over which we are powerless. If we can just remember that God is in charge and we are not, it will do wonders for our peace of mind.

The second step to we need to do to receive the peace and happiness Jesus wants to give us is a bit trickier. We need to stop focusing on ourselves for a change. A great Christian paradox is that we will never be happy if we are focused on happiness; we will never be at peace if all we think about is finding peace. Peace and happiness are really not goals in and of themselves. They are the by-products of being in a proper relationship with the Lord. In other words, if our goal is to achieve happiness, we’ll never achieve it. But if our goal is to be in a proper relationship with God and to do His will, then happiness will come to us as a by-product of doing the right thing. Jesus tells us we must deny ourselves. He said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Jesus is not saying we must deny ourselves the basic necessities of life—food, water, clothing, shelter, sleep, etc. He is saying we must stop being so focused on ourselves. We must stop thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe; we must stop thinking that “Looking out for number one” is the correct way to go through life. We must stop being so self-centered all the time and stop comparing ourselves to others so often. If we look upward to Jesus, rather than inward to ourselves, and focus on Him, we finally will have peace and serenity. It’s like the time St. Peter tried to walk on water. When he was focused on Jesus and not thinking about the water, he was fine. But as soon as he got worried and started focusing on the water, he began to sink like a stone. The religious nuts among us believe God is real but refuse to put that belief into action. They are convinced doing so will take away all their fun and happiness. But they simply don’t realize that God is the true source of happiness. If they just would give God a try and put their faith into action, I’m sure they would be amazed at the abundance of peace and happiness that fills their lives. Chapter 15 – A CALL TO ACTION OK, so we’ve spent the previous 14 chapters discussing a phenomenon known as “religious nuts,” people who claim to have traditional beliefs about God, but who live their lives as if a completely different view were true. What can be done about it? What can people do to fix this major disconnect, this huge gulf between what they say and what they do? I propose a three-part plan of action. First, it’s important to understand the situation. Knowledge is power, as they say. Most people who live their lives as religious nuts really don’t understand what they are doing—and in many cases they don’t want to understand.

People must take the time to study the subject of worldviews. There are five possible worldviews a person can hold—atheism, pantheism, polytheism, deism, or theism. It’s critical to know the difference between each worldview. Once someone understands the differences between the five possible worldviews, and the fact that these worldviews are mutually exclusive, then that person can make a firm declaration of which worldview he or she really believes. Based on many surveys over the years, I’m confident a sizable majority of Americans will say they are theists, more specifically, Christian theists. Once people determine which worldview they hold, they need to determine exactly what that particular worldview requires of them. Some worldviews require very little; others, especially Christian theism, require much. (Now you can see why many people don’t want to understand worldviews. Greater understanding demands greater responsibility and accountability.) Since the Christian theistic worldview teaches that God is real and that He is paying attention at this very moment and that He has communicated His will to mankind via the Bible and the Holy Spirit, the best way to discover what God requires of us is, yes, you guessed it, to watch network television. No wait, I’m kidding! That’s what you do if you want to avoid knowing about God. The best way to learn what God requires of us is to become familiar with His instruction manual, the Bible. A word of caution, however: If you have never read or studied the Bible before, it’s a good idea to join a local Bible study class or small Christian community group. (See your church bulletin.) Attempting to study the Bible on your own without any background information can be very confusing and frustrating. Once people have spent some time contemplating the various worldviews and learning what their worldview requires of them, many of the religious-nut behaviors will disappear on their own. The proper course of action will become obvious. The second part of my plan of action is fairly simple: walk over to your TV set and pull the damn plug. By the way, I’m not using the word “damn” simply to be crude. I’m using it in the correct, biblical sense. Damn means damnation, evil, satanic. So much of what appears on television these days, so much of our current mass media culture, comes straight from the pit of Hell. It is so foul, so unenlightening, so debased, it can only come from the mind of the Prince of Darkness. People must become discriminating consumers of media information. As mentioned earlier, the three primary “teaching establishments” in this country—journalism, entertainment, and public education—are thoroughly secular in their worldview. At best, these institutions ignore religious faith; at worst, they mock and insult religious faith along with the people who consider religious faith important. These cultural teaching establishments have become so ubiquitous it is impossible to avoid them. But it is possible to reduce the amount of time we spend absorbing the

