“They Did Not Honor Him as God, or Give Thanks”

Posted: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 4:10 am ET

Thanksgiving is a deeply theological act, rightly understood. As a matter of fact, thankfulness is a theology in microcosm -- a key to understanding what we really believe about God, ourselves, and the world we experience.

A haunting question is this:  How do atheists observe Thanksgiving? I can easily understand that an atheist or agnostic would think of fellow human beings and feel led to express thankfulness and gratitude to all those who, both directly and indirectly, have contributed to their lives. But what about the blessings that cannot be ascribed to human agency? Those are both more numerous and more significant, ranging from the universe we experience to the gift of life itself.

Can one really be thankful without being thankful to someone? It makes no sense to express thankfulness to a purely naturalistic system. The late Stephen Jay Gould, an atheist and one of the foremost paleontologists and evolutionists of his day, described human life as "but a tiny, late-arising twig on life's enormously arborescent bush." Gould was a clear-headed evolutionist who took the theory of evolution to its ultimate conclusion -- human life is merely an accident, though a very happy accident for us. Within that worldview, how does thankfulness work?

The Apostle Paul points to a central insight about thankfulness when he instructs the Christians in Rome about the reality and consequences of unbelief. After making clear that God has revealed himself to all humanity through the created order, Paul asserts that we are all without excuse when it comes to our responsibility to know and worship the Creator.

He wrote:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . .  [Romans 1:20-22].

This remarkable passage has at its center an indictment of thanklessness. They did not honor Him as God or give thanks. Paul wants us to understand that the refusal to honor God and give thanks is a raw form of the primal sin. Theologians have long debated the foundational sin -- and answers have ranged from lust to pride. Nevertheless, it would seem that being unthankful, refusing to recognize God as the source of all good things, is very close to the essence of the primal sin. What explains the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden? A lack of proper thankfulness was at the core of their sin. God gave them unspeakable riches and abundance, but forbade them the fruit of one tree. A proper thankfulness would have led our first parents to avoid that fruit at all costs, and to obey the Lord's command. Taken further, this first sin was also a lack of thankfulness in that the decision to eat the forbidden fruit indicated a lack of thankfulness that took the form of an assertion that we creatures -- not the Creator -- know what is best for us and intend the best for us.

They did not honor Him as God or give thanks. Clearly, honoring God as God leads us naturally into thankfulness. To honor Him as God is to honor His limitless love, His benevolence and care, His provision and uncountable gifts. To fail in thankfulness is to fail to honor God -- and this is the biblical description of fallen and sinful humanity. We are a thankless lot.

Sinners saved by the grace and mercy of God know a thankfulness that exceeds any merely human thankfulness. How do we express thankfulness for the provision the Father has made for us in Christ, the riches that are made ours in Him, and the unspeakable gift of the surpassing grace of God? As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift" [2 Corinthians 9:15].

So, observe a wonderful Thanksgiving -- but realize that a proper Christian Thanksgiving is a deeply theological act that requires an active mind as well as a thankful heart. We need to think deeply, widely, carefully, and faithfully about the countless reasons for our thankfulness to God.

It is humbling to see that Paul so explicitly links a lack of thankfulness to sin, foolishness, and idolatry. A lack of proper thankfulness to God is a clear sign of a basic godlessness. Millions of Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving with little consciousness of this truth. Their impulse to express gratitude is a sign of their spiritual need that can be met only in Christ.

So have a very Happy Thanksgiving -- and remember that giving thanks is one of the most explicitly theological acts any human can contemplate. O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; for His lovingkindness is everlasting [1 Chronicles 16:34]. Give thanks.

___________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Why I Signed The Manhattan Declaration

Posted: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 3:43 am ET

I am not inclined to sign manifestos or petitions. While believing strongly and passionately about many causes, I am not usually impressed with the effectiveness of such statements and I am generally concerned about how such statements might be used or construed by others. I am not reluctant to speak for myself and from my own Christian convictions and consequent judgments. Furthermore, the constant exchange of opposing statements on this or that issue merely crowds the public square as opposing viewpoints compete for attention. So, for reasons perhaps both admirable and not so admirable, I prefer to stand on my own public statements.

But I signed The Manhattan Declaration. Indeed, I am among the original signatories to that statement, released to the public at the National Press Club last Friday. Why?

There are several reasons, but they all come down to this -- I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment.

The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration include evangelical leaders, as well as leaders from the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. The statement establishes the priority of the issues addressed:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Further:

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non­believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

The Culture of Death looms over our civilization, threatening every human being and the very right of our fellow citizens to experience life and to be respected at every stage of development. The statement calls for all Christians to "be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion." But the issue of the sanctity of human life reaches far beyond abortion, to the threats of genocide, "ethnic cleansing," euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the destruction of human embryos for medical experimentation.

On marriage, the statement includes a humble admission of our own Christian complicity in its subversion: "We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage." The declaration goes on to state:

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same­-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life.

The declaration includes a pledge "to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture." Why? "The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church."

The threat to religious liberty is a clear and present danger -- not a remote danger on a far horizon. As the statement rightly reminds us:

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro­-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro­-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti­ discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same­-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century­ long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same­-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi­marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate­ crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

Further:

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded.

Finally, The Manhattan Declaration ends with a statement of public conscience and conviction. These words are meant to send a very clear message -- we cannot and will not abandon or compromise our Christian convictions:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo­-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-­life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage that is both timely and urgent. Over the course of the next few months and years, these issues will be reset in our culture and its laws. These are matters on which the Christian conscience cannot be silent. There are, of course, other issues that demand Christian attention as well. The focus on these three issues is forced by the circumstances of current threats as well as the awareness that the time of decision on these questions has come. Though Christians struggle to understand the extent to which our convictions should be incorporated in the law, we must now recognize that the very respect for these convictions -- and the freedom to follow and obey these convictions in our own lives, families, and ministries is now at stake.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I lead a theological seminary and college, serve as a teaching pastor in a church, and am engaged in Christian leadership in the public square. Thus I see the threats to Christian liberties that now stare us in the face. The freedom not to perform a same-sex marriage is one thing, but what about the freedom to hire employees according to our Christian convictions? What about the right of Christian ministries to conduct their work according to Christian beliefs? What about the freedom to preach and teach against the grain of the nation's laws (for example, after the legalization of same-sex marriage)? When do hate crimes laws slide into definitions of "hate speech?" The threats to our religious liberties are immediate and urgent.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues -- the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge -- that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth -- and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The Blur of Gender — Is The New York Times Trying to Tell Us Something?

