Part 1-of-3
Noble or Compromised?
A much revered minister once asked this question of Billy Graham's daughter: "Anne, what do you believe God expects from us?" A "preacher's kid," Anne raced through her cache of answers—He expects us to pray without ceasing, witness, tithe, read the Bible, and honor the Ten Commandments.
It was then the pastor-teacher countered with a surprising answer. What does God expect? He expects us to fail. Anne was astonished, but further thought convinced her. Apart from divine enablement, we "cannot keep ourselves an hour clean." All have sinned; all fall short. Yet we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. God’s expectation is failure, and we deliver! But that’s not the end of it.
Thankfully, as believers, we receive abounding grace—albeit with consequences for our wrongdoings. This the fourth son of Aaron, Eli, learned well. A judge and high priest in Israel, he was a good and pure man; however, in raising his sons Hophni and Phinehas, Eli failed to toe the line. After all three died inglorious deaths, Phinehas’ wife delivered a son, whom she called Ichabod—that is, “Where is the glory?” Because of Eli’s grievous shortcomings, the presence of God (His glory) departed Israel when, on Eli’s watch, the ark was taken captive.
Seemingly, the ark of God’s presence among us has likewise been taken captive. It’s as if Ichabod marks our nation’s tattered portal. The good news is no matter how wayward His children, God always has a remnant of faithful believers through whom divine blessings flow. For this very purpose, God chose the patriarch Abraham to usher his descendants into a saving covenant relationship with Himself so that, through them, He would bring salvation and blessings to the entire world.
Despite Israel’s rebellious ways, God stirred revival—first within Jacob’s household, then through Asa, Joash, Hezekiah, Josiah, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah. Christian writers (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others) testified of comparable renewal within the early church. Surely God’s work did not cease on distant shores of what has come to be known as the Holy Land.
Revivals Among Believers
Despite grievous failings of nation-states, God graciously stirs revivals and awakenings—revivals to embolden His church; awakenings to “seek and save the lost.” The “Quietism” movement was to France what Savonarola was to Italy and George Fox, John Bunyan, and John Wesley were to England. Through ministries of Lorenzo Dow and Peter Cartwright, the Holy Spirit visited and re-visited America’s shores from “sea to shining sea.”
God released grace through evangelist-theologians (Charles G. Finney), charismatics (Elder Jacob Knapp), Christian writers (Dr. A. J. Gordon and D.L. Moody of old New England Puritan stock), and itinerary preachers (as A. B. Earle who, in fifty years, traveled 325,000 miles throughout the United States and Canada).
The famous Quaker who founded Pennsylvania (William Penn), Bible scholars (Dr. Adam Clarke), missionaries to the Natives (David Brainerd), Congregational preachers (Edward Payson of New England), and music ministers (hymn writer Philip Paul Bliss) all carried the baton of revival in the early years of America’s history.
Next: Awakenings Among the Lost
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Let the sparks fly!
Part 3-of-3 (Scroll down for parts 1 & 2)
Collectivist Thought Control or Free-thinking Individualism?
According to Pew survey results, Americans have upended concern over moral values for economic issues that draw increasingly higher ratings in modern media. This, of course, provides all the more reason for conservative, faith-based publications, blogs, and talk-radio programs to recover and then run with our nation’s biblically-based moral compass.
What author-attorney James Hirsen refers to as op-ed “crockumentaries” function as dandy rein aids to advance and guide competing causes of liberalism, secularism, and partisanship. Fact is, reporters, writers, and others in the media vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats; and a substantial majority are “pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and supportive of gay rights” (Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media: The Truth about Bias and the News, 21).
This is well and good. It’s still America after all, but ponder this: Politician-industrialist Cecil John Rhodes reasoned that “the press owns the minds of the people.” Similarly, journalist, playwright, and essayist Arthur S. Miller referenced “a pervasive system of thought control” in the United States—this, by “employment of the mass media” coupled with “the system of public education.” Both, he added, tell people “what to think about.” Miller understood how the mainstream media—inclusive of publishing, entertainment, reporting—own people’s minds and direct their thinking.
I agree that the voice of honest conviction must not be silenced—and that it should be countered. The Bible likens this process to iron sharpening iron. When the politically-correct, collectivist mindset encounters what Scripture calls “the mind of Christ,” sparks fly; and the latter garners stones (of contention) or converts, as the case may be. Either way, the public is well served.
Let the Sparks Fly!
Until and unless the mainstream media cleans up its act and rethinks the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” public opinion will continue to plummet even beyond its current lowest level in more than twenty years of Pew Research surveys. Moreover, perception of media bias and independence will not only match, but surpass previous lows.
