An Inconvenient Truth

Atheist existentialist, Albert Camus, once told a group of Christians that it was not his purpose to tell them what they should believe because he wasn’t a Christian. Ignoring this sage advice from one of their own, supporters of LGBT nonetheless seem determined to tell us Christians what Christianity is supposed to be all about and how Christians are to love them as God loves them.

LGBT supporters tell us we are not judge them as sinners because we are all God’s children and he loves all of his children.  As a Christian, I agree. God is love and does love his creation; and we are not to judge them. We understand that only God is our judge. LGBT supporters tell us that God loves all sinners, and instruct us to emulate his love by accepting their LGBT lifestyle. Their focus on God’s love, mercy and how his grace covers a multitude of sins is their convenient truth. Christians understand the reality isn’t that simple. God’s love is for all; his grace is for believers.

So, what do believers believe? Christians, of course, acknowledge God is love, but we also know from his Word that he has other characteristics too. In their incomplete understanding of God’s Word, LGBT supporters focus only on God’s love and totally ignore those other characteristics which God expresses to us in his Word. In the Bible, God not only demonstrates his loving nature, but he also tells us he is perfect, holy, righteous and just, and this is exactly why he hates sin. Those Christians who know God’s Word believe the LGBT lifestyle is a sin, and, since we believe sin is much more than just making wrong choices, our motive in resisting the LGBT lifestyle is based on our concern that they are actually offending a holy, righteous and just God and there are consequences for offending him. We want them to know that, while God loves all of us, he hates our sin and takes it very seriously when we sin. We know that it is our sin that separates us from our Creator. The existence of sin and its dire consequence is an inconvenient truth. 

Christians know that, because God loves us, his desire is to be in fellowship with us. But his righteous, divine justice does not permit him to accept sinners. We needed a mediator to accept the punishment of our sin for us, and God demonstrated his love and his grace in sending his Son to the world to atone for our sin and thus enable us to reconnect with God the Father.

Christians agree with LGBT supporters when they tell us that Jesus came to bring the concept of grace, to free Jews from their obsessive concern with God’s rules. Christ did come into this world to give us a greater understanding of the purpose of God’s law and to make us aware of our inability to perfectly obey God’s rules and save ourselves. Christ actually came into this world to atone for the sins of those who understood his purpose and recognize they were to repent of their sins.  Repentance means change, and change can only occur when God enables us to recognize our sin and how we need to please him in repenting of that sin. In short, we need to get out of our focus on pleasing ourselves and change our ways to please him. As C. S. Lewis once said, this change requires “our total surrender to God”; it is the inconvenient truth of Christianity.

As unbelievers, LGBT supporters of course don’t recognize the Bible as the Word of God; they take what they need and leave the rest in focusing only on the convenient truth that God is indeed a God of love and presume this means he loves them in spite of their lifestyle choice. Since they aren’t connected with the God of the Bible, they see no need to repent. Only Christians understand that need. The chasm between believers and unbelievers is thus revealed. Nonetheless, Christians are to continue to love them, to refrain from judgment and discrimination. In short, Christians need to tolerate the LGBT lifestyle, communicate the inconvenient truth and pray for their eternal souls. That’s how real love is expressed.

Unfortunately, LGBT supporters are not satisfied with tolerance. They crave acceptance, they want their lifestyle to be condoned by everyone. Psychologists tell us that society’s acceptance helps them accept themselves. There is a big difference between toleration and acceptance. God is not the author of sin, but sin is in his plan of salvation, and we know he has always tolerated bad behavior. Old Testament history illustrates how God tolerated the practice of polygamy and slavery among his chosen people, the Jews. We know we are to follow his lead and tolerate LGBT supporters; but, for reasons I have discussed in this post, we must never forget that God does not accept sin, and neither should we (in ourselves or others). We know we are to follow God’s lead in not accepting or condoning LGBT behavior.

So then, fellow Christians, stay the course; do not let unbelievers define your belief for you, but never give them reason to doubt what Bible-believing Christians believe. Act in love towards LGBT supporters by continuing in our quest to reveal God’s inconvenient truth.

 

Advertisements

Atheism’s too simple

Theologian C. S. Lewis once said that atheism is too simple because it doesn’t stand for anything. In my many discussions with atheists, they have indeed illustrated Lewis’s point to me, but some of them recognize they should at least stand for something so they claim to follow a belief system called secular humanism which has its own doctrine stating what they actually stand for.

