The "Little Bang"?

According to BBC news, scientists working with the new atom smasher in Switzerland, known as the "Large Hadron Collider", have successfully created what they call a "mini big bang". They smashed atomic particles together in a way to produce the kind of mixture they believe was the result of the "Big Bang", a colossal explosion of matter that is believed to have taken place at the very beginning of our universe. In other words, they think they made a "little bang" to produce their own mini-universe stuff.

It's a great moment for them, no doubt, especially considering how much work it has been to make this atom smasher, so much larger and more powerful than any of its predecessors. And they had to stay with the project after it broke down in initial trials. But genius and hard work can accomplish a lot.

But now, hold on... this experiment was entirely the result of years of planning and human invention, carefully staged and executed in a machine that boggles the ordinary mind for its complexity. And its result produced this "mini big bang", to illustrate, they say, an event that took place billions of years ago to form the materials of our universe, from which all matter, living and non-living, got its start.

But "they" also say the original "Bang" happened as a result of natural forces, not being directed by any intelligent or creative Being. It just happened, and now it took an immense army of scientists, technicians, inventors, and workers of all kinds (not to mention money) to make a teensie little example of what "just happened"?

Are these scientists too blinded by their humanistic, rational beliefs that they can't see the obvious? If there was such a beginning to our universe, surely it couldn't require less intelligence to produce something infinitely greater than a "mini bang" that required a human intelligence and effort that was itself the result of centuries of human learning and experimentation. I can only agree with what the apostle Paul said of such men, who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:7)

New morality, same results

Surveys of modern America reveal a lot has changed since things were "left to Beaver" and "Father knew best". Not that these classic TV shows reflected all of society at that time, but the general morality of average Americans was still heavily against behaviors that are now commonplace and accepted by a majority of people.

We're told that 40% of births are to unmarried women. "Cohabitation" of unmarried men and women is becoming a quaint term to describe what is now a fully accepted practice, and is probably viewed by many as a judgmental term as well. Speaking publicly against behaviors condemned by society in Beaver's day is now called "hate speech", and some news pundits seemed shocked that anyone could still be opposed to marriage rights for all citizens.

For those who still believe God spoke once on these and other subjects of moral behavior, this "new morality" may be new to us as a society, but hardly new for the world as a whole. Moral decadence in respect to God's Word is as old as humanity, and the results will be the same as ever. And that result is not to be measured in human acceptance or judgment, not in polls or commentary. The result is summed up in Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."

What death, they might say? Indeed, the first tempter posed the same challenge, when he told the woman he was about to deceive, "You shall surely not die!" Sure, she didn't drop over dead, and neither do people who reject God's "old" morality for an updated version. But surely their souls die in respect to all that God created them to experience through living by His Word. And the deadness of the spirit, in which all humans are born, and in which they will persist until they are born again by the Spirit of God, cannot be undone so easily as the moral codes of a nation.

Perhaps this modern morality has changed our society's view of acceptable behaviors, but the result will be the same as always.

Do we need a "Day of Prayer" to pray?

Just to be clear, I believe the action taken last week by Wisconsin District judge Barbara Crabb, branding the National Day of Prayer as "unconstitutional", is another cave-in to the atheist, secularizing groups and ideas that are gaining ground in America's courts. And, despite the failure of California atheist Michael Newdow to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, the battle to cleanse the political and public sphere of religion is far from over (and the Christian religion in particular, since no atheist seems overly concerned about the growth of Islamic influences in schools.)

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me that the First Amendment's prohibition of "establishment of religion" should be understood in 18th century context. By "establishment", I think they sought to avoid the official recognition of a particular sect of the Christian faith as the "established" church, as the Lutheran church was in much of continental Europe and the Anglican church was in England. That kind of official status for a certain sect was not only a legal endorsement of beliefs, it was grounds for governmental discrimination and persecution of "non-established" religions.

Such an establishment is clearly not what's up in setting aside the 1st Thursday of May as a National Day of Prayer (for those who want to observe it, with no requirement to do so by any others.) No one is excluded by the proclamation, but only by their choice to abstain. No one will be prosecuted for "failure to pray". Nor will anyone be barred from public office or other governmental activities for being absent at the prayer rally.

So, two observations: First, while this decision is a sign of the growing influence of a negative attitude toward public religion, it's not yet to the point that public prayers will draw the wrath of some national prayer police, like might take place in any number of countries today. We don't need a "National Day of Prayer" to pray, if we just all agree to meet as individuals and churches and communities.

