No Good Choices

Back on “Super-Tuesday”, I did not do something.  I deliberately did not vote.  Oddly, I felt good about my choice.  I have voted in abstentia or in person in every local, primary, or national election for the last thirty plus years.  I have voted from Afghanistan, Korea and Germany.  Two primary reasons for my choice; first, my vote would not have changed the outcome; secondly (and sadly), there were no good choices. 

This dilemma reminds me of an interview conducted with retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal.  In it, North told Pastor Bill Hybels that, “the really tough decisions are when you face two bad choices -- or two good choices -- and you have to make a choice.”   

An example of two bad choices.  Let’s say I am running late for work (in the Army we hold “formations” each morning to gain accountability of all assigned soldiers).  I would have the choice of speeding to make it on time, or obey the speed limit and miss formation.  It is a tough decision when there are only bad alternatives from which to choose.  When it’s a lose-lose, or no-win situation, when it is the lesser of evils, it is a tough decision.  If I end up getting a speeding ticket, it is bad.  If I am reprimanded for being late, it is bad.  If I end up getting a ticket and a reprimand for being late, then it is really bad.

Now two good choices.  Now let us say I have won a seven night, all expenses paid, vacation package for my family.  We can choose skiing and touring Europe or the Hawaiian Islands.   Skiing on world-class slopes, fresh-air, beautiful mountains, touring castles and cathedrals

-- or --

gentle breezes, fresh fruits, fragrant plumeria, snorkeling, and riding the waves.  Even though it is a win-win situation, it is still a very tough decision.   Imagine coming back from Hawaii with a nice tan, some macadamia nut chocolates, fresh pineapple, and a lifetime of memories; and then wondering for the rest of your life if that fresh powder and mountain chalet would not have been even better.  Even when there are only good alternatives to choose from, it is still tough to decide. 

One good choice, one bad choice.  Let’s say, just for the sake of illustration, that I have the choice between Heaven and Hell.  It is not a win-win.  It is not a lose-lose.  It’s a no-brainer.  When the choice is between good and bad it is just plain easy to decide.  Yet, unbelievably, some choose not to believe.  Never mind that example, that is a different column, but you get the idea. 

When it comes to presidential politics, America is in a bad place right now.  If one does believe, there is a good choice they are certainly part of a small minority.  This election seemingly guarantees that the majority of Americans will be unhappy with the results. 

How did we get to the point where there are no good choices?  In short, the Republican Party is reaping what they have sown – weeds.  Nasty weeds.  The Republicans’ failure to stop the last seven years of Obama’s out of control spending, unconstitutional edicts, insane foreign policy, and overreaching legislation that has created the disaster Republicans now face.  No establishment candidate is acceptable.

Although it may be, Obama is to blame for putting America on a crash course, the Republican lawmakers’ failure to restrain, let alone stop the impending disaster rightfully earned them the absolute fury of all but Bob Dole, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and other establishment class beneficiaries.

Even though Trump and Cruz are unacceptable to the aforementioned Republican ruling class, between the two of them, they have garnered 1,101 of the 1,429 delegates, fully 77% of the total delegates pledged to date.  Obama has done for them what he has done for gun sales. 

While the left looks less contentious, their predicament is no less muddled.  They are forced to choose between a self-avowed socialist and a woman whom an ABC News poll found is most frequently associated with the word “liar”.   The FBI and Justice Department may soon get the opportunity to make it “convict”.  Nonetheless, the “liar” is leading.

My bumper sticker this election season – “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for any of them.”

What's the Big Idea?

In a previous column, I wrote how General Petraeus said there are four tasks he thinks strategic leaders have to perform:
- First, “Get the ‘Big Ideas’ right.”
- Second, “Effectively communicate the Big Ideas.”
- Third, “Oversee the implementation of the Big Ideas.”
- Fourth, “Capture best practices and lessons…to help refine the Big Ideas.”