From the “Humanist Manifesto III as quoted in The Cabana Chronicles: Book One, and The Religions of Secular Humanism and Christianity: 1. Knowledge of the world is derived by the scientific method. It is derived by the observation and experimentation and rational analysis. This is called empiricism. It is our evidence. 2. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. 3. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. This is called naturalism. 4. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of human ideals. 5. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. 6. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

When I first read this Manifesto, the first thing that came to mind was it’s omission of any reference to God; and that certainly would be expected from an atheistic doctrine. But, as Lewis also once said, it’s hard to ignore God; He is all around us. In their lame attempt to ignore the existence of God, they are indeed arbitrarily making reality too simple. Existential philosopher Albert Camus once said that “We (atheists) don’t aim so high.” The correct statement should have been “we won’t aim so high.”

They have no excuse for their unbelief because the existence of a creator is logically inferred through his creation; and, since they claim to revere science, they should agree with Einstein when he said his Theory of Relativity relied on the consistency of design in the universe. Design logically implies a designer. Furthermore, the very existence of our concept of what is right and what is wrong, our “ethical values,” infers a God-given conscience in all of us. The fact we have a concept of what constitutes “human ideals” supports this concept of a conscience. The fact that we are motivated to work “to benefit society” supports the concept of a conscience.  Just as the creation and the design of that creation logically implies a creator, the existence of our conscience implies a creator.

Atheists who subscribe to the belief system of secular humanism also state they believe that man is merely “the result of an unguided evolutionary change.” They believe that our existence as human beings on earth is the result of some chance occurrence that began as a single cell and somehow over millions of years miraculously evolved into a human being.  Even though they revere the scientific method, it seems they don’t understand what that should mean; a theory remains a theory unless proved by evidence. Those who revere empiricism aren’t empiricists because, to date, no evidence has been found which supports the concept of how many evolved from a single cell. Evolution is therefore just another theory, not a scientific principle.

Christians understand the concept of evolution in a different way. In Mere Christianity, Lewis infers man is curious about the next step in evolution. What happens after us? Where do we go from here? He answers the question from a Christian perspective in stating that we believe evolution represents a change from being creatures of God to being sons of God. He tells us “The first instance (of the next step in evolution) appeared in Palestine two thousand years ago. In a sense, the change is not “evolution” at all, because it is not something arising out of the natural process of events but something coming into nature from outside”

Lewis is of course referring to the entrance of Jesus Christ into this world. He refers to Christ as not just the first instance of the new man, but the new man. “He is the origin and center and life of all the new men. He came into the universe of His own will, bringing with Him the new life.”

Atheists of course have not been influenced by what Lewis called Christ’s “good infection.” There is an empty void where Christ would be, and they are left with no recourse but to strike out on their own and attempt to define their beliefs. The simplicity of their Humanist Manifesto should be obvious, and I trust the reader will see the shortcomings of their postulations. Believers in Christ understand the truth can be known only through Him. “I am the way, the truth and the life.” We can be truly new men and women only in believing “No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6.

 

What does it mean to be saved?

What does it mean to be saved? The late, great theologian of our times, Dr. R. C. Sproul answered this question in his last sermon on November 26, 2017 at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida. Here’s an excerpt from that sermon.

“What does it mean to be saved? It means, as the Scriptures tell us, to be rescued from the wrath that is to come.

God’s wrath as we’re told in Romans, is revealed to the whole world, and the Bible makes it abundantly clear that there awaits a judgment. The greatest calamity that anybody can ever imagine is to be sentenced to hell.

The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 2:1-4) raises the question, how do we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? We’ve heard the Word of God. It’s a message of good news, not just good news, great news; not just great news, the greatest of all possible news, that those who believe in Christ will be saved from the wrath which is to come. How can you possibly neglect it in the first place? That’s not the question the author is asking here. He says, how can you possibly escape? The question is, how can you possibly neglect such a great salvation?

Beloved, if you come to church every single Sunday of your life, and go to Sunday school every single week of your life, you may still be neglecting this great salvation. Is your heart in it? That’s what I’m asking you. And you know I can’t answer that question for you. You know if you’re neglecting your salvation. You know that. I don’t have to tell it to you. I just have to tell you what the consequences are if you continue in that neglect. So, I pray with all my heart that God will awaken each one of us today to the sweetness, the loveliness, the glory of the gospel declared by Christ.