When articulating unwavering devotion to the ultimate plumb line of truth expounded line upon line, precept upon precept in the Holy Bible, I willingly duck flying rotten tomatoes. Agree with me or not, I invite you to hold back the tomatoes and imagine with me a super structure constructed without use of any benchmark level. What results is a cartoonish blob of ill-chosen, misfit building materials—not the integrated, skillfully rendered master design intended.
Let’s take this analogy a step further: Lack of any proven standard for truth reasonably results in folks pursuing what’s right in their own eyes. Given ever-evolving, self-centric values—propelled in part by the mainstream media—populist trends, complacency, apathy, mediocrity, dependency, anarchy, and control-by-force are inevitable. All belie the master design forged by godly forefathers.
My personal mandate is to “buy the truth and sell it not.” Accordingly, my job is not to insist that others think as I do. (Who was it that said “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”?) Rather I purpose to challenge the liberal, secular status quo with biblical perspective that, when rightly applied, has proved itself incontrovertibly worthy throughout the millennia.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by God’s Word. A person of faith, I base opinions expressed in my books and articles on that very Word. This I do as authentically, honorably, and objectively as my human limitations and bias allow.
A radio co-host, I speak my mind as freely, honestly, and honorably as I know how. For me, to dismiss Truth for expediency, or ratings, is beyond mere sell out. It’s a travesty.
So then, let the sparks fly!
Collectivist Thought Control or Free-thinking Individualism?
According to Pew survey results, Americans have upended concern over moral values for economic issues that draw increasingly higher ratings in modern media. This, of course, provides all the more reason for conservative, faith-based publications, blogs, and talk-radio programs to recover and then run with our nation’s biblically-based moral compass.
What author-attorney James Hirsen refers to as op-ed “crockumentaries” function as dandy rein aids to advance and guide competing causes of liberalism, secularism, and partisanship. Fact is, reporters, writers, and others in the media vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats; and a substantial majority are “pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and supportive of gay rights” (Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media: The Truth about Bias and the News, 21).
This is well and good. It’s still America after all, but ponder this: Politician-industrialist Cecil John Rhodes reasoned that “the press owns the minds of the people.” Similarly, journalist, playwright, and essayist Arthur S. Miller referenced “a pervasive system of thought control” in the United States—this, by “employment of the mass media” coupled with “the system of public education.” Both, he added, tell people “what to think about.” Miller understood how the mainstream media—inclusive of publishing, entertainment, reporting—own people’s minds and direct their thinking.
I agree that the voice of honest conviction must not be silenced—and that it should be countered. The Bible likens this process to iron sharpening iron. When the politically-correct, collectivist mindset encounters what Scripture calls “the mind of Christ,” sparks fly; and the latter garners stones (of contention) or converts, as the case may be. Either way, the public is well served.
Let the Sparks Fly!
Until and unless the mainstream media cleans up its act and rethinks the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” public opinion will continue to plummet even beyond its current lowest level in more than twenty years of Pew Research surveys. Moreover, perception of media bias and independence will not only match, but surpass previous lows.
When articulating unwavering devotion to the ultimate plumb line of truth expounded line upon line, precept upon precept in the Holy Bible, I willingly duck flying rotten tomatoes. Agree with me or not, I invite you to hold back the tomatoes and imagine with me a super structure constructed without use of any benchmark level. What results is a cartoonish blob of ill-chosen, misfit building materials—not the integrated, skillfully rendered master design intended.
Let’s take this analogy a step further: Lack of any proven standard for truth reasonably results in folks pursuing what’s right in their own eyes. Given ever-evolving, self-centric values—propelled in part by the mainstream media—populist trends, complacency, apathy, mediocrity, dependency, anarchy, and control-by-force are inevitable. All belie the master design forged by godly forefathers.
My personal mandate is to “buy the truth and sell it not.” Accordingly, my job is not to insist that others think as I do. (Who was it that said “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”?) Rather I purpose to challenge the liberal, secular status quo with biblical perspective that, when rightly applied, has proved itself incontrovertibly worthy throughout the millennia.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by God’s Word. A person of faith, I base opinions expressed in my books and articles on that very Word. This I do as authentically, honorably, and objectively as my human limitations and bias allow.
A radio co-host, I speak my mind as freely, honestly, and honorably as I know how. For me, to dismiss Truth for expediency, or ratings, is beyond mere sell out. It’s a travesty.
So then, let the sparks fly!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Riding the Air Waves of Radio
Part 2-of-3 (scroll down for part 1)
While not every voice (conservative, moderate, or liberal) is to my liking, freedom of speech remains the American way. Known for his scathing, right-wing analyses, Michael Savage stands out among the most controversial of radio talk-show hosts. In fact, Britain numbers him with twenty-two fellows deemed so extreme and intolerant that all are banned from even entering Britain.
