If I Had Been Invited To The Healthcare Summit…..

I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t invited to today’s healthcare summit in Washington. Because it would have been interesting to get the perspective of some typical Americans, instead of a lot of Congressmen, Senators and federal executives – none of whom will have to participate in the very healthcare legislation they are discussing (because they have their own health benefits system - which is far better than anything they propose to leave with us).

Anyway, had I been given the privilege to attend and ask a few questions, this is what I might have said:

1) If 30 million more people will have health care coverage than the number who have it today, AND the system will be administered by the federal government, why should I believe the claim that it will get less expensive?

2) If our healthcare system is so broken, why did the Premier of Canada’s Newfoundland recently leave his country and fly to Florida to have heart surgery?

3) What do you say to the majority of Americans who don’t want government interference in healthcare? Do you believe you are smarter than they are? Is this representative government…or something else?

4) Should I dump my pharmaceutical stocks now? What if I work for a health insurance company – should I start looking for a new line of work?

5) How does the current trillion dollar proposal fit with the campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year?

6) Is there any reason to believe that today’s session was nothing more than posturing in an effort to place blame on others when things turn sour later?

Interestingly, President Obama had a run-in with Senator Lamar Alexander about whether or not premiums would rise under the plan. The President said this was a great example of where people didn’t have their facts straight – and it turns out that he was the one who was incorrect (and he has apparently admitted it). See the video below.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

While secular humanism philosophy glories in naturalism (nothing is spiritual), and the Marxism worldview believes in a variant of that called dialectical materialism, the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) philosophy goes completely in the opposite direction. For a New Age follower, everything is considered to be spiritual rather than material – people, rocks, light, methane gas – you name it. This philosophical belief is called non-naturalism.

This belief system admits to a God – and we are it. All things, living or otherwise, are considered to be part of a larger “God-force”. David Spangler, a principal proponent of New Age writing, says, “From a very early age, I was aware of an extra dimension or presence to the world around me, which as I grew older I came to identify as a sacred or transcendental dimension.” Such thinking pervades our society at every level today – in public schools, colleges, and community activities.

A popular bumper sticker seen around town proclaims that “The Earth is your mother” (something I’m pretty sure my mother, who endured a great deal of pain to bring me into this world, might find offensive). This New Age thinking comes from the Gaia Hypothesis (pronounced “guy-uh”) – a belief system that considers the earth to be alive. In fact, Gaia enthusiasts believe that the earth behaves like a living organism, able to regulate its own conditions and adapt for its own survival.

Consider the Gaia thinking around something as common as the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air. From a Cosmic Humanist standpoint, here are some “known” facts:

· At one time, the earth had no atmosphere – it was a big, cold ball of rock circling the sun
· To create an atmosphere, the evolution of photosynthetic life forms was required
· Molecular oxygen is a waste product of plant photosynthesis – plants use carbon dioxide and water to create oxygen, while gathering sunlight during photosynthesis
· Atmospheric oxygen is now at a very convenient 21% level, and appears to have remained stable for “millions” or even “billions” of years
· If this concentration were to edge up to as little as 25%, forest fires would be raging across the globe (oxygen is a great catalyst for fires)
· Carbon dioxide is created by combustion, exhalation, volcanoes and plants at night (when there is no sunlight for photosynthesis)
· The oxygen/carbon dioxide balance seems to maintain itself very well, and has done so for a very long time

The conclusion that a New Age proponent reaches is that the earth is “alive” and takes charge of regulating this gaseous mixture – because that is what is good for its own survival. It all sounds very neat and tidy. But I have a couple of questions. Looking back to the second bullet point, how did the earth “know” that it needed an atmosphere? Why wasn’t it “happy” just being a cold rock? Does the earth “regret” its move now that evil man is trying to destroy the environment?

New Age philosophy often gets very close to the truth, but then veers off down an unfortunate path. They see the beauty of balance in the way things work – in this case, the regulation of our atmosphere, even when changes are introduced into the system. But instead of seeing this as a great and grand design by an all-powerful God, they attribute the wonder of such things to “smart” matter and material. In short, New Age thinking talks about us being God, but never about God being God.