Let’s pray. We thank You, O Jesus, that You are for us; You are the great escape. We’re thankful that because of You and what You’ve done for us we have nothing to fear from the wrath that is to come. But we pray, O God, that You would feed our souls, cause us to hunger and thirst after You as the deer pants after the mountain stream. Ignite a flame in our hearts that we may not neglect You but pursue You with everything we have. For we ask You in Your name. Amen. ”

Dr. Sproul has passed on to a greater glory, and I miss him, but he lives on in his teachings on video, his many books, and his legacy of Ligonier Ministries.

True Submission

We find the concept of submission in every world religion. In fact, the true meaning of the word “Islam” is to submit to Allah. All religions demand submission to rules, and to God or gods, or even submission to the consensus of society or the scientific community. Of course, as inherently prideful human beings, we are natural rebels against authority and are inclined to oppose submitting to laws. So then, since this is the situation, why do humans support religions that require us to submit?

Sociologists, theologians, philosophers and psychologists conclude that we humans are inclined to follow religions that are centered on us (Christianity is the exception to that rule). This means that submission to law, God, gods, or the consensus of society must in some way be considered to benefit us. In atheistic religions like secular humanism, it goes without saying that this is the case because there is no God to submit to;  but it might surprise us to know that this is also the case in all other religions that claim a belief in God or gods as well.

I say this because all religions except Christianity are centered on man, and this means it’s understood that when man does for God or gods, God does for us (a “quid pro quo” arrangement). Followers of these religions believe they are to perform good works to please God and merit salvation. This is why they are called “works-based” religions. My point is that, whether it is submission to Allah’s law, or Jehovah’s law or to Hindu gods or (as in atheistic belief systems) submission to society’s needs, this is not true submission because it serves man’s prideful purpose; such submission is based on pure, defiant, selfish arrogance. It’s selfish because we expect something back for whatever we give. That’s our human perspective. From God’s perspective, we Christians know he doesn’t view this form of submission as submission to him; he is aware that our pride is the prime motivation, and to him, pride is one of the most grievous of sins.

How is Christianity so different from all these works-based religions? Works-based religions necessarily focus on what we can do for God; but, as sinners, we Christians know that we can’t possibly do everything a righteous, holy and perfect God requires of us our obedience to his law. This is why there is no salvation for us in the law.

Christianity is truly a God-centered religion because it tells us through the Gospel what God has done for us through his grace (unmerited favor). Through the person and purpose of Jesus Christ, our God has worked out our salvation for us, totally apart from us. And God calls us to submit to that salvation, to hand over all the work of fulfilling the law to Christ because only he can do it because he offers that perfect sacrifice in perfect obedience to the will of a perfect God. In trusting in Christ for our salvation, we forfeit our pride. In this way, there is no ego involved in us being saved. We can’t take any credit in us being forgiven and saved. We are given a righteousness that is not at all our own, except that Jesus gives it to us. By faith, we submit to, we stand by, and we sit back and receive God’s righteousness. Salvation comes through faith in the Gospel.

Prideful man of course is inclined to reject the Gospel. C. S. Lewis described the situation. “At first, Christianity is welcome to all who have no special reason for opposing it: at this stage he who is not against it is for it. What men notice is its difference from those aspects of the World which they already dislike. But, later on, as the real meaning of the Christian claim becomes apparent, its demand for total surrender, the sheer chasm between Nature and Supernature, men are increasingly offended. Dislike, terror, and finally hatred succeed: none who will not give it what it asks (and it asks all) can endure it: all who are not with it are against it.”

Lewis thus describes what true submission is. Christianity, unlike the other religions, “demands our total surrender.” Only in surrendering self to God, can the submission be true.

Designed Religion

I wrote a blog which I posted on this site last November 22, entitled “Religion By Design.” This post today expands on that topic, and this Easter Sunday, a day for believers to worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for what he has done for us, offers us an opportunity to talk about what God has designed for those who believe in him.

Christianity, of course, is just one of hundreds of religions. There are two other monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, a number of pantheistic (God is in everything in his creation) religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, and even an atheistic religion called secular humanism.  All religions, according to Karen Armstrong, author of The History of God, are designed to meet man’s need to depend on a higher, most powerful supernatural being to allay our fear of the unknown and other fears we have as we live out our lives on this earth.