This is the same Britain that welcomes Muslims who are among the most embittered in the western world—this, according to the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project. Only 32% of British Muslims tolerate Jews, and a 2009 Gallup poll reveals that these have zero tolerance toward homosexual acts.
“Selective tolerance” characterizes our side of the pond as well. Speaker Nancy Pelosi reports that House leaders will aggressively pursue legislation to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine,” which in the name of “fairness” stifles controversial commentary and thereby tramples First-Amendment, free-speech principles. Threat of random warnings and investigations threaten to discourage broadcasters from airing anything that FCC bureaucrats might deem "unbalanced" (like “America, love it or leave it”?).
Dot-Com Journalism
In light of long-term disparagement of the press’ performance at multiple levels, the Internet is fast becoming a primary source for news-junkies in their twenties, thirties, and forties. Clearly, the Internet stands alone as a veritable treasure trove of information for just about every subject imaginable, and the burgeoning "blogosphere" is the up-and-coming primary source of instant news available worldwide to all who access it.
Non-discriminate Internet surfing promises to arm the gullible with a laughable arsenal of so-called knowledge, to be sure; however, on the upside, the Internet has given voice to unprecedented stockpiles of data and commentary well structured by the Wonder Wheel and colorfully enhanced by Sky Map (both compliments of Google).
Cyberspace offers provocative alternatives and nuances to views upheld by the Michael Moores and Michael Savages of this world. Through the blogosphere, the otherwise “silenced voice” of well-reasoned, oftentimes politically-incorrect ideology is heard; and pundits hold public servants to higher levels of authenticity and accountability because of it.
Next: "Collectivist Thought Control" (Part 3)
While not every voice (conservative, moderate, or liberal) is to my liking, freedom of speech remains the American way. Known for his scathing, right-wing analyses, Michael Savage stands out among the most controversial of radio talk-show hosts. In fact, Britain numbers him with twenty-two fellows deemed so extreme and intolerant that all are banned from even entering Britain.
This is the same Britain that welcomes Muslims who are among the most embittered in the western world—this, according to the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project. Only 32% of British Muslims tolerate Jews, and a 2009 Gallup poll reveals that these have zero tolerance toward homosexual acts.
“Selective tolerance” characterizes our side of the pond as well. Speaker Nancy Pelosi reports that House leaders will aggressively pursue legislation to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine,” which in the name of “fairness” stifles controversial commentary and thereby tramples First-Amendment, free-speech principles. Threat of random warnings and investigations threaten to discourage broadcasters from airing anything that FCC bureaucrats might deem "unbalanced" (like “America, love it or leave it”?).
Dot-Com Journalism
In light of long-term disparagement of the press’ performance at multiple levels, the Internet is fast becoming a primary source for news-junkies in their twenties, thirties, and forties. Clearly, the Internet stands alone as a veritable treasure trove of information for just about every subject imaginable, and the burgeoning "blogosphere" is the up-and-coming primary source of instant news available worldwide to all who access it.
Non-discriminate Internet surfing promises to arm the gullible with a laughable arsenal of so-called knowledge, to be sure; however, on the upside, the Internet has given voice to unprecedented stockpiles of data and commentary well structured by the Wonder Wheel and colorfully enhanced by Sky Map (both compliments of Google).
Cyberspace offers provocative alternatives and nuances to views upheld by the Michael Moores and Michael Savages of this world. Through the blogosphere, the otherwise “silenced voice” of well-reasoned, oftentimes politically-incorrect ideology is heard; and pundits hold public servants to higher levels of authenticity and accountability because of it.
Next: "Collectivist Thought Control" (Part 3)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Chic Cheap Journalism and Faux-News
News Mags and "Crockumentaries"
Part 1-of-3
In recent years, “truth, justice, and the American way” have suffered deadly blows, as has the mainstream media. Today, nearly three-quarters of Pew survey respondents perceive news organizations to be unacceptably biased and overly influenced by the powerful.
Speaking of whom, Michael Moore has done it again. Time magazine celebrates his new movie (Capitalism: A Love Story) as Moore’s "magnum opus." Throngs of movie-viewers concur.
In a recent interview aired on CNN, Larry King characterized Moore as a propagandist, yes, but in the good sense of that term. Through good propaganda, Moore promises to anger some and (in his own words) to offer hope to others that, yes, we can turn around “the sick and twisted mess made by the last president.” BTW, a wag of the finger for former President Clinton presumes to render Moore’s purportedly nonpartisan political assessment as, uh, “fair and balanced”?