secular views of these institutions. There’s no law saying people have to sit back each evening and absorb the trash being presented by the media. When the content is obviously crass and secular, people should turn the TV off; cancel the cable service; stop wasting good money on lousy movies; cancel the New York Times subscription, and include a note explaining they’ll sign up again when the editors stop sneering at the values they hold dear. (Of course, they shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for this to happen.) Instead, people should seek out alternative sources of information which are presented from a Christian point of view. No, I’m not kidding. Such magazines, movies, TV shows, and news reports actually exist. It requires some digging, however, to find them. If people expect Christian programming suddenly to appear on prime-time network television, they will be waiting a long time. More importantly, whenever a person is reading or watching anything produced by the big three teaching establishments, he or she must always ask the question, “What is the worldview behind this?” In other words, people should be aware of the worldview held by the writers and producers. Most often the worldview is secular and atheistic in nature, and most often it is very easy to determine. The third part of my proposed action plan can be summed up in a simple phrase: “Speak up.” (Other phrases that might describe this third part of the plan are: “Buck the trend” or “Let your voice be heard” or, my favorite, “Annoy an atheist.”) People who hold a worldview other than Christian theism certainly do not hesitate to make their views known. For some reason, however, Christians are often reticent about speaking up for the truth. As we examined previously, the First Amendment gives us the right to share our views in public; it does not, contrary to what many people think, prohibit us from sharing our religious views in public. People of faith are not consigned by law only to the Sunday morning ghetto. We can and we should and we must speak up for what is right. Look, I understand it’s not easy. I can relate to a couple things written by St. Paul. In his letter to the Romans he said, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do” (Romans 7:15). I call this Paul’s “doo-doo” verse. In other words, I’m in deep doo-doo because I don’t do what I know I should do. The other passage is in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. Speaking about himself, Paul wrote, “I…who am ‘timid’ when face to face with you, but ‘bold’ when away!” (2 Corinthians 10:1). Now, to be honest, I can’t imagine Paul being timid while face to face with anyone. A guy who can stand in chains in front of a king and say, “Hey King! You got a minute? Lemme tell you how you can avoid going to Hell!!” (Acts 26) doesn’t strike me as timid. (OK, I paraphrased what he said a little bit.) Paul might have been using a little false humility to make a point in his letter, but I definitely can relate to those words. While sitting here alone clacking away on this

computer, I can be as bold as they come. “Speak up for the faith!” “Stand up for what is right!” “Annoy an atheist!” “Blah, blah, blah!” It’s so easy to type forcefully and boldly. The computer never argues back. But when I’m actually face to face with someone, especially someone who is sneering that Christians are ignorant, superstitious rubes, I turn into Casper Milquetoast. I either say nothing or nervously mumble, “Gee, that’s not very nice.” So I need to take this action plan to heart as much as anyone. A couple of things the Lord Himself said might be of help. First, to remind us that speaking up is well worth the effort despite the difficulties it will bring, Jesus said, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” (Matthew 5:11-12). Second, just in case we need a little incentive not to sit silently on the sidelines while the secularists take over society, Jesus warned, “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33). Who are we trying to please, anyway, the Almighty Creator of the universe or some whiny lawyers from the A.C.L.U.? The secular extremists trying to take over this country are going to mock us whether we speak up or not. We might as well make their job a little harder by letting our voices be heard. If people of faith will take the time to understand the importance of worldviews, reduce the amount of secular trash flooding their brains via the media, and speak up for God’s truth, they not only will stop behaving like “religious nuts,” they just may transform our entire society. Let us pray for God’s will to be done.