Posted: Friday, November 20, 2009 at 4:57 am ET

Is The New York Times trying to tell us something? Just eleven days after running a story on gender-bending teenagers on the front page of its "Style" section, the paper is back with yet another front page story in the same section, this time on gender-bending young adults. The articles even cite the same psychologist as authority. What's going on here?

On November 8, the paper ran an article, "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?," that described cross-dressing among teenagers as a growing phenomenon. Reporter Jan Hoffman explained that "a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate -- or to confound -- gender identity and sexual orientation." Hoffman's article focused on the challenge these teens present to public school officials, who must now deal with boys who want to wear makeup and skirts and girls who want to dress like male gang members.

Hoffman quoted Oakland, California psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, who said: "This generation is really challenging the gender norms we grew up with. . . . A lot of youths say they won't be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. For them, gender is a creative playing field."

Then, in the November 19 edition of the paper, reporter Ruth La Ferla brought a similar story, this time focusing on a slightly older age group and the marketing opportunity their new gender experimentation affords. Her article, "It's All a Blur to Them," is accompanied by a photograph of three rather androgynous young adults and the statement, "Crossing between the men's and women's aisles feels right to young customers today."

And Diane Ehrensaft is back, explaining that this is all a part of the new "gender fluidity." In her words, “younger people no longer accept the standard boxes. They won’t be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. I think there is a peer culture in which that kind of gender blurring is not only acceptable but cool.” That statement is virtually identical to her statement reported in the November 8 article about teenagers.

Is anyone editing the "Style" section? It appears safe to assume that The New York Times is trying to make a point.

Ruth La Ferla begins her article with a description of Chuong Pham, a 28-year-old engineer in Manhattan who wears "stalk-thin jeans" and borrows his mom's "sexily sheared" sweatshirt. "There is a whole transition of men getting into women's wear," Pham explains. "It used to be that the people who did it were just the edgier ones. Now it's much more common."

Brandon Dailey, a 26-year-old hairstylist in Manhattan has not yet worn a skirt, but he expresses his experimentation by wearing "a long drapey shirt with really tight pants." "My generation is more outside the box than the generation before me," he advises.

Audrey Reynolds, age 25, alerted the world of fashion that a gender revolution is at hand. "Every line should be unisex," she suggested. "A good piece of clothing is a good piece of clothing no matter who was meant to wear it in the first place."

Ruth La Ferla suggests that these three young adults represent a "forward-thinking cohort" of the population who are "revising standard notions of gender-appropriate dressing, tweaking codes, upending conventions, and making hash of ancient norms."  This "artfully calibrated ambiguity" about gender is fast becoming mainstream, she reports.

Evidently, at least some in the fashion industry are paying attention:

So entrenched are the latest forms of gender blending that mainstream purveyors of hip, including Urban Outfitters and American Apparel, are offering clothing and jewelry meant to be worn by either sex. American Apparel has no fewer than 724 unisex items — hoodies, cardigans, blazers and bow ties, among them — on its Web site, simply because, as Marsha Brady, the company’s creative director, put it, “that’s the way people wear clothes.”

Ms. La Ferla observes that some fashion lines "have been quick to interpret that sort of ambiguity." One industry insider told La Ferla that "the more successful designers are the ones that try to bridge the gap between the sexes."

Not all are buying into this as a broadening trend. Harold Koda, costume curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art advised that "you need to be young to do it well," adding: "To carry it off, you need the physique of an adolescent boy. As long as the young are the primary audience, it's not going to be economically sustained."

Psychologist Ehrensaft admits that "androgyny may not play in Peoria," but she also insists that "norms are shifting." She then said this: “Kids, even little kids, are experimenting across gender lines. Boys are wearing My Little Pony T-shirts, just because they like them. Sometimes they like to dress in the girls’ section because the shirts are cooler.”

Well, my guess is that little boys wearing "My Little Pony" T-shirts will indeed not play in Peoria -- especially if their dads ever see it. Yet there is something to these reports. There is a lot of experimentation with gender going on among young adults and teenagers. The paper seems to celebrate these young people as the vanguard of a new cultural future. The New York Times appears to be telling America to get ready. What are we to make of the paper running two stories with this much similarity on the front page of the same section within the span of less than two weeks?

The gender confusion and experimentation almost celebrated in these articles is a symptom of a larger and deeper confusion found throughout the culture. Androgynous young people are trying to get our attention. To them, male and female are fluid categories without objective meaning. They are also crossing more than aisles in clothing stores -- they are intentionally confusing sexual identity and the very concepts of male and female.

Recovering sexual sanity and a proper appreciation for gender as a part of the goodness of God's creation will not come easily. Just take a look at the clothing marketed to teenagers and young adults in trendy stores at your local mall. We have a lot of work to do.

___________________________________

Ruth La Ferla, "It's All a Blur to Them," The New York Times, Thursday, November 19, 2009.

Jan Hoffman, "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?," The New York Times, Sunday, November 8, 2009.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Boys Wearing Skirts to School -- What's Going On?," Thursday, November 12, 2009. http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/12/newsnote-boys-wearing-skirts-to-school-whats-going-on/

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

When Morality Collapses — The Therapeutic Evasion

Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm ET

Any civilization requires a stable, rational, and consensual moral framework in order to survive. Western civilization has been built on a framework of Christian morality, with the so-called "Judeo-Christian ethic" providing the moral principles that support laws, ethical reasoning, and moral impulses.

Over the past several decades, that framework has been under sustained attack by ideological opponents, subverted by a secular shift among the elites, and increasingly forgotten by the masses. In its place, the moral reasoning mustered by many Americans amounts to a mixture of moral intuitions, ideological threads, and cultural assumptions. In the main, these all add up to what Philip Rieff called the "triumph of the therapeutic." When morality collapses, all that remains is therapy.