Still, I give it to him. When Moore defined market capitalism at its best, I agreed wholeheartedly. Then, Moore detailed how greed and self-interest have so skewed the ideal that it’s hardly recognizable anymore. Again, I was with him. But he lost me when, instead of righting a good system, he jumped the popular band wagon to denigrate what arguably represents the triumph of America’s historically unique, whole scale economic prosperity. Based on respect for rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing, the free market allows ordinary people (like Moore, for example) to profit from their own talents and abilities.
Let’s see if I have it right. The system Moore trashes is the very one that initiated Moore (and King, I might add) into the ranks of America’s unconscionably wealthy minority; moreover, it’s a system America falls far short of modeling in its finest sense. Even so, rather than set a good system back on track, Moore would summarily throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water in exchange for what? An egalitarian super-status for the mass proletariat reflected in the State. Last I looked, this is naked Marxism.
It’s no wonder Republicans have been highly critical of the media’s performance—case in point, Moore on CNN. But since 2007, Democrats now show double-digit growth in their criticism of it. While just one-third of Democrats complain that the media is too down on America, this reflects a sizeable ten-point increase over just two short years.
News Magazines and “Crockumentaries”
At its core, propaganda provides information to influence others into a specific mindset and/or attitude. Self-serving selectivity of supporting data resonates nicely with any political agenda of choice. For this reason, propaganda is the darling of partisan politicking regardless of its leaning. Rather than inspire rational assessment, it tends rather to elicit emotional responses to targeted information, conveniently skewed to suit the desired outcome. What King calls “good propaganda” is success at raising important issues, and doing it well.
That said, student texts for my college course on Propaganda Analysis did not include the Communist Manifesto, as one might expect. Instead, for their liberal usage of propaganda devises, Newsweek and Time magazines were selected. As students, our task was to discriminate between solid news (“just the facts, ma’am”) and sloppy, one-sided bias (“sick and twisted mess made by the last president”).
In the realm of propaganda, opportunistic use of revisionism seals the deal, so that history unnecessarily repeats itself. “Never again” or “we won’t forget” rhetoric is swallowed up in mantras of change, hope, and “yes-we-can” speak on one side of the aisle—“mission accomplished,” “read my lips,” and “I’m no crook” on the other.
How quickly I learned that independent and/or God-centric mindedness relegates one to the ranks of a vast right-wing conspiracy, a sort of “mob” or ranting fringe group that warrants little or no credence. Apparently, this brand of propaganda isn’t the “good” type.
Next: "Riding the Air Waves of Radio"
Part 1-of-3
In recent years, “truth, justice, and the American way” have suffered deadly blows, as has the mainstream media. Today, nearly three-quarters of Pew survey respondents perceive news organizations to be unacceptably biased and overly influenced by the powerful.
Speaking of whom, Michael Moore has done it again. Time magazine celebrates his new movie (Capitalism: A Love Story) as Moore’s "magnum opus." Throngs of movie-viewers concur.
In a recent interview aired on CNN, Larry King characterized Moore as a propagandist, yes, but in the good sense of that term. Through good propaganda, Moore promises to anger some and (in his own words) to offer hope to others that, yes, we can turn around “the sick and twisted mess made by the last president.” BTW, a wag of the finger for former President Clinton presumes to render Moore’s purportedly nonpartisan political assessment as, uh, “fair and balanced”?
Still, I give it to him. When Moore defined market capitalism at its best, I agreed wholeheartedly. Then, Moore detailed how greed and self-interest have so skewed the ideal that it’s hardly recognizable anymore. Again, I was with him. But he lost me when, instead of righting a good system, he jumped the popular band wagon to denigrate what arguably represents the triumph of America’s historically unique, whole scale economic prosperity. Based on respect for rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing, the free market allows ordinary people (like Moore, for example) to profit from their own talents and abilities.
Let’s see if I have it right. The system Moore trashes is the very one that initiated Moore (and King, I might add) into the ranks of America’s unconscionably wealthy minority; moreover, it’s a system America falls far short of modeling in its finest sense. Even so, rather than set a good system back on track, Moore would summarily throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water in exchange for what? An egalitarian super-status for the mass proletariat reflected in the State. Last I looked, this is naked Marxism.
It’s no wonder Republicans have been highly critical of the media’s performance—case in point, Moore on CNN. But since 2007, Democrats now show double-digit growth in their criticism of it. While just one-third of Democrats complain that the media is too down on America, this reflects a sizeable ten-point increase over just two short years.
News Magazines and “Crockumentaries”
At its core, propaganda provides information to influence others into a specific mindset and/or attitude. Self-serving selectivity of supporting data resonates nicely with any political agenda of choice. For this reason, propaganda is the darling of partisan politicking regardless of its leaning. Rather than inspire rational assessment, it tends rather to elicit emotional responses to targeted information, conveniently skewed to suit the desired outcome. What King calls “good propaganda” is success at raising important issues, and doing it well.
