“UNARMED TRUTH AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE”?

 

Martin Luther King predicted that “unarmed truth and unconditional love” would “have the final word in reality.” Apologist Ravi Zacharias  noted that because “Our entire educational ideology in the West is propelled by a radical secular agenda…and is governed by  a scientific single vision”, we must ask the next question: “Which of the exact sciences gives us the imperatives of unarmed truth and unconditional love?”

Dr. Zacharias reminded his readers that “truth and love are not the imperatives of a naturalistic framework”, and that “those who truly wish dignity and honorable freedom can’t find it in the pure sciences.” Is it possible that this emptiness of the soul is spawning a new generation that will reject the philosophy of naturalism and gain a new outlook on truth?

It appears that we may have reached a time when serious-minded young people are beginning to ask some tough questions about the worldview they have inherited through western education and its resulting culture.  Christian apologists are encountering packed lecture halls all over the West with students waiting long times to ask their questions.  They are seeking answers that “naturalism has not and cannot give them.”

This is encouraging news for Christians who have long been praying  for a new dawning of light to pierce the darkness of radical secularism. Could there be a revival on the horizon that will bring about a new enlightenment? We must hope and pray that there is, because without it, Malcolm Muggeridge’s prediction of a “dark, dismal future for humanity”* is the likely alternative.

*All quotes are taken from the RZIM Spring 2016 Newsletter.

 

What to Make of Climate Change

Is climate change a real problem, and if so, is it something human beings can fix?  What I’ve found is that you can find reasonable people on both sides of the issue.  One more question I have, though, concerns why it has become so political.  Usually when I’m trying to understand such things and where I should come down on it, I often look at the people on either side and try to figure out their ideologies and philosophies.  Where do they stand on the big question of TRUTH?  Are they more inclined to be relativists or do they have a place in their worldview for absolutes?  Another test I try to employ is checking out who they tend to hang out with and support.  In other words who do they most agree with and what are those people like?   I’ve found you can learn a lot about underlying beliefs that way and how that affects what people will accept or not accept as “proof”.

Both sides of the climate debate use their own portfolio of what they accept as the scientific data.  This seems to be true on most issues of our time.  That being the case, it becomes necessary to look in other places before forming an opinion – like what information do I already have from other sources.

One of those sources is personal knowledge.  I can remember sitting in university science classes in the seventies and hearing about the threat of a return to the ice age.  There was “data” to back up the fear.  The question of course concerned whether it would be possible for humanity to survive and how should the world be planning and adapting.  I’m not really sure when the issue took a one hundred eighty degree turn and we began to worry about the opposite extreme.  However, it’s obvious that one fear became obsolete.  Is it possible that this one will do the same?

The most trustworthy source I rely on for truth is the Holy Bible.  I find it very interesting that God asked Job, “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, … when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, “This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt”?

A couple more questions come to mind.  If scientists have not successfully found a way to undo drought situations around the world or stop earthquakes or tsunamis, can we really expect them to show us how to refreeze the arctic and lower ocean levels?  Furthermore, why should we trust politicians who think they can?

Why Our Schools Need Jesus

Apologist Ravi Zacharias recently asked, “Can you talk of education without first looking into the human heart?”  What he meant is that you cannot teach personal responsibility if you have no moral framework.  If you don’t comprehend what it really means to be human, you cannot identify evil.  And if you can’t identify evil, you have no way to define what is good.

Our education leaders and many politicians have long denied that there is a moral law by which to create a framework for justice.  They’ve offered up situational ethics and an ever-changing definition of good behavior and wellbeing which has failed to produce a kinder, gentler, more peaceful society.

More than anything else, what’s happened to our schools has spawned a worldview leading to mass rebellion, anger, and self-consumed bad behavior because nobody dares to say, “This is wrong!”  Until we admit that a moral law exists, we can never adequately confront evil.  At the moment there are too many in power who resist the idea of a moral law because it implies, rather demands, a lawgiver.  This they refuse to allow.

For that reason, we have for decades been sending out from our schools untold thousands of students who have very little conscience and no compelling reason to care about anyone but themselves.  Ethics, if they ever even consider it, means whatever they prefer for it to mean.  The result is a breakdown of civility across the land, and only the ideals of truth and peace brought by Jesus Christ can ever fix it.