Second, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the group responsible for bringing this action to judge Crabb, should consider that the "freedom to embrace religion" is also a constitutional guarantee, including the freedom of a religious majority in our government to recognize a day for prayers among that majority in the nation as a whole. If Congress comes in time to have an atheist, agnostic or secular majority, then I'll stand up for their right to have a "National Day of No Prayer", or whatever they want to call it.

But again, to be clear, I believe all such freedoms and rights are for this world only. According to the Bible and the words of our Savior Jesus Christ, that will all come to end when "every knee will bow, and every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Philippians 2:10-11) And there won't be any earthly judge to overturn that decision.

Beware religious scams

Ever since the Devil first tricked humans into disobeying God, the world has been filled with imitation religion and spirituality. Some of them are bizarre, like folks waiting for aliens to come get them, and some are so close to the "authorized" version that it's easy for people to be confused. Of course, from a biblical view, there's only one truly "authorized" religion, and that's the one revealed personally by God, first through the prophets of Israel and finally through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

And the imitations and clones and other variations of real Christianity have been marketed by Satan ever since Jesus rose from the dead and sent His apostles into the world with the Gospel. The complete list of variants would be too numerous for this space, but just consider some current imitations that take up space in our news reports.

We have pedophiles masquerading as caring priests, hateful demonstrators pretending they're really standing up for God's Law. We see "preachers" enriching themselves by raking in the offerings of the gullible. And, in today's news we see a "Christian" militia group, claiming to prepare for Antichrist by arming themselves for an assault on the American government.

And the deadliest imitations are all the "fake Jesus" ideas, which Satan uses for those willing to believe that a man called Jesus really lived. But from that point the similarity between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of men's imaginations end. Some say He never claimed to be the Son of God - the Church made that up. Some say He didn't really die on the cross. Some say He died but didn't rise again. Some say He rose, and now we can be just like Him as a powerful, divine being.

Satan, like the scam artists waiting to sell you a fake Rolex or an imitation something else, is quite content with people using the name "Jesus", as long as it isn't the genuine article: the One who is God's only divine Son, equal with the Father, who is God's only atonement for sin, who is the Way, Truth and Life, and the only hope for eternal life by His resurrection from the dead.

Accept no substitutes! It may not be "politically correct", but if Jesus isn't the Way, then there's no way.

What makes us happy?

There are a number things that are common to every person, such as the enjoyment of music, an appreciation for beauty and a capacity for love. In fact, this is another piece of evidence that we're all made by one God with a soul of humanity, rather than being some kind of evolved life-form. Another commonly held facet of humanity is that we all seek happiness, though, like our musical tastes, we have many different ideas of happiness.

And there are also many commonly shared experiences that make us happy, a fact which was the subject of a recent article of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Based on a review of some 51 studies of the relationship between happiness and types of positive thinking, members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put forth five experiences that seem to increase personal happiness, experienced as "feelings of well-being." And, to look even briefly at the list, one sees there is general agreement between their list and behaviors advocated by the Bible.

The five life choices said to increase happiness are:

1. Be grateful, expressing thankfulness in some manner to those who have helped us.

2. Be optimistic, envisioning an ideal future and journaling about it.

3. Count your blessings, writing down three good things that happened to us recently.

4. Use your strengths, identifying and finding ways to use those strengths.

5. Commit acts of kindness, donating time to charity or to unselfish deeds to those in need.

All these things are bona fide happiness producers. There's one problem: The choices and behaviors listed can be done by anyone willing to do so, but each of them is an abstraction of a quality that is produced fully only by a heart of faith in God's Word; obedient to His commands and thankful for His blessings.

To do such things without a faith relationship to God is like the difference between working a job you love and working for someone you love. The first is something you do primarily for your own rewards, while the latter is something you do for those rewards and for the sake of the one you love.

The Bible describes real happiness as something we do, not just for ourselves or because it works for us, but because it ties us to the One who has given great promises to all who trust Him and accept His Lordship over their lives. Because of such promises, people of faith can give themselves to things God guarantees will bring true happiness; including some things not normally connected with well-being, like mourning, hungering and thirsting, and even being persecuted. (Matthew 5:3-10)

But that's the thing about true happiness - it's not about what's happening now and how that makes us feel. It's about what route in life we choose to travel, based on where it's going and why we're going there. When the goodness and power of God is our assurance, then anything we do for Him is guaranteed to bring lasting happiness, not just "feelings of well-being" for today.