But Christians differ from all other religions in believing we have a need for a Savior to save us from our sin. Christians are unique in believing that we are sinners and have been that way since our birth. We believe that, just as Adam and Eve’s disobedience resulted in their separation from God, our sin separates us from our Creator and both he and we desire to be re-connected. We believe that Christ came to do that for us, to save us from ourselves, and, through his death and resurrection, we are re-connected to God. We celebrate Easter to remind us of what Christ has done for us. God has sent his Son to save us through an act of his grace, his unmerited favor. That’s our gospel message, and Easter is a time for us to reflect on how Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished that purpose.

All other religions are centered on what man can do for himself, to perform good works to earn his salvation; these religions downplay, or even completely ignore, God’s grace and what he has done for us to meet a need unbelieving sinners fail to recognize: our need to re-connect with a God whom we have instinctively rebelled against since Adam and Eve disobeyed him in the Garden of Eden in aspiring to be gods themselves. All of these other religions are designed to meet man’s prideful want to be God.

Easter represents to us Christians a reminder of our redemption through God’s grace, but it was also an actual historical event which even unbelievers acknowledge did happen. Jesus Christ actually existed in first century Judea, and he was crucified and buried and did leave his tomb and eye-witnesses (who swore their testimony was true to their death) subsequently claimed to see him and speak with him many times after he had been crucified and buried. Historical events establish credibility and would logically lead people to concede that the Easter account  doesn’t seem like a story anyone could or would invent; they recognize too that there just might be more to the history than just a series of miraculous events occurring; that there just might be some hidden significance in this historical account; and, of course, Christians know that there is.  Jesus Christ didn’t just die; he died for us. He didn’t just rise from the dead, his resurrection proved he conquered death, and that, as his followers, we will conquer death too.

How can we know though that Christianity is designed by God and not by man? At first glance, Christianity seems like all other religions designed to meet mankinds needs. People accept it because it explains what is wrong with this world and offers a moral model, Jesus Christ, for us to follow in order to lead a better life. But then when they dig deeper, they discover something else is there, and those who were not initially against Christianity now have second thoughts about accepting it.

So, what have unbelievers discovered about Christianity that turns them against it? In the chapter “The Decline of Religion” in God in the Dock, C. S. Lewis explains what happens when “the real meaning of the Christian claim becomes apparent, its demand for total surrender of self (italics mine), the sheer chasm between nature and supernature, men are increasingly ‘offended’. Dislike, terror, and finally hatred succeed; none who will not give it what it asks (and it asks all) can endure it; all who are not with it are against it.”

Does this sound like a religion man would design? Unbelievers turn against Christianity because they correctly assume it requires them to be centered on God and not on them. Sinful man would never be inclined to come up with a religion that completely centers on God and requires total abandonment to him. All other religions, in focusing on what man can do for God instead of what God has done for us, are, by definition, centered on man, not on God.

Why is it important for a religion to be God-centered and not centered on man? Isn’t it all about what each of us believes to be true? Yes, we are all inclined to see the truth, and each religion claims to have a patent on the truth. But, logically, there can be only one truth, and, since every monotheism believes God is truth, we can infer that the one true religion is the one that is totally centered on God and on what he has done to redeem us. The reality of that act of redemption is the miracle and message of Easter.

 

 

 

Why Liberal Hearts Bleed

Nigel Barber wrote an article for the Huffington Post several weeks ago entitled “Why Liberal Hearts Bleed and Conservatives Don’t.” In my March 10th post on this website, I responded to that article by choosing to focus more on what I perceived Barber to be saying about how a liberal thinks than on what a compassionate heart he has. The title of that post was “What is Mud-Think?” In using this term, I was pointing out how that bleeding heart often affects how a liberal thinks.  A “bleeding heart” of course refers to a person’s inclination and ability to express empathy and be kind to others. Mr. Barber of course is proud of the label “bleeding hearts” because he would have us believe liberals are compassionate to others and conservatives are not.  This attack on conservatives should not be ignored, hence the reason for writing this post.

First of all, let me clear one important matter up. Speaking only for myself, when I use the term “bleeding hearts,” I don’t mean to suggest that bleeding hearts are not what we should all have and that compassion for others is a weakness; I am implying that these people who express compassion for those they believe are downtrodden in our society, seem to be playing to the audience in putting on a show of compassion. I say this because their compassion does not seem to be generally motivated by their conscience to care about others; it seems to be reserved only for the downtrodden, and, as such, is selective. In expressing their outrage against Trump and his entire administration and refusal to acknowledge any good that has been accomplished since his election, they infer anyone who is not on their side is either evil, stupid or both. Anyone who pays any attention to what liberals post on Facebook and read the memes they post like Barber’s article, can surely see the mockery, the ridicule and the reprimand in their arrogant tone of responding to what anyone posts which opposes what they believe. In short, liberals seem to show little empathy for the people they attack so aggressively. This is why I have accused them of selective compassion.