Romans 1:20-23 bears repeating:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

When a person sees the handiwork of God, but fails to attribute the grandeur to God, they become fools. Join with me in prayer, that these people’s eyes can be opened once again to the wonder of God’s creation – and that they will proceed down the path of giving God the glory.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 7 – Biblical Christian Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Frederick Engels, a founder of Marxist thought, said, “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved…by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science…But if the…question is raised: what then are thought and consciousness, and whence they come, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of nature, which has been developed in and along with its environment.” To the Marxist, everything is reduced to the material.

Marxists view matter as the thing that is indestructible and eternal, the same classification that Christians would give to God. In essence, this puts matter in the place of God for a Marxist. Marxism has been called a “godless theology” for this very reason. But this explanation of materialism is not quite enough to fully satisfy the proponents of this philosophy, and so they add one more element to the mix.

Marxists believe that matter is meant to be pitted constantly against other matter – with the result that things are ultimately and progressively improved (their scientists seem to overlook that this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This philosophical approach is called dialectical materialism. A dialectical conversation can be thought of as two people arguing opposite sides of an issue with the intent of ultimately establishing a higher truth. The same thought applies to dialectical materialism, with matter taking the place of conversation.

In dialectical materialism, a thesis is proposed (such as “all mankind should be treated justly”). An opposite anti-thesis is then offered (“all mankind is unequal and should be treated with various levels of justice”). The experiment is put into play, and the two sides oppose each other, using history as a lab, and involving real people and real occurrences. Ultimately, the result is a new synthesis (“some new form of justice is invented”). Then, the new synthesis is proposed as a thesis, and the process begins again. Marxists believe that this process repeats over and over throughout history, with the result being an increasingly improved society. This is precisely why they have invited the proletariat uprising against the bourgeoisie for so long. And should the proletariat classes eventually win this battle, they will just have to be pitted against the next “better” thing.

Marxists use this philosophy to create theories which support their beliefs. Evolution’s punctuated equilibrium is a good example of this – where evolution supposedly takes a huge leap over intermediary evolutionary steps and new species just “happen”. Just as they have written the possibility of God out of any of their thinking, they can create theories such as this to overcome facts – such as the lack of evidence of intermediate species in the fossil record.

Above all, Marxist thought absolutely rejects the existence of God as a possibility. All of their theories must be crafted and adjusted around this belief. And, like Secular Humanism, such a philosophy leaves little hope for those who long for something more after this life. After all, to a Marxist, we are just “matter”.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

The Necessity of Risk

How often do we pray for God to reveal His exact will to us, so that we can get on with the business of living it out?

I have to confess that this is often a strong theme in my prayer life. When faced with an impending choice or question, I try to picture God sitting next to me, patiently listening to my request, and then answering me with a clear “Yes” or “No”, followed by details of exactly how things should happen and what I should do. I don’t expect Him to magically drop a note with directions in my lap, but I do yearn for Him to give me a leading within my heart as to what my next move should be.

I’m beginning to think that God rarely acts in that manner. To be sure, He has provided men and women with some very specific instructions through angels in the past. “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus” is a pretty detailed sentence, but I have to say that I’ve never received such specific words directly from an angel.

Does this mean that I don’t have the equivalent relationship that Jesus’ father had with the Lord, or that God has somehow left us out of direct communication for a while? Both are very possible, but consider another possibility that I came across recently.

God might not speak to me directly because He wants me to step out and take risks. There actually might not be a right answer to the question of whether I should change careers, or whether I should buy a different house. My mind often thinks that there is only one correct path to my life and that I need to be diligent in finding it. But I’m starting to see that this might not be true.

Instead, it seems to me that God might be pleased with either choice, as long as He is glorified in the result. And that is the challenge for me. John Piper, in his book Don’t Waste Your Life, says this:

‘Jesus had made this clear. He said, for example, in Luke 21:16, “You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.” The key word here is “some”. “Some of you they will put to death.” This word puts the earthly life of the disciples in great uncertainty. Not all will die for the cause of Christ. But not all will live either. Some will die. And some will live. This is what I mean by risk. It is the will of God that we be uncertain about how life on this earth will turn out for us. And therefore it is the will of the Lord that we take risks for the cause of God.’

