Timeless Truth for a Sound Bite Culture

You Can HELP

Share TRUTH Across the World

Donate NOW

Join Our E-Mail List

JOIN

IN PRAISE OF THE LITTLE CORNER CHURCH

A church congregation functioning at its best is a beautiful thing to experience. I was recently reminded of this while attending a funeral service. My heart was stirred as I watched fellow church members shower the bereaved family with love, prayers, and home-cooked meals. About a week after the funeral, one of the family members told me, “Our pastor has been so faithful, and we’ve really felt God’s love through all of the members reaching out to us. We’re gonna be OK.”

In this era of televangelism and celebrity preachers, the significance of the humble local church is easy to miss. I think we need to take a second look. Often low-tech but loving, the church is a place where members serve God by serving others. It’s a golden rule of the Christian world: When some one is hurting, be there.

Of the more than 384,000 Christian congregations in America, most number less than 125 worshippers on any given Sunday morning. Most will never podcast their sermons, much less garner prime-time media coverage. Week after week, most churches quietly continue to go about their two-millenia-old mission.

The economy and competition for donor dollars from other non-profits are leaving church offering plates less full than usual for this time of year. A recent study predicts that giving to churches will decrease by some 3 to 5 billion dollars during this fourth quarter. It is estimated that about one third of all families who regularly contribute to a church will donate less than usual this quarter.

Yet in towns everywhere, churches valiantly soldier on. In response to current needs, nearly 40 percent of churches are currently offering financial counseling for those who are having monetary struggles. An estimated 52 percent of churches (both Protestant and Catholic) have programs in place “to provide food, clothing, and basic needs” for those in economic straights.

I believe that America’s churches are as important today as they were in 1835, when Alexis DeToqueville penned this famous observation: “Not until I went into America’s churches and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her greatness and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

Some today would disagree with DeToqueville. Many would indicate a tacit agreement with the sentiment expressed in the title of Christopher Hitchen’s book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. A 2008 poll of 18-29 year olds revealed that nearly 80 percent of those surveyed had a negative view of organized churches. Nearly 90 percent agreed with the statement, “Some one may have a good relationship with God without being involved in a church.”

But whenever I get concerned about the church’s place in our society I remember that caring about people will always be relevant. I think about people I’ve met along my ecclesiological journeys throughout America: People like Ed, who voluntarily fitted his pickup truck with expensive devices that keep meals hot which he transports to area shut-ins each week. I think about Joel, a busy college student, but one who for two years now has organized fellow students from his Sunday school class to sing in a rest home each week— just because. I think about Lynn. As a retired international airline stewardess, Lynn fluently speaks half a dozen languages. For years, she has led literacy courses for immigrants and taught ESL classes to hundreds— through her local church.

The church affirms life at every stage, provides fellowship, community, instruction, and care of the soul. Churches carry out their all-important function of teaching people about God, the Bible, Jesus, and salvation. Churches teach people of all ages how to how to worship and how to serve, how to live and how to die.

This season, take in a poorly-performed church Christmas play and appreciate the fact that it was probably funded out of the pocket of the same person recruited to direct it. Join in singing some carols that may be accompanied by an out-of-tune piano, and marvel at the beauty of withered hands which can still play publicly past age 75. Let the minister know that the message inspired you. Thank the ones who have invested their lives in the souls of others.

Make church a part of your Christmas experience this year. Do more this year than just mail a check to an out-of-town non-profit organization. Say a prayer of thanks for your local churches. Better yet, get involved.

---

Alex McFarland serves as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, located near Charlotte, NC. He is the author of 8 books and over 100 published articles. Alex has spoken in all 50 U.S. states and internationally.

Western History Week

How has Christianity shaped Western culture? Here are some of the featured speakers we have on the radio show this week:

On Suffering

We had an interesting discussion of suffering with Preston Parrish, a member of the Billy Graham Assc. yesterday.Preston's 25 year-old son died unexpectedly, the day after Preston burried his father. The family faced " a gauntlet of grief through which we never would have chosen to pass." Preston later wrote:

I did not presume to try to understand it all. Those whose well-being is limited by what they can figure out will never, this side of heaven, be well, “for now we see in a mirror dimly” and know only in part what, later, we will fully know (1 Corinthians 13:12). Still, though, my soul had come to rest on a certain core of unshakable conviction:

Jesus is enough.
Jesus is the only One who is enough.
In fact, Jesus is more than enough.

Simply put, that’s my story—it’s one of knowing God through His Son, Jesus Christ, even through the greatest storm of my life.

His book on the subject, Windows into the Heart of God: 31 Life-Changing Glimpses of Jesus, can be found here.

One of our upcoming guests, Dr. Peter Kreeft (who will be speaking at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics in a few weeks) has written some great material on the subject as well.

An Archeologist on “Ardi”


Ardipithecus ramidus – “Ardi”

Guest post: Ted W. Wright, M.A.A., B.A.

What is it?

Ardipithecus – or Ardi for short – is a fossil skeleton of a creature that some scientist claim lived 4.4 million years ago. In the journal Science a special issue examining Ardi is now available where there will be 11 articles written by researchers touting the importance of the fossil for understanding human evolution.

When was it discovered?

It was discovered in the early 90’s (92-93) – but nothing was published or said “officially” about it until now. One of the reasons is because it took years to clean the bones, analyze them, reconstruct them, and restore the skeleton to its original dimensions. Apparently after Ardi died her remains were trampled into the mud by large animals such as hippos and other large animals. Eons later, after much erosion the remains (which were badly crushed) came to the surface.