Second of all, another, most important point needs to be cleared up. We need to understand that all of us (including conservatives) have a God-given conscience to love others, and, to that extent, all of our hearts bleed to some extent. Liberals (the majority of whom claim not to believe in a personal God) of course apparently want to own the label of having bleeding hearts because their only religion is based on “when I do good, I feel good.”

It really all comes down to the person’s motive for doing good. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers of Karamazov, the character Father Zosima responds to a lady who said she feared she was unable to “actively love” because her motives are often wrong. Father Zosima recalled what a doctor had confessed to him previously. “I love mankind, but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams, I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind…Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom (italics mine)…The more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.” Father Zosima concludes by saying, “I am sorry that I cannot say anything more comforting, for active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching (italics mine). Indeed, it will go as far as the giving of one’s own life, provided it does not take too long but is soon over, as on stage and everyone is looking on and praising italics mine). Whereas active love is labor and perseverance.” Philosopher Eric Hoffer supported this point in concluding that excessive compassion is a gesture. It is done for effect.

I don’t mean to imply that all liberals are phonies; but it’s important for those who go out of their way to show us their bleeding hearts examine their motive for doing so. Do they want to prove, as Barber suggests, that they are more compassionate than conservatives?That ludicrous and blatant attempt to divide us isn’t a very compassionate act, is it?

We all need to question our motive for caring for others because there is a great difference between love in dreams and love in action, between the ideal of love as Barber attaches to liberals and the display of it to all, not just the downtrodden.

What is “Mud-Think?”

Many years ago when I first heard liberals described as “mud-thinkers,” I asked my father what that term meant. He was a TV news commentator, a radio station news director, and political pundit so I assumed he knew the answer. He told me he thought Paul Harvey (a peer he used to work with in Chicago) first came up with the term. He said it was used to describe the way many opinionated liberals seem to think. They are so focused on showcasing their hearts that bleed (“bleeding heart liberal”is another term used to describe them) that they put their hearts before their heads; that is, they allow their emotions to trump (no pun intended) their power to reason.

Columnist Nigel Barber in his article for the liberal-leaning Huffington Post entitled “Why Liberal Hearts Bleed and Conservatives Don’t,” told us that the liberal worldview is mostly the opposite of the uncaring, unfeeling conservative world view. For evidence to support his conclusion, Barber goes on to list a number of liberal opinions which constitute the liberal world view and contrasts this list with his list of opinions of constituting the conservative world view. In this post, I’ll discuss only the liberal world view and my next post will address his opinion of the conservative world view.

Barber begins his list by saying that liberals feel that “the protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them.” Of course, some of us may recall what seemed to be a campaign of hate towards our police which was tacitly supported by the Obama administration. This inconsistency provides us with a hint of how ‘mud-think” works.

Next Barber says that “liberals are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. This is an arrogant jibe at the “religious right” who are so obtuse they have to rely on some deity to allay their fears, while liberals rely more on “science, and education, as a means to solve problems.” Of course, a person’s beliefs and religion are very personal, and most well-mannered people understand this subject is taboo in public, but liberals are a determined bunch of zealots for their heart-felt cause and don’t recognize any subject as being off limits once they get on a tear to force their opinion on us through mocking and ridicule. In my discussions with them over the years, they don’t seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be critical of Christianity in particular. They do this even when they should know that religion isn’t even relevant to their point; this is an example of mud-think, the heart ruling the head.

Barber then goes on to say that “liberals are more welcoming to immigrants, and less likely to view foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities as a threat” (this is undoubtedly why liberals are so quick to call conservatives racists.)  In their opposition to the wall and failure to come up with an alternative solution to a problem all other civilized nations have addressed, liberals favor open borders. This too is an example of mud-think.

Of course, it occurs to me that one of the reasons liberals may favor immigration, legal and illegal is that they assume there are more immigrants coming into this country who seem to be more concerned about what America can do for them than what they can do for America and will therefore vote for the Democrats who have historically “supported welfare programs for the poor because this may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems.” Mud-think rears its ugly head again when liberals fail to recognize they are harming those who are already in the wagon when they add more to it. Adding more people to the dole will have a negative effect on our economy and reduce the money available in the budget for those citizens already sitting in the wagon. After all, there’s only so much money to spread around. If we print money to pay the increased freight, we bring inflation back.