This has been brought to our attention in the aftermath of the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, arrested for the shootings that killed 13 and wounded scores of others, is now known to have yelled "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) as he was shooting, to have links to Islamic extremists in Yemen, and to have visited a mosque frequented by the September 11, 2001 terrorists. More details of his background and motivation have been revealed over the last few days. There is ample evidence that Major Hasan, a physician and psychiatrist, provided much evidence of his motivation.

The role his Muslim faith played in the shootings will require more time to unpack. There will be plenty of time for that consideration as his trial is conducted. In the meantime, we should note the extent to which some observers are doing their best to absolve Major Hasan, whatever the deepest sources of his motivation, of moral responsibility for the massacre.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dorothy Rabinowitz described the kind of moral evasion that the agents of therapy now substitute for any serious moral argument:

The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.

To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind.

This was not a well act? Would the killing of even one person in cold blood be a "well act," Dr. Phil? Is our moral discourse now limited to distinguishing between what some psychologist or psychiatrist considers as well acts and unwell acts? That is all we have to say in light of a mass murder?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer described the same phenomenon in The Washington Post. Krauthammer, who is himself a psychiatrist, was outraged when so many commentators and national leaders responded to the massacre by suggesting that Major Hasan is a victim of some traumatic stress disorder brought on by his treatment of returning troops fresh from Iraq and Afghanistan.

He wrote:

Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?

And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?

Rejecting this evasion, Krauthammer wrote with exasperation: "It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic."

The medicalization of mass murder is a great moral evasion. Substituting the therapeutic worldview for morality will not work. Krauthammer explains:

Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.

We must listen carefully to the conversations all around us -- and particularly to those among the opinion-makers. Krauthammer and Rabinowitz offer much-needed words of warning. We ignore this at our peril.

The therapeutic mentality is all that remains when a moral framework is abandoned. No civilization can survive this evasion of moral responsibility. Sick is no adequate substitute for evil. Medicalizing morality means the end of right and wrong as meaningful categories.

We are just left with Dr. Phil, and his concern that a massacre is "not a well act." If that is all we can say -- even the first thing that we say -- we are not a well society.

_____________________________

Dorothy Rabinowitz, "Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer, The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, November 10, 2009.

Charles Krauthammer, "Medicalizing Mass Murder," The Washington Post, Friday, November 13, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

NewsNote: Cartooning the Word — R. Crumb’s “The Book of Genesis”

Posted: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 12:50 pm ET

In all likelihood, most people would never even imagine a cartoon version of Genesis. Nevertheless, the cartoon version has arrived, and it is attracting no small amount of attention.

The Book of Genesis Illustrated is by famed cartoonist R. Crumb. Famous among cartoonists for his work as far back as the 1960s, Crumb has always combined cartoons and a social/political agenda. As David Colton of USA Today explains, Crumb is known for "subversive, turn-of-the-century linework, untamed libido, and obsessive social commentary."

Indeed, Crumb personally attributes aspects of his style to experiences with LSD in his younger years. He became known for his "Keep on Truckin'" and "Fritz the Cat" cartoons. Disillusioned with the United States, Crumb took his family to France, where they now live.

Somewhere along the way, Crumb decided to take on the Bible, starting with Genesis. That is no small ambition. But why?

Crumb seems attracted to the book of Genesis as a collection of narratives with deep influence in Western culture. "I'm a spiritual guy," he told USA Today. "I'm not an atheist, more an agnostic. I don't doubt the existence of God. I just don't know quite what God is. It's a question that will challenge me until the day I die."

As for the Bible, Crumb does not take it as the Word of God. He said, "I don't believe it's the Word of God. I believe it's the words of men." He added, "I'm just another human interpreting the story."

In other comments about the project, Crumb has been a bit more forceful. He told Peter Aspden of the Financial Times that working on the Genesis project "nearly killed me." Working through Genesis "ruined my health. I'm in recovery."

He also spoke straightforwardly about his view of the Bible:

"I am completely sick of the Bible. I began to hate it as I worked on it. I've had my fill. The idea that millions of people have taken it so seriously -- it is totally nuts. The human race is crazy."

His Genesis project did not lead him to admire the Bible. "It had the opposite effect on me. . . .  I saw what a primitive, backward morality I had to deal with. It was a good way of exorcising the power of the Bible."

Crumb's distinctive cartoon style plays out across the Genesis narratives. The front cover of the book promises "nothing left out." Very little is. Readers will find cartoon depictions of everything from Creation and the Fall to the curse of Onan. Reading The Book of Genesis Illustrated does reveal the power of this artistic expression (as in the sacrifice of Isaac), but mostly its severe limitations.

Christians coming across the Crumb project may wonder what to think. After all, this is a project that is attracting significant attention. Millions of Americans buy comics and pay close attention to the world of cartooning. Crumb's new work has gained the attention of the nation's major newspapers and the digital world.

For one thing, Crumb's work reminds us that God gave us words, not images, as His means of revelation. The prohibition against images is not just a divine preference, it is a command. Looking at Crumb's work makes the force of this prohibition all the more clear. Crumb interprets (or misinterprets) with every image and characterization. His style dominates the narrative -- which is precisely the danger. And Crumb insists that he tried his best to restrain himself. "I'm not ridiculing it, just illustrating the exact words that are there."

Another key insight from the project is this: The Bible always demands a judgment of the reader. The Bible cannot be read simply as literature of historical importance. Any reader sees it as far more than that. In fact, the Bible presents such straightforward claims about both God and humanity that it is either loved or hated, seen as the Word of God or as a poisonous chronicle of the human religious imagination.

In that respect, Crumb's declarations about the Bible make more sense. His experience of drawing the narratives from Genesis led him to hate the Bible. He is offended that so many millions have taken it seriously. "To take this as a sacred text, or Word of God or something to live by, is kind of crazy," he told David Colton. "So much of it makes no sense. To think of all the fighting and killing that's gone on over this book, it just became to me a colossal absurdity. That's probably the most profound moment I've had -- the absurdity of it all."

R. Crumb reveals a great deal about himself in this project. His project also reveals once again why God gave us words, and not images. Crumb's newest work may be described as a triumph of the human imagination -- and that is precisely the problem.