That said, student texts for my college course on Propaganda Analysis did not include the Communist Manifesto, as one might expect. Instead, for their liberal usage of propaganda devises, Newsweek and Time magazines were selected. As students, our task was to discriminate between solid news (“just the facts, ma’am”) and sloppy, one-sided bias (“sick and twisted mess made by the last president”).
In the realm of propaganda, opportunistic use of revisionism seals the deal, so that history unnecessarily repeats itself. “Never again” or “we won’t forget” rhetoric is swallowed up in mantras of change, hope, and “yes-we-can” speak on one side of the aisle—“mission accomplished,” “read my lips,” and “I’m no crook” on the other.
How quickly I learned that independent and/or God-centric mindedness relegates one to the ranks of a vast right-wing conspiracy, a sort of “mob” or ranting fringe group that warrants little or no credence. Apparently, this brand of propaganda isn’t the “good” type.
Next: "Riding the Air Waves of Radio"
Monday, September 14, 2009
Postmodern Morality
Part 3-of-3 (Scroll down for parts 1 & 2)
Through the revolving door of evolving values, childlike immoderation typically trumps mature moral moderation. Accordingly, today’s Olympic-class consumers all too often indulge in what they cannot afford—even if they have to beg, whine, steal, borrow or lie to get what they want. The perpetual child is “worth it” after all; and convenience, comfort and emotion drive the childlike masses.
Lying today is big business. On the heels of indulgence come web sites that provide tips for how to beat a polygraph or fabricate an alibi. A new survey by CareerBuilder.com reveals that over half of hiring managers admit to having caught a lie on a candidate’s application for employment (but just five percent of workers admit to fibbing on their résumés).
This Dot-Com’s vice president of human resources, Rosemary Haefner observes rightly that “catching a lie on a résumé raises a red flag about a candidate’s overall ethics.” The same holds true for students who plagiarize assignments. Crediting self for another’s efforts likewise introduces the leaven of deception. Not only is the offending student robbed of an important educational experience, but he also grasps credit from another whose time, effort and genius warrant due recognition.
Abraham Lincoln once noted, “What is morally wrong can never be politically right.” However, in the contemporary view of things, Lincoln’s maxim is perceived as archaic, old-fashioned and out of touch. Take, for example, the partisan tradition of mud-slinging. The political volley of name-calling not only hits below the belt; this contemporary practice serves also to uncover a culture gone awry.
To characterize all liberals as godless, bleeding-heart, pinko-communists and conservatives as intolerant, extremist right-wing ignoramuses hardly flatters the American ideal of one nation, indivisible under God, and offering liberty and justice to all.
A Little Leaven Leavens the Lump
By definition, leaven is an agent that causes a cook’s batter to rise when baked. By means of fermentation, leaven (yeast) gradually modifies and expands the dough. Metaphorically, leaven symbolizes sin or false doctrine. When mixed with the doctrine of God, a little leaven corrupts largely. Jesus shared the Parable of the Leaven to show how something small becomes something big.
The biblical principle finds expression in Lithuanian poet Czeslaw Milosz’s depiction of a tree of falsehood, grown from a small grain of truth. To “let one’s lie be even more logical than the truth itself” may well attract the weary traveler to find repose in it. Nonetheless, Lenin warned that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth” when bereft of a “grand meta-narrative” (big picture).
Bypassing accountability to God, self-serving “truth” morphs into nothing more than a social or personal construction; and reality dissolves into paltry bits and pieces. Societal permissiveness and partisan politics surely contribute, but America’s ills stem more from absence of the love of truth, lack of which is certain to yield what the Bible fingers as “unfruitful works of darkness.”
In the end, everyone pays for lies; and no one is the better for them.
Through the revolving door of evolving values, childlike immoderation typically trumps mature moral moderation. Accordingly, today’s Olympic-class consumers all too often indulge in what they cannot afford—even if they have to beg, whine, steal, borrow or lie to get what they want. The perpetual child is “worth it” after all; and convenience, comfort and emotion drive the childlike masses.
Lying today is big business. On the heels of indulgence come web sites that provide tips for how to beat a polygraph or fabricate an alibi. A new survey by CareerBuilder.com reveals that over half of hiring managers admit to having caught a lie on a candidate’s application for employment (but just five percent of workers admit to fibbing on their résumés).