So then, how do they expect to pay for increasing expenses for social programs? Barber says liberals “are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor.” We understand what Barber is really saying here when he includes on his list the fact that liberals do not believe in “excessive military buildups that drain social spending.” So he is really saying liberals believe the federal budget should prioritize the funding of social programs over funding of our military. Since most Americans at least concede that they at least expect their government to defend them against foreign power aggression, it’s mud-think to want to weaken our military.  Of course, there is waste in military spending, but there is waste in most of the budget categories, including our social programs. 

Of course, there’s always the prospect of increasing taxes. This is historically the policy of the old “tax and spend” Democrats; but this mud-think mindset is still alive and well in their party today as evidenced by Senator Bernie Sanders’ recent statements which translate into their campaign slogan for November: “Elect us so your taxes will be increased.” Mud-think rears its ugly head when these folks propose this right after we’ve had the biggest tax rate reduction since Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Does that make sense? And, of course, the problem is that many people may still remember what President Obama said about the failure of the welfare programs no matter how much money we throw at them. Liberals ignore this reality and refuse to admit that this has not been money well spent. This too is mud-think.

It’s apparent that liberals just don’t seem to understand basic economics. They say they “rely more on education as a means to solve problems,” but that education doesn’t appear to have involved the study of economics. Economics 101 tells us wealth can only be derived from production. Someone has to pull the wagon for it to move ahead. The liberals’ focus on attaining financial equality (at the expense of liberty) and their attachment to socialism as an economic system inhibits productivity by taking away incentive for people pulling the wagon. Blatantly ignoring that socialism has never worked anywhere in the history of civilization, yet they nonetheless keep trying to implement some form of it in America.

Before we leave the subject of immigration, there’s one more consideration. Liberals seem to have forgotten they once represented their Democratic Party as the labor party. They pay no heed to how immigrants flooding into our country (those who are willing and qualified to work) will probably take some jobs from our citizens; at the very least, the reality that they are willing to work for less will keep wages down. It’s ironic that the party that once used to stand for the working man has subtly switched allegiances to the downtrodden over the years. Of course, enough of the working middle class has recognized this had happened, and that it was one of the major reasons Donald Trump is now president. Their mud-think clouded their recognition of the consequences of their change of heart and focus, and it cost them the election.

Barber seems to recognize the mud-think expressed in his statement “liberals are less interested in family ties” because he then adds “as a protective bubble” in a lame attempt to minimize the importance of the family by referring to the protection he claims conservatives need to deal with a “potentially hostile environment” and their desire to “take precautions and to ensure their own well-being and that of their family.” He glosses over the fact that sociologists have concluded that a breakdown in the family unit is at least partially to blame for some of the ills in our society today. It’s smart and right to focus on the importance of the family, and to believe otherwise is mud-think.

Barber summarizes his list by saying that “conservatives see the world as a more threatening place because their brains predispose them to being fearful….That would help to explain why politics can be so polarized, particularly in rather conservative era like the present.” He says that this “brain biology helps explain many of the quirky differences between Democrats and Republicans.”

I believe in this blog and several others dealing with this subject, I’ve logically made my case that it isn’t our “brain biology” (whatever he means by that term), it’s our theology that determines our world view. Many conservatives are either Christians or people who have been influenced by Christianity and (as I will present in my next post), Barber’s  description of the conservative world view does not represent “quirky differences;” indeed, they reflect an essential difference between the liberal and conservative world views and this is based on how we understand the nature and character of God and man’s relationship with him.

Christians are centered on God and look to him for solutions to our problems; that’s why we pray. Statistics show that most liberals are not Christians and in fact affiliate with an atheistic belief system called secular humanism. This belief system is centered on man, and that is why liberals are always looking to man for solutions to our problems. They understand of course that there is something very wrong with our world, but they don’t attribute this phenomenon with sin and don’t believe man is inherently sinful. Nonetheless, they must recognize what every one of us knows in our conscience; there isn’t very much we can do to change our situation to achieve nirvana on earth. No matter how hard we’ve tried over thousands of years, we humans just don’t have the power to force each other to love one another and bring peace into this world. Only God can do this, and he will in due time. The ultimate in mud-think is to believe man can be God; the position’s already taken, and we wouldn’t be any good at it anyway.