The Bible always lays claim upon the reader. The Book of Genesis demands a decision. The God who reveals himself in these words is not only the Creator of the cosmos, but the judge of every human soul. Genesis not only begins the Bible, it reminds us of our need for Christ. Every single narrative Crumb depicts finds its ultimate meaning in the atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ.

But that great fact cannot be reduced to a cartoon. It was never meant to be.

_____________________________

David Colton, "Illustrator R. Crumb is Drawn to God with His Latest Project," USA Today, October 19, 2009.

Peter Aspden, "A Bad Boy and the Good Book," Financial Times, October 4, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Atheism Remix Event at University of Louisville

Posted: Monday, November 16, 2009 at 5:25 am ET

I was honored to speak at a special event on the campus of the University of Louisville last night, sponsored by The Campus Church. I spoke on my book, Atheism Remix, in an author forum that brought a capacity crowd to the Red Barn on the UofL campus.

I was honored to take part in this event, and to engage in a really productive question and answer session with the audience. I was especially pleased that some atheists attended and participated in the dialogue. The New Atheism demands Christian attention and a Christian response. This was a first-class event, organized by students under the direction of Dan Dewitt, campus pastor of The Campus Church. You can listen to the event here. Video should be available very shortly.

Let me know what you are thinking. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

NewsNote: Woof ‘n Worship? Seriously?

Posted: Friday, November 13, 2009 at 6:19 am ET

Just for the sake of adequate seriousness, I will resist all temptations to pun. That is no easy resistance in light of the report from the Associated Press about American churches developing special services for congregants and their dogs.

The story, reported by Gillian Flaccus, begins with Rev. Tom Eggebeen of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. Faced with an aging and declining congregation, the pastor decided to do something innovative -- he started a service for both people and dogs, "Canines at Covenant."

Gillian Flaccus described Eggebeen's idea: "He would turn God's house into a doghouse by offering a 30-minute service complete with individual doggie beds, canine prayers and an offering of dog treats. He hopes it will reinvigorate the church's connection with the community, provide solace to elderly members and, possibly, attract new worshippers who are as crazy about God as they are about their four-legged friends."

Flaccus also cited Laura Hobgood-Oster, a religion professor at Southwestern University in Texas, who recently conducted a survey that revealed more than 500 churches that conduct blessing services for pets and six that go so far as to offer pet worship services like the "Canines at Covenant" service. One church near Boston offers a "Woof 'n Worship" service. The professor sees "pet-centric" services as a growing trend.

The reason she offers is especially interesting: "It's the changing family structure, where pets are really central and religious communities are starting to recognize that people need various kinds of rituals that include their pets . . . . More and more people in mainline Christianity are considering them to have some kind of soul."

The report goes on to explain that the dogs at the "Canines at Covenant" service showed little evidence of interest. Nevertheless, the service was very pleasing to the human participants who brought their dogs. One woman brought two dogs, a black Lab and a Dachshund-terrier mix. She told the reporter, "I don't have any kids, so my pets have always been my children, so it does mean a lot . . . . I haven't been to church in a long time and this may push me into it. I'm getting older and I've been thinking about those things again."

Gillian Flaccus offers a very interesting report on the "Canines at Covenant" service and the larger phenomenon of "pet-centric" services. Her report also points to a deep theological confusion that these services bring to light. There are several dimensions to this confusion.

First, the Bible clearly presents animals as part of the goodness of God's creation. As Christians, we are to see the glory of God in the diversity and wonders of the animal kingdom. We are to respect all animals as intentional creations of God and to acknowledge the gifts that these creatures represent. God created animals for his own glory, and humans are to see the glory of the Creator in each animal species and individual.

Second, God made human beings as the only creatures made in his image. As the image-bearers of God, humans alone have the capacity to know and to worship the Creator. Animals reflect the glory of God, but only human beings can see the glory of God and know the Creator.  Animals may possess consciousness, but they do not have souls. They lack the capacity to know the Creator.

Third, God assigned human beings dominion over the animal kingdom and clearly marked a separation between humans and animals. This separation is clear, ranging from the dominion theme to the prohibition of bestiality. To compromise that separation is to disobey God. Some part of our contemporary confusion over this distinction is due to emotionalism and sentiment, but much of it is driven by an ideology that reduces the status of humanity to that of the animals.

Fourth, while we recognize and celebrate the consciousness of many animals, we recognize that their consciousness is different from our own. We must also be aware that we tend to read features of human consciousness onto animals. We enjoy stories and movies that feature talking animals and endearing animal characters, but this is fiction, not fact. Many animals do enjoy forms of community and relatedness, but they are not humans. We must always be aware of the temptation to read human abilities and states of mind onto animals.

Fifth, to put the matter simply, animals do not worship God. Jesus told the woman at the well [John 4] that the Father seeks worshippers who worship him in spirit and in truth. The biblical concept of worship is not limited to attendance at a service, but involves the conscious and active knowledge of himself through Jesus Christ. Dogs do not worship. As Gillian Flaccus reported, the dogs at the "Canines at Covenant" service "didn't seem very interested in dogma." That observation is cute, but profoundly understated.

Sixth, the Bible says a great deal about animals. From Genesis to Revelation animals are keys to understanding God's revelation. Genesis shows us the indescribable wonder of the animals in creation. The Bible reveals the catastrophic impact of the Fall on animals, leading to predation and violence. At the end of the Bible, we are given the picture of the new creation and the reversal of the curse of sin as the lion and the lamb lay together. But, amazingly enough, even as the Bible mentions animals as beasts of burden and agents of violence, it gives virtually no attention to animals as pets.

Seventh, America is a pet-centric culture, and this reveals much about us. We have the wealth to spend billions of dollars on pets. The ownership and enjoyment of pets is a sign of wealth and plenty. We are also a society that is trading human relationships for the companionship of pets. We cut off our elderly from extended family and leave them alone with their pets. We see increasing numbers of younger people who decide not to have children, but instead to pour themselves into relationships with their pets. Restaurants, malls, and hotels are asked to allow pets even as they allow children. Professor Hobgood-Oster points to the pet-centricity of our society as evidence of "the changing family structure, where pets are really central." The woman who brought her two dogs to the "Canines at Covenant" service said, "I don't have any kids, so my pets have always been my children." Postmodern Americans see these statements as evidence of new lifestyle choices. Christians should see these statements as tragic.