Are we headed "full circle?"

At the dawn of the Christian Church, the apostles faced some determined opposition in the Jewish Council, which met and agreed that this new sect of "The Way", as it became known, was getting too risky to just take a live-and-let-live policy. They brought in the ringleaders, Peter and John, and told them "not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus." (Acts 4:18) There was to be no attempts to enroll others in their religion, or they would risk prosecution and imprisonment; as did in fact happen.

2000 years later, the circle of intolerance seems to be coming around for Americans. Oh, it's not entirely new for Christians to get the crack-down from a government or competing religion. That kind of thing is routine in other nations, as Christians are persecuted by zealots and leaders of Muslim or Hindu religion, or a secular state like China. But America's constitutional freedoms of religion have precluded such discrimination.

But popular and prevailing culture is another force of opposition; less centralized and codified than government, but just as powerful in enforcing its will. And the evidence of current controversy in the forum of religious discussion and events suggests that an intolerance toward "speaking in the name of Jesus" is getting more and more of a foothold each year.

A current example of that is the uproar created by Fox News' Brit Hume, who "dared" to suggest that Tiger Woods should seek "forgiveness and redemption" which only the Christian religion offers. An editorial in today's Omaha paper points out the ire that's been aroused among liberal critics by such advice. Mr. Hume, say his critics, has crossed the line from a free exercise of religion to an unwelcome proselytizing that makes him, as one columnist said, a "sanctimonious busybody"; and so his conduct to another critic is "truly embarrassing."

At this point, Brit Hume is merely being scorned and ridiculed by his peers and others who reject any religious persuasion, and it seems Christian persuasion is especially rejected by a culture that insists that "all paths lead to God", and it's fine if my path leads nowhere at all. But how far will we need to proceed on this circle of intolerance toward evangelism before Christians are more than scorned and ridiculed by columnists, comedians and others who purport to speak for the majority culture?

We may or may not get to the point where our government explicitly forbids Christians to speak in the name of Jesus, as is already true in some places. But the tide of cultural disapproval of exclusive religion, insisting on "One Way" and "One Book", is continuing to rise around us. And those who challenge the standing policy of their culture will have to decide if they want to stand with Peter and John, who responded to the Council's prohibition by saying, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard. "(Acts 4:19-20)

Real men...

Every weekend of the Fall season, football fans get to watch their favorite gridiron gladiators battle for pigskin supremacy; or at least "show up" and do their very best against the opponent. Win or lose, every fan expects an all-out effort, to “leave it all on the field.” And even beyond the sports venue, this kind of effort and willingness to face up to any opponent, challenge or adversary is a key part of what most regard as “manliness”.

What it comes down to in practical terms is the "warrior" attitude that seeks to exert power, win the day, to remain un-bowed before whoever or whatever is confronting us in our quest for high-value objectives. There's a place for bravery and steadfast courage, but it gets easily confused in the human mind with raw power, especially the kind that's used for personal benefit.

So, when Paul tells the Church to “Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), it might be natural for modern minds to think of this in similar terms to what we expect in sports, business or war. The modern stereotype of a man includes things like aggression, bravery and a willingness to stand up to any opponent. Most boys play some form of “King of the hill,” and take this assertive, power-play mentality into their grown-up life. Those who can’t or won’t are often branded with some kind of negative label, like “wimp”, “cupcake” or “momma’s boy”.

This might explain a lot of unnecessary conflicts that spoil relationships in the home, the church and the workplace. When maturity is confused with power and conquest, people see competition instead of partnership, and humility is labeled as weakness.

But such images and expectations come into direct conflict with the example of Jesus Christ, who openly and unapologetically declared, “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29). I don’t think anyone who knew Jesus of Nazareth would have thought of Him as a “wimp”, or one who would back down from a confrontation with evil. The difference is that He stood up for God’s rights, not for His own. He bravely faced the cross without a hint of self-pity or reluctance, but stood silent before the accusations of Jerusalem’s leaders.

The “power-play” kind of manliness accounts for a great many church splits, many broken homes and other impaired relationships, and stands in stark contrast to the Bible’s image of “acting like men” (or mature women for that matter). Paul puts the whole matter of real maturity and strength into perspective, as he concludes his short exhortation in saying, “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). Real men know how to live with real love, just like the greatest Man who loved the world in the greatest way, when He went boldly and powerfully to the cross for sinful mankind.