This Dot-Com’s vice president of human resources, Rosemary Haefner observes rightly that “catching a lie on a résumé raises a red flag about a candidate’s overall ethics.” The same holds true for students who plagiarize assignments. Crediting self for another’s efforts likewise introduces the leaven of deception. Not only is the offending student robbed of an important educational experience, but he also grasps credit from another whose time, effort and genius warrant due recognition.
Abraham Lincoln once noted, “What is morally wrong can never be politically right.” However, in the contemporary view of things, Lincoln’s maxim is perceived as archaic, old-fashioned and out of touch. Take, for example, the partisan tradition of mud-slinging. The political volley of name-calling not only hits below the belt; this contemporary practice serves also to uncover a culture gone awry.
To characterize all liberals as godless, bleeding-heart, pinko-communists and conservatives as intolerant, extremist right-wing ignoramuses hardly flatters the American ideal of one nation, indivisible under God, and offering liberty and justice to all.
A Little Leaven Leavens the Lump
By definition, leaven is an agent that causes a cook’s batter to rise when baked. By means of fermentation, leaven (yeast) gradually modifies and expands the dough. Metaphorically, leaven symbolizes sin or false doctrine. When mixed with the doctrine of God, a little leaven corrupts largely. Jesus shared the Parable of the Leaven to show how something small becomes something big.
The biblical principle finds expression in Lithuanian poet Czeslaw Milosz’s depiction of a tree of falsehood, grown from a small grain of truth. To “let one’s lie be even more logical than the truth itself” may well attract the weary traveler to find repose in it. Nonetheless, Lenin warned that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth” when bereft of a “grand meta-narrative” (big picture).
Bypassing accountability to God, self-serving “truth” morphs into nothing more than a social or personal construction; and reality dissolves into paltry bits and pieces. Societal permissiveness and partisan politics surely contribute, but America’s ills stem more from absence of the love of truth, lack of which is certain to yield what the Bible fingers as “unfruitful works of darkness.”
In the end, everyone pays for lies; and no one is the better for them.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
So, then, who's to say?
Part 2-of-3
(Scroll down for Part 1)
Though the prevailing secular worldview elevates no moral code as superior over another, it’s downright trendy to single out and then castigate traditional morality for applying a “spurious moral compass.” This, of course, begs the question: How then is any moral distinction right or wrong if all are deemed spurious?
Consider Michael Galster. He threatened to expose a Health Management Association within the Arkansas penal system for harvesting from inmates blood that was tainted with hepatitis C and the HIV virus. Allegedly with full knowledge of prison authorities, the blood was shipped to several foreign countries, Canada included.
It is no accident, observes Dr. Rossiter, “that the greatest political system in human history was founded by devout Christians on the assumption that its citizens would live by Judeo-Christian ideals”—i.e., the Golden Rule—but there appears to be a new sheriff in town whose mandate is to leave no good deed unpunished!
For recipients of the contaminated blood and their loved ones, Galster’s moral distinction was far from spurious. What he wouldn’t want done to himself or his loved ones, he refused to do to others. For Galster’s truthfulness, however, he received no kudos, no pats on the back. Instead, he was fired and denied renewal of his orthopedic contract in the Cummins State Prison.
Pardonable Deception
Given the Lord’s very essence as “the Truth,” He hates “a lying tongue.” Even so, to protect their child from a murderous king, the loving parents of Moses engaged in a clear act of deception when, for three months, they hid him. In the end, an entire nation escaped bondage because of it!
Yet another deceiver, Rahab hid spies sent by Joshua prior to the siege of Jericho, thus earning her a spot in the biblical Hall-of-Fame. In both cases, morality is rightly relative to the situation and even opportunistic, though not in unscrupulous or unprincipled ways.
The ancient Greek tragedian, Sophocles, conceded that lying is not honorable; but “speaking dishonorably is pardonable when the truth entails tremendous ruin.” For example, if a knife-toting rapist-pedophile crashed into my home demanding access to my 12-year-old daughter, I would suffer no guilt for deliberately misdirecting him with a lie. Nor should a soldier suffer shame for withholding military intelligence from enemy interrogators whose intent is to inflict widespread harm.
On a lighter level, should a wife ask if her pants make her look fat, the husband does well to think twice before he answers! Most agree that a creative response is in order—e.g., “Honey, you look great to me no matter what you wear.” While arguably situational, relative and opportunistic, the response is true enough; and no one gets hurt by it.
A Nation of Liars
A leading public educator and founding father, Noah Webster recognized Christian faith as foundation for our nation’s public life—this, for good reason. Alongside divine enablement, “human instincts can be controlled only where the constraints of individual conscience are adequate, cultural morality supports their control and society’s laws deter their criminal expression” (Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., The Liberal Mind).