I think there is an excellent example of getting the “Big Idea” right in our domestic political world right now, i.e., “Make America Great Again!”  It is an awesome slogan.  Sadly, there is one big problem with it, and that is that it’s true – we do need to make America great again. 

Before attempting to make America great again, it would be wise to understand what made America great in the first place.  Perhaps it’s the fact that we had a Godly start -- the key is contained in the founding document that set the course of our country.  Our Declaration declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  No Creator, no America. 

The Founding Fathers wisely concluded that divinely inspired document, which declared our independence from an unjust king, by declaring our complete dependence on the King of Glory.  It closes with, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”  No Divinity, no America. 

How far we’ve fallen that so many fail to recognize, or acknowledge this “self-evident” truth.  

 
The Father of our Country prayed a prayer for our Nation’s future that laid out the required conditions for perpetual greatness.  “Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy Holy protection…  Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.  Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.”  Although George didn’t get the memo on political correctness, he did recognize the source of greatness.

Our Founders were sober-minded that the liberty we might enjoy required that we could be self-governed.  President John Adams made this clear in a 1798 letter to the officers of the Massachusetts Militia:  “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

What made America great was a source of intrigue for the French historian and social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville.  In May, 1831 he published a two-part work titled Democracy in America which has been described as, “the most comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the relationship between character and society in America that has ever been written.”  Among de Tocqueville’s notable findings: 

“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things, to which I was unaccustomed.  In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.  But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.” 

Our founding is unique in the respect that our founders believed that our rights came from the Author of Liberty.  As scripture records, “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 

While I agree with the “Big Idea” to Make America Great Again, I’m not sure everyone agrees on the solution.  King David said it this way:  “The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.  But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.  Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he chose for his inheritance.”

What's the Score

As I was driving back home from Augusta, Georgia, there was some discussion on the radio about the plight of Christians in the US now. Obviously, Christians have been marginalized in the public square in a big way. Whether it’s a failure of believers and the Church to make a more persuasive and winsome argument for the cause of Christ and supremacy of the Christian worldview, or it’s the dumbing-down of the American public to such a degree that they can’t recognize it, I don’t know.

What I do know is that Justice Robert Bork aptly titled his nearly ten-year old book about our Nation (and western culture’s) downward trajectory, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah.” If it were written today, it would have to be titled, “Running Toward Gomorrah.” The left could at least claim credit for improving our posture and aerobic activity. Maybe credit for our increased pace rightly belongs to Michelle’s “Let’s Move” campaign. The last thing we’d want is to be late for our own funeral.

I just don’t understand why atheists are so mad at Christians. I can understand why Muslims don’t like Christians; after all, Christians don’t support multiple wives, oppose stoning adulterers and homosexuals, and don’t favor the killing of those that leave the faith. What I don’t understand is why atheists care if “simpleminded” Christians worship or promote a mythical non-existent entity?

At least God has a longer pedigree than the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Surely, they should be more upset about those two relative newcomers. They don’t even have a best-selling book written about them. Just what has that non-existent Entity ever done to atheists? Voltaire must have surely had the atheist in mind when he said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” The angry atheist requires a God to rail against like Obama needs a straw man to advance his specious arguments.

Just this week, there was a news report about Juan Mendez, an Arizona atheist Democratic state Representative being barred from offering a prayer at the beginning of their legislative sessions. Yep, the atheist wanted to offer a prayer but was denied because, get this, “he was informed in a memo issued by Republican House Majority Leader Steve Montenegro to all state representatives that no one will be allowed to lead the traditional prayer unless they intend on calling on a deity.” Holy cow that’s rich.

According to Montenegro's memorandum, "Prayer, as commonly understood and in the long-honored tradition of the Arizona House of Representatives, is a solemn request for guidance and help from God.”

Talk about unfair. Why shouldn’t the atheist be allowed (or aloud) to talk to someone who doesn’t exist. After all, it’s no different from Obama, as he leads from behind, leaning over his shoulder to talk to all his followers.