Eighth, the churches that offer these services are concentrated in the liberal wing of American Protestantism. The declining membership of liberal churches is matched to a loss of theological focus. Churches concerned with the preaching of the Gospel, committed to authentic evangelism and biblical preaching, are not going to demonstrate the confusion that leads to "Canines at Covenant." It is not surprising that Covenant Presbyterian Church lists its support for same-sex marriage and opposition to California's "Proposition 8" defending traditional marriage on the front page of its Web site.

I am thankful for dogs. My own family cherishes a friendly and inquisitive Beagle who reveals the glory of God in just being a Beagle. But Baxter does not go to church. I am absolutely convinced that animals will be a part of the New Creation we are promised in Christ. But it is believers in Christ -- redeemed humanity -- that yearn for this New Creation. To blur the distinction between humans and animals is to confuse the Gospel itself.

_______________________

Gillian Flaccus, "Gone to the Dogs: LA Church Starts Pet Service." Associated Press (AP), November 4, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Conventional Thinking: Younger Pastors and the Hope of a Future

Posted: Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:36 am ET

I posted a new article at Conventional Thinking on younger pastors and the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Tonight I spent a really encouraging few hours with a group of younger pastors — men who are being greatly used of God to reach their own generation and far beyond. That experience made me really thankful, and also led me to think about why Southern Baptists should be especially thankful for the rising generation of young pastors. [Read more]

NewsNote: Boys Wearing Skirts to School? What’s Going On?

Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 3:55 am ET

"Clothes are never a frivolity -- they always mean something." Thus spoke James Laver, a famous costume designer and interpreter of fashion. He is right, of course. Clothes always mean something, which is why The New York Times gave major attention to an issue facing many schools: "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?"

The article, right on the front of the "Sunday Styles" section of the paper, announced, "When gender bends the dress code, high schools struggle to respond." The story reveals a confusion over gender that goes far beyond the dress code.

As Jan Hoffman reports, high schools generally have very specific rules about clothing these days. Boys are forbidden to wear muscle shirts and saggy pants, and girls cannot wear midriff-exposing tops or skirts that are too short. But what happens when a boy wants to wear a skirt?

"In recent years, a growing number of teenagers have been dressing to articulate — or confound — gender identity and sexual orientation," Hoffman reports. "Certainly they have been confounding school officials, whose responses have ranged from indifference to applause to bans."

This is no longer an issue limited to isolated examples. Districts across the country have reported teens who have attempted to cross the gender line in dress. Many of these cases have captured media attention, with highly publicized controversies. In other cases, the challenges have been more quiet.

The cases are, to say the least, both interesting and troubling. Boys are making news for wearing skinny jeans, makeup, wigs, and skirts. Girls are bending gender in their own way by, for example, wearing a tuxedo for the school picture or to a school event.

Jan Hoffman does a good job of setting the issue in perspective:

Dress is always code, particularly for teenagers eager to telegraph evolving identities. Each year, schools hope to quell disruption by prohibiting the latest styles that signify a gang affiliation, a sexual act or drug use.

But when officials want to discipline a student whose wardrobe expresses sexual orientation or gender variance, they must consider antidiscrimination policies, mental health factors, community standards and classroom distractions.

Well, that certainly presents a very complicated challenge. Diane Ehrensaft, an Oakland psychologist cited in the article, states the obvious: "This generation is really challenging the gender norms we grew up with. . . . A lot of youths say they won't be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. For them, gender is a creative playing field."  She added that adults then "become the gender police through dress codes."

As Hoffman makes clear, these challenges to dress codes can quickly become legal skirmishes pitting students (and often their parents) against school administrators. Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute argues that this is one reason that so many schools have shifted to students wearing uniforms.

"It's hard enough to get students to concentrate on an algorithm," she reminds, "even without Jimmy sitting there in lipstick and fake eyelashes."

That sets the issue in a very clear instructional perspective. Schools are about teaching and learning, and both teachers and administrators face daunting challenges. The last thing they need is the added distraction of gender-bending teenagers on parade.

And the issues can be far more troubling than classroom distractions. Hoffman reports that some schools have faced boys wearing "pink frilly scarves" and makeup and girls trying to dress like male gang members. In Columbus, Ohio a boy wore girl's clothing but used the boys' bathroom. Jeff Grace, faculty advisor for the school's gay-straight alliance club told Hoffman, “One day I heard a student say, ‘Man, there was a girl in the guy’s restroom, standing up using the urinal! What’s up with that?’" Another student then quipped, “That wasn’t a girl. That’s just Jack."

These adolescents represent the younger face of a society that is giving itself over to a confusion about gender and dress that reveals a much deeper confusion about gender, sexuality, and the limits of self-expression. The controversy also reveals an even deeper cultural and moral divide over the same issues.

Should a boy who shows up at school dressed as a girl be celebrated for self-expression and transgressing the boundaries of gender roles, or should he be seen as signaling a need for help and adult-imposed rules? The widely divergent answers to that question reveal the great worldview divide in postmodern America. This controversy cannot be isolated from the movement to normalize homosexuality, and that movement cannot be separated from an effort to remove all notions of fixed gender roles and sexual identity.

The controversy over boys wearing skirts to school is a symptom of our loss of sexual sanity and the will to preserve any reasonable and healthy understanding of gender. These teenagers are telling us something important -- we are losing our sexual sanity.

For Christians, the issue is a matter of biblical concern. The Bible reveals a concern for respecting and honoring gender as God's gift. In the Old Testament, the Law taught respect for these distinctions and roles. In the New Testament, we find similar expectations. As the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11: 7-15:

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

While addressed to the specific concerns of a church setting, this text also generalizes the point by making a specific reference to what nature teaches concerning the recognition of the difference between males and females. The Creator is honored and glorified when men and boys dress and present themselves as males and when women and girls dress and present themselves as females. Culture by culture and generation by generation the specific form of this distinction may change, but the point remains.