One point the listeners and viewers should keep in mind – and that is that, whenever some scientist offers a reconstructed skeleton – the reconstruction of that fossil is far less perfect than the “experts” let on.

Who discovered it?

A team of researchers lead by Dr. Tim White (of U.C. Berkley).

What is its significance of Ardi? What is the secular scientific community saying about it?

It is supposedly a very important “step” toward human evolution.

According to Dr. Tim White (one of the principle researchers):

Instead of thinking of something between a chimp and a human – don’t think of it as a series of links in a chain as much as branches in a tree

So they are not saying that it is a link – they are steering clear of calling it a missing link – they would say – in fact – that Ardi does away with the idea of a missing link 

It’s not a chimp and its not a human – it has features that show it as distinct from both apes AND humans.

What’s really interesting is that the researchers themselves are not confident enough to say that Ardi is a human ancestor as opposed to simply an extinct ape.

When they were asked (In a BBC report) whether A. ramidus was our direct ancestor or not, the team stated that more fossils from different places and time periods were needed to answer the question.

There is even a growing criticism from other fellow evolutionary anthropologists about the significance of Ardi

Harvard paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam told ScienceNOW “I find it hard to believe that numerous similarities of chimps and gorillas evolved convergently

Convergence is the idea that evolution can occur horizontally and simultaneously rather than just in a linear fashion (or by a step by step advancement from simple to complex).

Is it “physical evidence” that humans evolved from ape-like creatures?

In short; no.

The assumption today is that evolution is true [accepted uncritically as dogma not science] According to the majority of scientists [macro] evolution is unfalsifiable – but again – this can’t be science – it must be dogma.

To the evolutionist there is but one primary fact in the universe: evolution. Everything else is just data. The value of this data does not depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and is to be discarded. It is time to ask the paleontological community, At what point does philosophical bias in the interpretation of the human fossil material become intellectual dishonesty?1

“Ardi” is seen by some evolutionist to be “good” data in support of the claim of human evolution. If, in the long run, Ardi proves to go counter to evolution and its claims then it will be discarded.

What are some problems with it?

First off – Ardi is NOT a fossil of a human – nor is it a complete fossil.

It was composed of many individuals (36 to be exact!) scattered around and then reassembled by researchers 

There are many unproven and rather unscientific assumptions when it comes to fossil interpretation in general – it is still (with all of our modern scientific tools) a very nascent science.

Not to mention the fact that human fossils are very, very rare as compared with the total number of fossils we know of.

95% of all known fossils are marine invertebrates

4.7% are algae and plants

0.2% are insects and other invertebrates

0.1% are vertebrates (animals with bones)

Finally only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, monkeys, apes and lemurs)

Anthropologist Marvin Lubenow writes that: “In the New Scientist ‘The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table’ – One anthropologist has compared the task [of reconstructing humans descending from apes] to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” 2

Many researchers have never seen an original fossil – only models and casts of original specimens

Furthermore, using the evolutionists on time scale of human fossils and hominids (which are creatures in the line leading to modern humans), there are anatomically modern humans living side by side (contemporaries) of most of the so-called missing links (such as “Lucy”).

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FOR TED WRIGHT: twright@ses.edu

What is a Worldview?

"Worldviews" came up on the show today, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on them.Wikipedia says a worldview is “The framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it.” James Sire's view is more robust when he writes that, “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”

Huh? Well, let's unpack this a bit. Basically, one's worldview is what they think is true about reality and by which they interpret the facts of reality.

A worldview is often characterized as a "lens" through which we see reality, but this can lead to problems - namely, it feeds into a postmodern ideal of relativism. "Pomos" think that everyone's view of reality is filtered through the lens of a worldview. If we were wearing rose-colored glasses, they will state, then white would look pink. And if everyone has their own set of glasses then reality is seen differently by everyone. Thus, argumentation and debate over truth becomes rather silly and we should all just share our feelings and tolerate each other.

A better way of looking at worldview is that it affects not the facts, nor our direct experience of reality, but the interpretation of the facts of reality. For example, if one's worldview includes both parents and Santa Claus then there may be more than one good explanation for the arrival of presents Christmas morning. But to someone who does not accept the existence of Santa Claus, only one good interpretation of the fact of presents is available.

So far so good.

But aren't we in the same postmodern dilemma? How can people with different worldviews discern which is correct? The answer is that there are worldview-transcending elements of reality that cannot be distorted by the "lens" of a worldview. This is evident from the fact that to say "All people have a worldview that nothing can transcend" is to have a worldview that must transcend everyone else's worldview (in order to see them)! Further, we need to be able to see reality as it truly is in order to know if it has been distorted by a "lens." Again, something beyond worldviews is necessary to explain common experience.

At the very least the sense experience of reality and the laws of logic may be put forth as worldview-transcending. When people cannot apprehend reality we call them insane. But this would make no sense if reality were truly outside our direct grasp. The laws of logic cannot be altered by worldview either. Even so-called "eastern logical" systems claim they they are what they are, and are not what they are not (this is the law of non-contradiction). Reality and Logic seem to force themselves on us!

So not only do we transcend worldviews all the time, but we can use reality itself and logic to judge the accuracy of worldviews in order to make sure our interpretations of facts are good ones.