So just what’s motivating these “whacky and misguided” Christians wanting to share the Good News that Jesus Christ died for sinners. Perhaps it’s because they want people to avoid an eternity in Hell, or, conversely, enjoy an eternity in Heaven. Imagine, paradise purchased by a Savior on a cross. Paradise without a suicide vest - could it really be that easy?

To quote John Lennon, “Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us Above us only sky… It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too.”  Yep, imagine that.

The reason I think the nonexistent God bothers the atheist so much – He stands as an invisible reminder to their innate knowledge that he’ll judge them one day. Christ followers are the visible image of the invisible God. A story recounted in today’s Our Daily Bread devotional gives some additional insight into how this annoying reminder works:

“At his son’s wedding reception, my friend Bob offered advice and encouragement to the newlyweds. In his speech, he told of a football coach in a nearby town who, when his team lost a game, kept the losing score on the scoreboard all week to remind the team of their failure. While that may be a good football strategy, Bob wisely advised, it’s a terrible strategy in marriage. When your spouse upsets you or fails you in some way, don’t keep drawing attention to the failure. Turn off the scoreboard.”

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

What’s the final score -- sinner to winner – thanks be to God!

The Science Guys

Last week, we talked about none other than Bill Nye, “The Science Guy.”  Not to be confused the other two Bills that have also been in the news a lot lately, i.e., Bill (Cosby and Clinton), “The Sexual Assaulters from the Past Guys.”

There’s something Nye said, that got stuck in my craw, in such a way that it triggered my evolutionary “fight or write response.”  Since fighting’s illegal, and I don’t have enough frequent flyer miles for flight, write I must.   Perhaps, if I were further evolved (like Mr. Nye) I wouldn’t have this troublesome craw.  Alternatively, if Mr. Nye wasn’t so arrogantly intolerant, my evolutionary requirement for a craw could be eliminated. So what’d he say this time? 

According to the Huffington Post…”The biggest danger creationism plays is that it is raising a generation of children who ‘can't think’ and who ‘will not be able to participate in the future in the same way’ as those who are taught evolution.”  Let me make sure I get this straight – if a kid believes he is created by God he will not be able to participate in the future in same way as a kid who is taught that he evolved from a monkey? 

Let’s test Mr. Nye’s theory on the influence of Creationism (vice evolution) upon “thinking” and “participating” using an empirical example.  Sample A, George Washington Carver, (c.1865-January 5, 1943), “an African American chemist of international fame who introduced and popularized hundreds of uses for the peanut, soybean, pecan and sweet potato, which revolutionized the economy of the South by creating a market for these products.” 

It seems that Mr. Carver found inspiration and insights, not by denying God, but by seeking God.  Here is what he told the director of the Blue Ridge YMCA in 1920:

Years ago I went into my laboratory and said, "Dear Mr. Creator, please tell me what the universe was made for?"

The Great Creator answered, "You want to know too much for that little mind of yours.  Ask for something more your size, little man."

Then I asked, "Please, Mr. Creator, tell me what man was made for."

Again, the Great Creator replied, "You are still asking too much.  Cut down on the extent and improve the intent."

So then I asked, "Please, Mr. Creator, will you tell me why the peanut was made?"

"That's better, but even then it's infinite.  What do you want to know about the peanut?"

"Mr. Creator, can I make milk out of the peanut?"

"What kind of milk do you want?  Good Jersey milk or just plain boarding house milk?"

"Good Jersey milk."

And then the Great Creator taught me to take the peanut apart and put it together again.  And out of the process have come forth all these products!”

What humility the distinguished Mr. Carver demonstrates for us today.  How much more does the Great Creator demonstrate wisdom and love in the works of His creation.  Oh how He must grieve when men, mortal men, those whom He created, choose to deny Him the glory and praise He deserves!