Is it really God’s will that I not always have the answers that I’m looking for? In the past, I thought it might be more a function of how sincere I was in prayer. If I really worked at prayer and my own devotion to the topic, if I drew myself into a room and earnestly cast aside any distractions, and if I honestly believed that God was listening and that He would answer my prayer, then eventually I could break through the walls and He would reveal Himself directly to me. These desires are not bad, and can contribute to a greater prayer life. But I’m learning that God might be less concerned about the “work” of my prayer, and more interested in me simply placing my trust in Him – in simply acknowledging that He is in control of my life. That is where risk enters my life. That is where things get uncomfortable.

Just like a father or mother desires their children to trust that he or she will take care of them when they are ill, God desires us to place our lives in His hands – not necessarily to know in advance how things will work out. “Trust me to take care of you and to take the right steps for your well-being” are often the words that a parent gives to their child. Sometimes, those steps are painful and require a complete giving over of wills. In the end, I think God is more glorified when people see that we are fully dependent on Him – even more than if we were to live a nearly perfect, unstained life. In fact, risk can result in failure in this life…and still be exactly what God wants us to do. John the Baptist took a risk by preaching about Jesus’ coming. He was beheaded for his efforts – something most people would consider as failure – and, yet, that is exactly what God’s will was for him, because his life and his message are a large part of the Messiah’s story.

This may change the way I pray in the future. Rather than asking for specifics, and being disappointed when I don’t get a tangible answer, I desire to spend more time just placing my life in the Father’s hands, and trusting that He is in control of everything. Taking risk and facing the fear of the unknown require me to do exactly that.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Philosophy is defined as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

The secular humanist views all parts of philosophy through the lens of naturalism – the theory that everything in the world is made up only of natural elements and forces. From this viewpoint there is no possibility that anything spiritual or supernatural can exist. This follows the same line of thought as that of organicism – where society and individuals are thought to behave much the same as a biological organism. In essence, the secular humanist may not regard mankind as much more than a fancy paramecium.

Indeed, the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.” The humanist relies on science as the foundation for all discoveries and knowledge – and science, to them, may only reveal things that are of the natural world. The supernatural cannot be measured, and thus, cannot exist to a humanist.

Yet, even in this worldview, the act of faith seems to be required. Take, for example, the Higg’s boson particle. I’ve written about this scientific experiment before, with the Large Hadron Collider being built in Europe for the express purpose of discovering a particle which has never been observed. But, scientists are so sure that it does exist that they’ve invested $4.5 billion into a huge particle accelerator to prove the theory. Isn’t this a faith of sorts? Can science be termed a religion of its own?

Even the humanist will admit to this. Corliss Lamont, the twentieth-century socialist philosopher, said, “Faith in the methods and findings of science, it is said, is just as much a faith as faith in the methods and findings of religion. In answer to this we can only say that the history of thought seems to show that reliance on science has been more fruitful in the progress and extension of the truth than reliance on religion.” Is such a statement true, though? Hasn’t science been guilty of “changing its mind” over periods of time, as theory and knowledge changes? I can think of the flat-earth theory, naming atoms as the smallest particles of matter, and the global-cooling-wait-global-warming-wait-global-cooling-again debates as examples of science’s inability to get at the truth.

Further, secular humanist philosophy is embodied in the concept of monism – the idea that the mind (or personality, or soul) is nothing more than a physical phenomenon. It’s all neurons firing, chemicals reacting, and flesh decaying – nothing more. Monistic theory gives man no hope for anything beyond death. It also postulates that the human mind is just one step along an infinitely long evolutionary change. To many humanists, the human mind may soon be replaced by something better – the computer. Victor J. Stenger has said, “Future computers will not only be superior to people in every task, mental or physical, but will also be immortal…”

Clarence Darrow, famed American lawyer, summed up the secular humanist viewpoint in this short paragraph:

“The purpose of man is like the purpose of the pollywog – to wiggle along as far as he can without dying; or, to hang to life until death takes him.”

What a sad view of life. By denying God and his supreme existence, the humanist not only lives a life of hopelessness, but exchanges an eternal promise of life praising the Creator for an everlasting condemnation. And science cannot save him from that.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

A Little Lesson On Economics, Mr. President

Workers are disgruntled, benefits are being cut, and the unemployment rate continues to hover around ten percent. All of this has occurred while our nation’s leaders have been increasing the government’s deficit spending and were wooed by expensive, job-killing myths like government-run healthcare and “climate change” legislation.