God made human beings to show His glory, and an essential part of that glory is the visible difference between males and females that is reflected even in the public presentation of dress. We should be able to tell the difference between a boy and a girl by the way they dress and present themselves in public.

As James Laver reminded, clothes always tell us something. This article from the "Sunday Styles" section of The New York Times tells us something as well -- something we need to hear.

_____________________________

Jan Hoffman, "Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?," The New York Times, Sunday, November 8, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

On Faith: Religious Belief and the Military

Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm ET

This week's question at "On Faith," the religion project of The Washington Post and Newsweek was posed against the tragic backdrop of the shootings at Fort Hood. The question comes down to this: "How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?"

In the days since the shootings, the question of Muslims serving in the U.S. military has been unavoidable. In one sense, the question is hardly new. It arose in the first Gulf War when Muslims asked if it could be allowable to serve in the U.S. military when action was taken in or against a Muslim majority nation. Clearly, the question now arises in the case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Evidence that Hasan cried out a Muslim expression during the attack, that he had visited a mosque linked to Muslim extremism, and that he had been in contact with suspected Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda only served to add urgency to the questions.

The United States military is made up of citizen soldiers, and is an all-voluntary force. These citizen-soldiers defend our freedoms and constitutional rights, and they do not surrender their constitutional rights when they put on the uniform. Our cherished rights of religious belief and expression are not canceled when individuals enter the Armed Forces.

At the same time, the military is a unique institution -- a fact recognized by law. Voluntary enlistment in the Armed Forces entails the assumption of certain limitations and responsibilities that are necessary for the maintenance of military order and effectiveness.

Given our commitment to religious liberty, we must make every reasonable accommodation to the religious beliefs of military personnel. These accommodations range from the provision of military chaplains and chapels to the category of conscientious objector, based in religious conviction. Complex questions do arise, and in the context of deployment to battle the questions of accommodating religious belief can erupt in excruciatingly difficult forms.

Service in the military is open to all, regardless of religious faith. In our constitutional republic, that is as it should be. Those who wear the uniform of the U.S. Armed Services take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." To take that oath and put on that uniform is to accept a solemn and sacred responsibility to defend the United States. If religious beliefs conflict with this oath, the individual should never enter the Armed Forces.

We know enough by now to know that Major Hasan was a deeply troubled man. There is now no way to isolate his deeds from his Muslim identity. We cannot read his heart, but we can read of his contacts, statements, and actions. There is already a reactivated debate among Muslims about the ethics of Muslims serving in the Armed Forces in Muslim lands.

It is not fair to generalize Major Hasan's actions to the entire Muslim community, but there is also no way to ignore the fact that Major Hasan's Muslim beliefs were involved in his motive for the killings. This will take time to sort out.

In the meantime, the U.S. Armed Forces should make every effort to accommodate the religious beliefs and convictions of its personnel. That is what we owe to those who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. But they owe the entire nation -- and first of all their fellow soldiers --  the commitments of loyalty, obedience, respect, and protection.

The military cannot accommodate any belief system that undermines those commitments. No nation can accommodate those who would turn themselves into terrorists against their own neighbors, citizens, and fellow soldiers.

____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

NewsNote: Falling Fertility Makes for Happy Economists?

Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 6:22 am ET

Is the fact that fertility is falling around the world good news? You would certainly think so if you agree with the analysis cheerily offered by The Economist. That very respected journal of economic analysis recently offered a cover story that celebrated falling human fertility as "changing the world for the better."

"Sometime in the next few years (if it hasn't happened already) the world will reach a milestone," the magazine predicts, adding that "half of humanity will be having only enough children to replace itself." In other words, for half of the world the fertility rate will have dropped to 2.1, considered the replacement rate for couples. This milestone, the magazine declares, "is one of the most dramatic social changes in history."

Predictions about falling fertility rates have become commonplace. In much of Europe, falling fertility has been a fact of life for decades. In many countries on the continent, falling fertility is already leading to social pressures as the workforce ages quickly and schools see falling enrollments. In Russia, the army fears that it will be unable to deploy adequate troops in coming years -- there are simply not enough boys to become the next generation's soldiers. In Japan, falling fertility rates point to dramatic changes in the society. As one observer noted, the nation is on its way to becoming a giant geriatric ward with fewer and fewer young people.

The Economist sees all this as good news. Looking at the picture with a rosy economic view, the magazine offers that falling fertility rates mean a "Goldilocks moment" for some economies, when the demographics of falling fertility mean a time of optimal economic growth and decreased economic dependence. Of course, the magazine has to acknowledge that this "Goldilocks moment" will almost certainly be followed by dramatic problems brought about by an aging population. For now, The Economist congratulates these economies for their temporary "demographic dividend."

The magazine also suggests that falling fertility leads to an increase in women in education and women in the workforce. It states: "Educated women are more likely to go out to work, more likely to demand contraception and less likely to want large families."

Shamelessly, The Economist even offers a thankful nod to China's notorious "one child only policy."  As the magazine reports:

China’s one-child policy...began nationwide in the early 1970s. China’s population is probably 300m-400m lower now than it would have been without it. The policy (which is one of population control, not birth control) has had dreadful costs, including widespread female infanticide, a lopsided sex ratio and horrors such as mass sterilisation and forced abortions. But in its own terms, it has worked—20m people enter the workforce each year, instead of 40m—and, to the extent that China is polluting less than it would have done, it has benefited the rest of the world.

So, despite its "dreadful costs" including female infanticide, mass sterilization and forced abortions, "it has worked." Furthermore, by reducing pollution through the reduced fertility rate, China's "one child only" policy "has benefited the rest of the world."

Finally, The Economist argues that the falling fertility rates just might put the brakes on population growth, alleviating fears of a "population bomb."  But look closely at this:

A further reduction of fertility would be possible if family planning were spread to the parts of the world which do not yet have it (notably Africa). But that would only reduce the growth in the world’s numbers from 9.2 billion in 2050 to, say, 8.5 billion. To go further would probably require draconian measures, such as sterilisation or one-child policies.

Do the editors of The Economist support or defend these "draconian measures" for the sake of economic gain? We must hope not, but the final words of the magazine's essay are not reassuring:

The bad news is that the girls who will give birth to the coming, larger generations have already been born. The good news is that they will want far fewer children than their mothers or grandmothers did.