As a former first-grade teacher, later an administrator, I read this to mean that love of truth can and should be nurtured by carefully designed and well-communicated rules. When reasonable rules are enforced with kindness and consistency, classmates enjoy the good fruit of an emotionally safe and stable setting. Consequently, students naturally are drawn to truth, the love for which is nourished by experience and nurtured by good example.
For some, this description conjures up the unpleasant visual of a stern, spinster schoolmarm whose weapon in hand is a solid, stiff ruler poised to crack knuckles. This, of course, is far from the ideal, as is the permissive model that indulges carelessness. After all, when carelessness is given full reign, a culture rots from within. Samuel Johnson reminds us that “it is more from carelessness about truth than from intentionally lying that there is so much falsehood in the world.”
Next: Postmodern Morality
(Scroll down for Part 1)
Though the prevailing secular worldview elevates no moral code as superior over another, it’s downright trendy to single out and then castigate traditional morality for applying a “spurious moral compass.” This, of course, begs the question: How then is any moral distinction right or wrong if all are deemed spurious?
Consider Michael Galster. He threatened to expose a Health Management Association within the Arkansas penal system for harvesting from inmates blood that was tainted with hepatitis C and the HIV virus. Allegedly with full knowledge of prison authorities, the blood was shipped to several foreign countries, Canada included.
It is no accident, observes Dr. Rossiter, “that the greatest political system in human history was founded by devout Christians on the assumption that its citizens would live by Judeo-Christian ideals”—i.e., the Golden Rule—but there appears to be a new sheriff in town whose mandate is to leave no good deed unpunished!
For recipients of the contaminated blood and their loved ones, Galster’s moral distinction was far from spurious. What he wouldn’t want done to himself or his loved ones, he refused to do to others. For Galster’s truthfulness, however, he received no kudos, no pats on the back. Instead, he was fired and denied renewal of his orthopedic contract in the Cummins State Prison.
Pardonable Deception
Given the Lord’s very essence as “the Truth,” He hates “a lying tongue.” Even so, to protect their child from a murderous king, the loving parents of Moses engaged in a clear act of deception when, for three months, they hid him. In the end, an entire nation escaped bondage because of it!
Yet another deceiver, Rahab hid spies sent by Joshua prior to the siege of Jericho, thus earning her a spot in the biblical Hall-of-Fame. In both cases, morality is rightly relative to the situation and even opportunistic, though not in unscrupulous or unprincipled ways.
The ancient Greek tragedian, Sophocles, conceded that lying is not honorable; but “speaking dishonorably is pardonable when the truth entails tremendous ruin.” For example, if a knife-toting rapist-pedophile crashed into my home demanding access to my 12-year-old daughter, I would suffer no guilt for deliberately misdirecting him with a lie. Nor should a soldier suffer shame for withholding military intelligence from enemy interrogators whose intent is to inflict widespread harm.
On a lighter level, should a wife ask if her pants make her look fat, the husband does well to think twice before he answers! Most agree that a creative response is in order—e.g., “Honey, you look great to me no matter what you wear.” While arguably situational, relative and opportunistic, the response is true enough; and no one gets hurt by it.
A Nation of Liars
A leading public educator and founding father, Noah Webster recognized Christian faith as foundation for our nation’s public life—this, for good reason. Alongside divine enablement, “human instincts can be controlled only where the constraints of individual conscience are adequate, cultural morality supports their control and society’s laws deter their criminal expression” (Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., The Liberal Mind).
As a former first-grade teacher, later an administrator, I read this to mean that love of truth can and should be nurtured by carefully designed and well-communicated rules. When reasonable rules are enforced with kindness and consistency, classmates enjoy the good fruit of an emotionally safe and stable setting. Consequently, students naturally are drawn to truth, the love for which is nourished by experience and nurtured by good example.
For some, this description conjures up the unpleasant visual of a stern, spinster schoolmarm whose weapon in hand is a solid, stiff ruler poised to crack knuckles. This, of course, is far from the ideal, as is the permissive model that indulges carelessness. After all, when carelessness is given full reign, a culture rots from within. Samuel Johnson reminds us that “it is more from carelessness about truth than from intentionally lying that there is so much falsehood in the world.”
Next: Postmodern Morality
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
Part 1-of-3
It may well be that “the devil is the father of lies,” but in the words of Josh Billings, “he neglected to patent the idea, and the business now suffers from competition.” Whereas in years past the lesson of Pinocchio spoke volumes to children who feared being found in falsity, deception by design has become today what Edmund Burke describes as “a perennial spring.”
Case in point: In the 1998 movie LIAR, LIAR Jim Carrey portrayed an attorney whose son wishes that he would stop his habitually lying. When the boy’s wish comes true, the “perennial spring” of lies dries up; but havoc ensues. Fact is attorneys are not lone liars. Politicians, students, business partners, mates, lovers, junkies, employees, employers, polygamists, attorneys, retailers, religious opportunists, masters of espionage, scam artists and crooks are honing to perfection the art of deception.