The humble, ingenious, and industrious Mr. Carver also provides us insight into how he looked upon scoffers and critics like Mr. Nye:

“My attitude toward life was also my attitude toward science.  Jesus said one must be born again, must become as a little child.  He must let no laziness, no fear, no stubbornness keep him from his duty.  If he were born again he would see life from such a plane he would have the energy not to be impeded in his duty by these various sidetrackers and inhibitions…Why, then, should we who believe in Christ be so surprised at what God can do with a willing man in a laboratory?  Some things must be baffling to the critic who has never been born again.” 

Maybe, the thing Mr. Nye should really fear is the danger evolution plays in raising a generation of children who "can't think" and who "will not be able to participate in the future in the same way" as those who are taught to know and fear the Lord.

Perhaps Mr. Nye could be helped by the thoughts of Sir Isaac Newton, widely regarded to have been the greatest scientist the world has ever produced, “God created everything by number, weight and measure…In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

Carver and Newton might just give a thumbs down to the science guy.

Science and the Shepherd

The topic -- Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”  Why Nye?   Frequent flyer miles.  I didn’t have enough miles with one particular airline for a plane ticket, so I used them for magazine subscriptions.  It was an interview with Nye in my “complimentary” Time magazine that inspired this column.  

Reading secular publications like Time reminds me something retired USMC Lt. Col. Oliver North said, “Every morning I get up and read two things, the Washington Post and the Bible, just so I can know what both sides are up to.” 

The article about Nye starts with this:  “Bill Nye The Science Guy follows Undeniable, his defense of evolution, with his new book, Unstoppable, a call to action on climate change.”  The first thing that grabbed my attention was the seeming misapplication of the titles.  I thought “denier” was a moniker reserved for climate change non-believers, not those who might believe that, “In the beginning, God…”  Moreover, if evolution has to be defended, how exactly is it undeniable?   

 

Perhaps the explanation to Nye’s evangelism for the theory of evolution is best understood in light of a piece about Paul Karl Feyerabend, a German renowned for his work on the Philosophy of Science.  

 

According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick – rational, rhetorical or ribald – in order to advance their cause.  Without a fixed ideology, or the introduction of religious tendencies, the only approach which does not inhibit progress (using whichever definition one sees fit) is "anything goes": "'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history."

 

The second thing in the interview that disturbed my Spidey-senses was Nye’s response to this question: “How do you make the average person understand science?”  Nye:  “You have to have learning objectives – things you want to get across.  You want to make a point:  Humans and dinosaurs did not live concurrently.  If you get the adjacent carbon dating of volcanic soil, that’s cool.  But what I want you to get is that ancient dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time.  The rest is gravy.”   

 

I get that Nye has an ideology he wants to get across.  What through me for a loop was the need to dogmatically convince his intended target that, “Humans and dinosaurs did not live concurrently.”  Whether they did, or didn’t, has no bearing on whether or not Nye evolved from a monkey.

Nye’s book defending the “undeniable” gives an interesting summation of the unique position he contends human’s hold on the hierarchy of evolutionary development.  Nye says, “We are all so much alike, because we are all human.  But it goes deeper than that.  Every species you’ll encounter on Earth is, near as we can tell, chemically the same inside.  We are all descended from a common ancestor.  We are shaped by the same forces and factors that influence every other living thing, and yet we emerged as something unique.  Among the estimated 16 million species on Earth, we alone have the ability to comprehend the process that brought us here.” 

 

It is perhaps the height of haughtiness that Nye thinks he’s smarter than all the other animals.  I’m not sure how Nye can know with scientific certainty that we alone are the only species with, “the ability to comprehend the process that brought us here.”  The oldest book of the Bible (Job 12:7-10) has this to say about animals and their knowledge of the process, “But ask the animals, and they will teach you,  or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,  or let the fish in the sea inform you.  Which of all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?  In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”

 

I do agree with Mr. Nye on one point, we do have “the ability to comprehend the process that brought us here.”  I simply disagree with Mr. Nye on what that process is.

 

I’m quite content to be as smart as the sheep mentioned in Psalm 103, “Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.”

What Nye really needs is to know the Good Shepherd.










 This column appeared in the 6 JAN 2016 Upson Beacon.