Do they really mean what they say here? The fact that these girls have already been born is "bad news." The good news is that they are likely to want fewer children, offers the essay.

The economic effects of falling fertility may offer a temporary "Goldilocks moment" for specific economies, but the long-range costs of a rapidly aging and numerically shrinking population are really frightening. Does The Economist care about anything beyond the immediate future?

In the end, the economic calculations and forecasts are less important than the moral concerns raised by this cover story. The assumption of the article seems to be that human beings are primarily economic agents, who should be moved into the workplace as soon as possible. This is a sadly deficient understanding of human nature and what it means to be human. The depreciation of family life (and specifically of motherhood) found in this essay reveals a great deal.

A society that celebrates a falling fertility rate is a society that is trading maternity wards for nursing homes. There is something very troubling and very sad about that exchange. Not least among the troubling questions is this: Just who will come visit and care for the aged when the aged outnumber all the rest?

___________________________________

"Go Forth and Multiply a Lot Less," The Economist, October 29, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

NewsNote: Moral Clarity and the Fall of the Wall

Posted: Monday, November 09, 2009 at 3:42 pm ET

The twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall is an important landmark in human history. That wall, one of history's most heinous symbols of oppression, stood as a physical reminder of Communism's essence. The Wall was not built to keep invaders out, but to imprison a people within. In the singular interest of avoiding its own evacuation, the Soviet-backed government of the German Democratic Republic erected that wall and murdered those who attempted to cross it.

The passage of time is so swift that today's younger Americans are only dimly aware of the Wall, if at all.  Their historical horizons collapse anything before their birth into ancient history.  As with all historical losses, this one is costly. We must remember the Wall in all of its ugliness and murderousness.  We must remember the gun towers and barbed wire, the broken glass and mines, the sight of human beings shot dead simply for seeking to flee a regime that crushed the human spirit.

History is never uncomplicated.  Two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, several insights come into focus.  We now know that the Communist regimes of the Eastern Bloc had for some time been losing confidence and the will to maintain order by any and all means.  The epic economic and social failures of Marxism were impossible to deny.  Too many eyes had seen over the Wall, and denial of the obvious grew ever more costly.

The aged leaders of the Soviet Union maintained a steady face, but their own younger leaders had lost hope in the system. The Communist regimes were, quite literally, losing steam.  The amazing fact to realize now is that so few in the West seemed to see this.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Anthony R. Dolan, a former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan, offers keen insights in "Four Little Words," published in today's edition.  The article takes us into the life of the Reagan administration as President Reagan prepared to deliver a speech at the Berlin Wall in July of 1987. Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall is rightly remembered for four words he addressed directly to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, "Tear down this wall."

As Dolan recalls, those words sent shock waves through the White House and the State Department long before the world heard the President speak them.  Powerful forces within the Administration warned that the words would "embarrass" Gorbachev.  But Reagan knew his moment, and he was fueled by a moral clarity that was missing in others.  Previous administrations had sought to avoid the kind of ultimatum of history that President Reagan delivered at the Wall.

As Dolan writes:

Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind's abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others.

Accordingly, Reagan spoke formally and repeatedly of deploying against criminal regimes the one weapon they fear more than military or economic sanction: the publicly-spoken truth about their moral absurdity, their ontological weakness. This was the sort of moral confrontation, as countless dissidents and resisters have noted, that makes these regimes conciliatory, precisely because it heartens those whom they fear most—their own oppressed people. Reagan's understanding that rhetorical confrontation causes geopolitical conciliation led in no small part to the wall's collapse 20 years ago today.

Dolan's article is important at many levels -- not least for revealing the divisions within the American government -- but his focus on moral clarity in the face of Communist oppression and criminality is both refreshing and important.  Reagan understood that certain regimes and empires were -- remember the word? -- evil.

This is not to suggest that any government or political structure is perfect.  Nevertheless, the Communist regimes that were so clearly exposed by the Berlin Wall had given themselves over to criminality and evil. President Reagan saw this when others, trained to see the world as diplomats, failed to see.  Reagan saw himself as stating the obvious, and hoped to give others courage to see and say the same.

There are two great moral dangers we must always resist: The first is declaring moral clarity before the truth is known.  The second is refusing to acknowledge a moral clarity that is right before our eyes.  These days, the second appears to be the greater temptation.

Those who took down the Berlin Wall in 1989 knew exactly what they were doing.  They knew exactly what that Wall meant.  They were willing to tear it down with their bare hands.  They were animated by freedom and guided by moral clarity.

We dare not forget the day the Wall fell, nor the moral clarity that brought it down.

___________________________

Anthony R. Dolan, "Four Little Words," The Wall Street Journal, Monday, November 9, 2009.

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

NewsNote: The Hypersocialized Generation

Posted: Friday, November 06, 2009 at 2:08 pm ET

Jeffery Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal opens his article with the story of a 17-year-old boy sent to the vice principal's office after being caught sending text messages in class.  The vice principal, Steve Gallagher, told the boy to pay attention to the teacher, not to his cellphone.  Even as the boy nodded politely, Gallagher noticed something amiss -- the boy was texting about his discipline for being caught texting.

"It was a subconscious act," said Gallagher. "Young people today are connected socially from the moment they open their eyes in the morning until they close their eyes at night. It's compulsive."

Zaslow calls the lifestyle of these young people "hypersocializing."  As he observes:

Because so many people in their teens and early 20s are in this constant whir of socializing—accessible to each other every minute of the day via cellphone, instant messaging and social-networking Web sites—there are a host of new questions that need to be addressed in schools, in the workplace and at home. Chief among them: How much work can "hyper-socializing" students or employees really accomplish if they are holding multiple conversations with friends via text-messaging, or are obsessively checking Facebook?

There is an argument to be noticed here.  Some assert that this generation of teens and twenty-somethings has developed an invaluable ability to multitask, to frame arguments with few words, and to stay constantly connected. Some, like Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies, go so far as to argue that these young people are so skilled at "multimedia socializing" that their social skills are superior to previous generations, rightly understood.