With hardly a bat of the eye, spouses lie to assuage their mates, and kids lie to escape discipline. Lawyers lie to whitewash clients, and criminals lie to escape justice. Speeders lie to avert tickets, and politicians lie to win elections. Parishioners lie to escape duty, and ministers lie to appear holy.
Falsehood: Its Twists and Turns
In the biblical sense, morality speaks to sexual chastity, honor, integrity and truthfulness. Granted, some falsehoods (oral or written) are unintentional—e.g., a misspoken word. On the other hand, some exploitatively promote self-interest. There’s the “little white lie” and out-and-out falsehood, birthed from whom the Bible characterizes as the “Father of Lies, a murderer from the beginning.”
Lies can be active (speaking untruth) or passive (failing to disclose full truth). They introduce logical contradictions or specious fallacies. If for entertainment purposes alone, some folks intentionally exaggerate or mislead. Others go beyond cleverness and trickery to defraud, unfairly discriminate or counterfeit.
The R-rated Imperative
So prevalent is the practice of falsehood that onlookers everywhere snickered when some years back the leader of the free world was caught in a tangled web of lies with respect to his sexual immorality. Many, if not most dismissed as inconsequential the memorable finger-in-the-face, bald-faced lie planted on them. The subject matter alone demands deception, they reasoned.
Moralists disagree; however, before mounting the proverbial high horse, these do well to recall that indicting an administration on the basis of lies, shredded documents, moral impropriety, abused power, laundered money, obstructed justice and the like is tricky business.
New York Times bestselling author Edward Klein described a standard, five-fold strategy employed within the White House: lie, deny, parse, stonewall and then go on the offense. We’ve all seen it in action—if truth be told, on both sides of the aisle. For every so-called liberal at fault, there is a conservative or moderate equally ensnared in wrong doing—and visa versa, of course.
Next: “So, then, who’s to say?”
It may well be that “the devil is the father of lies,” but in the words of Josh Billings, “he neglected to patent the idea, and the business now suffers from competition.” Whereas in years past the lesson of Pinocchio spoke volumes to children who feared being found in falsity, deception by design has become today what Edmund Burke describes as “a perennial spring.”
Case in point: In the 1998 movie LIAR, LIAR Jim Carrey portrayed an attorney whose son wishes that he would stop his habitually lying. When the boy’s wish comes true, the “perennial spring” of lies dries up; but havoc ensues. Fact is attorneys are not lone liars. Politicians, students, business partners, mates, lovers, junkies, employees, employers, polygamists, attorneys, retailers, religious opportunists, masters of espionage, scam artists and crooks are honing to perfection the art of deception.
With hardly a bat of the eye, spouses lie to assuage their mates, and kids lie to escape discipline. Lawyers lie to whitewash clients, and criminals lie to escape justice. Speeders lie to avert tickets, and politicians lie to win elections. Parishioners lie to escape duty, and ministers lie to appear holy.
Falsehood: Its Twists and Turns
In the biblical sense, morality speaks to sexual chastity, honor, integrity and truthfulness. Granted, some falsehoods (oral or written) are unintentional—e.g., a misspoken word. On the other hand, some exploitatively promote self-interest. There’s the “little white lie” and out-and-out falsehood, birthed from whom the Bible characterizes as the “Father of Lies, a murderer from the beginning.”
Lies can be active (speaking untruth) or passive (failing to disclose full truth). They introduce logical contradictions or specious fallacies. If for entertainment purposes alone, some folks intentionally exaggerate or mislead. Others go beyond cleverness and trickery to defraud, unfairly discriminate or counterfeit.
The R-rated Imperative
So prevalent is the practice of falsehood that onlookers everywhere snickered when some years back the leader of the free world was caught in a tangled web of lies with respect to his sexual immorality. Many, if not most dismissed as inconsequential the memorable finger-in-the-face, bald-faced lie planted on them. The subject matter alone demands deception, they reasoned.
Moralists disagree; however, before mounting the proverbial high horse, these do well to recall that indicting an administration on the basis of lies, shredded documents, moral impropriety, abused power, laundered money, obstructed justice and the like is tricky business.
New York Times bestselling author Edward Klein described a standard, five-fold strategy employed within the White House: lie, deny, parse, stonewall and then go on the offense. We’ve all seen it in action—if truth be told, on both sides of the aisle. For every so-called liberal at fault, there is a conservative or moderate equally ensnared in wrong doing—and visa versa, of course.
Next: “So, then, who’s to say?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