So this week, President Obama revealed his best idea for jobs reform. A $5,000-per-head tax credit to businesses for each job they create. Put simply, the government will pay employers $5,000 for each hire they make, as a way to provide incentive for them to bring on new employees.

This is government naiveté at its pinnacle. What Mr. Obama fails to understand is that businesses aren’t sitting back with too much work to do, and a fear of hiring more people to do it. The problem is that businesses feel too restricted and overtaxed by the government, and so collectively there is not enough work to go around.

Obama’s idea is tantamount to the concept of paying our children five dollars every time they smile – and thinking that this will make them truly happy children (okay, okay – I recognize that our children may think this is a great idea and that it will lead them to happiness – but we all know it won’t be true happiness, right?). Paying them a token amount for an outward expression of behavior does not change them fundamentally inside.

Similarly, Obama’s plan does nothing about the root of the issue - job creation. Even FDR in the 1930’s understood that building highways and bridges and railroads actually created work for people to do. The New Deal had at least the advantage that it struck at the heart of the matter – it put people to work. Still, I’m no fan of Keynesian economic theory that thinks it acceptable for government deficit spending to somehow spark private industry. I believe that less government intrusion is what is needed.

One more thing – let’s not forget about that $5,000. I point out an obvious question – where does it come from? Clearly, it comes from the taxes paid by people who already have jobs and can afford to pay taxes to the government. More simply put, Obama’s plan takes money from the pockets of people who have it, and puts it into the pockets of those who don’t. That sounds an awful lot like socialism to me.

I am stunned at the clear lack of basic economic understanding in play here. Again, if a business had enough work to hire someone new, they would likely do so. Obama’s plan creates the risk that less-than-honest employers will cut hours or benefits for existing employees so that they can bring on new employees – and collect $5,000 for each. At the root, a jobs plan needs to first create work – and jobs will follow. Better yet, get the government out of the “jobs plan” business, cut corporate and personal taxes, and free up businesses to do what they do best – innovate, produce and hire more people. It’s not rocket science.

Worldview Class #2 – Part 3 – Sacred and Secular

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.



*********************



A number of the topics in this class are rather intimidating. When we mention that a worldview must contain opinions on all ten of the listed topics – theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history – it may tend to drive some people away. This feels too much like reliving some of my least favorite college classes.



After all, aren’t these subjects of a more worldly concern? Topics like economics, biology and psychology surely don’t belong in a Sunday morning Bible class, nor should they be a great concern to professing Christians. Shouldn’t we spend our life on more spiritual matters? Aren’t there really two compartments in our lives – one secular and one sacred?



Actually, the follower of Christ should be concerned and knowledgeable about these subjects and should profess a godly opinion for each. Each item should be rooted in biblical truths, straight from God’s word – not just a high-minded opinion of each. We should search the scriptures for God’s stamp on each of these issues.



The first nine chapters of Genesis alone deal with all ten of the topics listed above. For example, Genesis 2:9 tells of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, clearly dealing with the topic of ethics. Genesis 1:28 says “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”, which gives us some direction on the topics of sociology and ecology. The Bible is filled with references which spell out God’s design on each of these topics.



An excellent verse to memorize and commit to heart is Romans 1:20-23:

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Pay particular attention to the part of the verse in bold, that is, that we can glean God’s design by looking at what has been made. From a Christian worldview, the ten topics mentioned above are reflected in aspects of God's nature and the creation and order that He established…which makes all of these topics sacred, and not secular.



That’s right – our viewpoint on a subject such as psychology should reflect what God has revealed to us about the science of human behavior. Similarly, we should treat economics with knowledge given to us by God on the best way to deal with finances. Does the Bible talk about these subjects? It absolutely does.



Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is the reality of God, which has become manifest in Christ in the reality of the world.” And so, we conclude that there are not two distinct compartments in our life, but rather, there is just one. Everything created by God is sacred and set apart for His purposes. We do not live dual lives – a “religious” one on Sunday, and a worldly one the rest of the week. Instead we “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” This is no small task, but it is important for us to realize that every good thing is sacred in God’s eyes.



**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 4 – Secular Humanist Philosophy

-- or –

Back to the start of this series

-- or --

Back to Worldview Series #1