Others, noting the time spent obsessively checking digital devices, see a loss of community, a fog of constant chatter, and, for both employers and educators, a massive volume of lost time. As P. M. Forni at Johns Hopkins University observes, "There is a lot of communication going on that is futile and trivial."

Consider what this means for educators:

Educators are also being asked by parents, students and educational strategists to reconsider their rules. In past generations, students got in trouble for passing notes in class. Now students are adept at texting with their phones still in their pockets, says 40-year-old Mr. Gallagher, the vice principal, "and they're able to communicate with someone one floor down and three rows over. Students are just fundamentally different today. They will take suspensions rather than give up their phones."

As Gallagher concludes, asking students to separate themselves from social media for the school day seems futile. "It's like talking to kids about why they don't need air."

Jeffery Zaslow's article, published in the invaluable "Personal Journal" section of The Wall Street Journal, is directed mainly to the business community, where executives are hard pressed to know how much they should (or even can) restrict social networking among younger employees. But the issues he addresses go far beyond the business context. His article should be read by parents, pastors, teachers, and anyone who cares about the minds and souls of young people.

One thing is clear -- Zaslow is not exaggerating. Almost every parent of a teenager or twenty-something will recognize the truth of his diagnosis of "hypersocializing" among the young. If anything, the issues range beyond the concerns he identifies.  Business executives are concerned about the financial costs and economic impact. Educators are rightly concerned about distractions from the learning process. But what does this hypersocializing do to the souls of young people?

As prophets of technological pessimism from Jacques Ellul to Neil Postman have reminded us, every technology comes with an effect on the soul. How does this digital revolution effect the souls of young people who quite literally sleep with cellphones on the pillow, lest they miss a text message in the night? What space is left for the development of flesh-and-blood friendships? How are they related to people who do not have access to text messages? Is their communicative ability now limited to 140 characters in a burst?

Among young Christians, what space is left for the development of a devotional life? Do their lives contain any space for extended quiet and reflection, for prayer, or for reading anything longer than a text message?

This is precisely where evangelical Christians need to invest serious thought and reflection. We should all be concerned when Steve Gallagher laments that these young people think they need constant access to social media the way they need oxygen for breathing.

Then again, maybe the real problem is much worse than Zaslow and Gallagher acknowledge. Is this phenomenon limited to the "hypersocialized" young?  In the spirit of personal confession I must admit that I turn on my iPhone the moment the plane hits the tarmac on landing. I feel irresponsible if I do not post regular Twitter updates and check email and messages constantly. Colleagues, friends, and constituents expect "hypersocializing," and they now range across the age spectrum.

There is no going back -- at least not in terms of retreat. The social universe is a fact of life, and a missiological challenge for the Christian church. We are all Facebookers now.

The hypersocialized generation of teenagers and young adults needs to learn limits. Parents must provide those limits for their children and encourage them in older offspring. Educators and executives cannot ignore the challenge, but there is as yet no mechanism for determining proper balance in a world growing more hypersocialized by the day.

We are all looking for someone to figure this out and find the responsible boundaries. When this happens, let's hope they send a text message to the rest of us.

_____________________________

Jeffery Zaslow, "The Greatest Generation (of Networkers)," The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, November 4, 2009.

NewsNote: Muslim Creationists and Western Elites — Get Out Much?

Posted: Thursday, November 05, 2009 at 4:31 pm ET

Every individual human being is embedded in a complex of culture, language, relationships, and ideas. What we see as normal is a product of our perception from within that embedded social location. It takes considerable intellectual effort to escape our own cultural cage. Furthermore, it is far easier to notice when others reveal their cultural assumption than when we reveal our own.

That said, there is something very strange and revealing about the response of the intellectual elites to the fact that their cherished theory of evolution is held by such a small percentage of the world's population. Indeed, polls indicate that Americans reject the theory of evolution by a significant margin, leading observers like Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times to express public exasperation.

We know that about half of all citizens in the United Kingdom now want intelligent design taught alongside evolution in the British schools. In America, evolutionary scientists are trying to explain why young children seem "hardwired" to see evidence of intelligent design in the world around them. And a quick look around the globe will demonstrate that belief in the worldview of evolution is actually held by a very thin demographic slice of the world's population.

Now, a really interesting slant on the global perspective comes as the Western media discover that (can you believe it?) Muslims tend not to be evolutionists. That accounts for between 20 and 25 percent of the world's population.

From a report by Drake Bennett in The Boston Globe:

Americans familiar with the long and bitter battle over the teaching of evolution in our schools likely have a set of images of what creationism looks like: from the Scopes trial, and its dramatization in “Inherit the Wind,” to more recent battles over textbooks on school boards in Kansas and Georgia and in federal court in Pennsylvania. The doctrine of creationism, and its less explicitly religious cousin intelligent design, are extensively developed counter-narratives of the origin of life on Earth, fed by Christian concerns and shaped by Christian beliefs.

And then:

But there is another creationist movement whose influence is growing, and which is fueling challenges to science in countries where Christianity has little sway: Islamic creationism. Campaigners in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and Indonesia have fought the teaching of evolution in schools there, sometimes with great success. Creationist conferences have been held in Pakistan, and moderate Islamic clerics are on record publicly condemning Darwin’s ideas. A recent study of Muslim university students in the Netherlands showed that most rejected evolution. And driven in part by a mysterious Turkish publishing organization, Islamic creationism books are hot sellers at bookstores throughout the Muslim world.

According to the report, the existence of an Islamic version of creationism "has raised concerns among scientists and educators." Salman Hameed, a scientist at Hampshire College, predicted that "the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world."  That is a long way from Dayton, Tennessee and the Scopes trial.

The Islamic form of creationism is different in key respects from the Christian version, which can only be expected. Common to both, however, is the central belief in a divine Creator who designed and made the cosmos and all therein.

You can expect to see more about this, but consider a key question that the media coverage of Islamic creationism raises: How could the fact that Muslims generally reject naturalistic evolution come as a surprise to Western intellectuals?

Get out much?

_________________________

Drake Bennett, "Islam's Darwin Problem," The Boston Globe, October 25, 2009.

Salman Hameed, "Bracing for Islamic Creationism," Science, 322 (December 12, 2008) [PDF file].

Write me at mali@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.