Scores of Christians and conservatives are denouncing President Obama's announced speech to children in schools across the country tomorrow. Notables like Michelle Malkin are concerned with subversive activism. Republicans are accusing the President of imposing a political agenda on the nation's children. Other conservatives see the move as socialist indoctrination. Of course, references to certain dictators' propagandizing of children abound. Numerous parents intend to keep their children home tomorrow.

On the one hand, I certainly have some concerns of my own with the current administration, the direction of the country, and the increasing intrusion of government into our lives, including the speech tomorrow. At the same time, Christians who have children in public school ought to keep at least four critical thoughts intermingling here.

First, is the President's speech not an opportunity for you to not only give your child the tools of critical analysis as you dissect it, but, is it not also an opportunity for you to train your child to engage with his friends and/or teachers? There will be discussion in the class room about the speech. Opinions will be offered. What better way for your child to really be salt and light than to offer an informed, timely, winsome, biblical response? If you and your children are going to engage the culture, you must be in the culture, not stay home that day.

Second, what do you expect? Is it really a surprise to you that government officials want to have influence over your children? Just today I received a phone message from one of our state senators who is also concerned about the speech from the President and is promising to promote legislation to "protect our schools from becoming propaganda tools." While I do appreciate his sentiment, my first thought was, "You're kidding right?" Is that not what they already are in so many ways? While you as a Christian parent can choose to send your children to a public school for a number of valid reasons, you should not do so with your eyes closed. The worldview being put forth in your child's school is opposed to the worldview given by the Scriptures. This dynamic goes beyond the science class and affects everything that is taught. If God is not the foundation for what your children are taught, then they are getting a view that is opposed to God. Pluralistic indoctrination need not be directly taught, though it is, to set forth a worldview that is unbiblical. There is no such thing as neutral ground. Either the foundation of what is taught assumes the reality of God or denies Him. You need to understand that your child is being indoctrinated into a secular worldview each and every day. That being the case, why does it surprise you the President wants to address your children?

Third, the fact that your child is being taught something contrary to the Scriptures on a regular basis simply magnifies your need to intentionally influence his thinking. You need to teach the Bible to your child on a daily basis and apply it to his heart. It is not just a matter of information but devotion. You want your child to be devoted to Christ. Moreover, you need to engage in worldview dialogue with your little one or teenager constantly. Every message you hear flows from a particular worldview. When the news anchor talks about the "innocent slaughter of trees" you know he is coming from a different worldview than you. That comment provides you with a teaching moment. Talk to your kids and talk to them often about how to look at the world through the lens of Scripture. A review of what they learn at school would be a great place to start.

Fourth, you won't change what the government does by political pressure of any kind. Sure, you will gain some ground here and there but it will be temporary and temporal in effect. In other words, it will pass when the next group gets their way by getting out the vote and the impact you have will be earthly. It will be what you want as opposed to what others want and of little, if any, eternal value since it will be the result of political action and not the result of God doing a work in the hearts of people. You should be engaged in the political arena if God has called you to that. You should have a say as to what goes on in your child's school. But, just remember, the direction of our government and culture is a reflection of the ideas and attitudes that dominate our culture. Only when hearts are changed and the Christian worldview gains ascendency in our culture again will we see real change at any (and every) level of society. Use spiritual weapons (2 Cor. 10:4-5) and faithfully live out the calling God has given you, whatever it is.

Dr. Paul Dean is a pastor, cultural commentator, and author. He hosts a live, call-in radio broadcast every M-W-F at 1:00 pm Eastern. You can access archives or join the conversation by logging onto www.callingfortruth.org. You can also sign up for "The Dean's List," a free news and Christian worldview e-letter. Check out his new book, Disciple Like Jesus for Parents. To schedule Dr. Dean to speak, simply e-mail him at pauldeanjr@juno.com.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

Social change is a constant need due to the reality of the inexorable encroachment of sin in a culture. A civil society must have the rule of law or the sinfulness of man will go unchecked. Justice provides a sense of fairness and redress. Liberty keeps the government and citizens from controlling the lives of others. People are free to make their own way in the world, worship as they deem best, and the gospel is allowed an entrance into the market-place of ideas. Of course, the gospel is the only message that is the power of God unto salvation and the resulting society ordered by limited government, the rule of law, liberty and justice for all, an exalted work ethic, and personal responsibility.

Those who see social change as necessary don’t all agree on what that social change should be. One need simply scroll through a number of social issues in the news every week to affirm that state of affairs. Moreover, not all agree with how social change should be brought about. For example, the Washington Post is reporting that President Obama is making empathy a requirement for service on the Supreme Court. “Obama, preparing to nominate a successor to Justice David H. Souter, has often said that the best judges take note of the real world. By making empathy a core qualification, he is uniting his own eclectic experience as a community organizer and constitutional-law professor while demanding what he has called ‘a broader vision for what America should be.’”

It is this “broader vision for what America should be” and how to get there that is of concern for the believer. With reference to the Supreme Court, “Obama has said that 95 percent of Supreme Court cases pose no great controversy, and that rulings typically result in no great divisions. ‘But it's those 5 percent of the cases that really count,’ he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007. ‘And in those 5 percent of cases, what you've got to look at is: What is in the justice's heart? What's their broader vision of what America should be?’” Further, “Obama connected his worldview to the bench in 2005 when he opposed the nomination of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He said Brown was trying to create ‘a version of America’ by siding with the powerful.”

In his comments concerning his looming first appointment to the Court, the President would have the Court ignore current law deemed to be unfair. He cited a case involving Lilly Ledbetter, “the former Alabama tire company worker who learned through a furtive note from a colleague that she had long been earning less than her male counterparts. When her discrimination case reached the Supreme Court, five justices denied her claim, ruling that she sued too long after the pay decision was made. Many conservatives welcomed the ruling as a strict and proper interpretation of the law: The statute of limitations had expired. But Obama considered the ruling heartless and said Ledbetter had been treated unfairly. ‘The court has to stand up,’ he said, ‘if nobody else will.’”

On the other hand, Obama has often described his version of America. “He said people of all backgrounds ‘want a nation where we share life's risks and rewards with each other.’ ‘And when they make laws that will spread this opportunity to all who are willing to work for it,’ he went on, ‘they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections.’”

There is a glaring contradiction in the President’s statements: “The court has to stand up if nobody else will,” and “they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections.” The President is actually urging the Court to tear down laws based upon political predilections. Such contradictions are not uncommon for President Obama. On numerous occasions he has stated that government decisions will be based on science and not ideology with reference to embryonic stem-cell research, the Swine Flu, the environment, etc. The glaring reality is that his decisions are based on ideology. Further, Charles Krauthammer noted with reference to one such occasion, “Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the ‘false choice between sound science and moral values.’ Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the ‘use of cloning for human reproduction.’” Krauthammer pointed out that Obama’s last statement was a choice of ethics over science.

The point here is that social change is always rooted in ideology. The question then becomes two-fold: how do we determine whose ideology is right and whose ideology will prevail? Of course, ideology that is not rooted in a source of authority outside of oneself will always be filled with inconsistencies and contradictions as the President’s is. Ideology that is always changing will lead to a society filled with self-focus, a demand for government assistance, injustice, and a waning commitment to liberty and the rule of law. Government is viewed as the savior for a while but the true result is tyranny. That reality is why a biblical ideology, more specifically, a New Covenant ideology of civil society, must drive our civil society. It is the only ideology that leads to liberty and justice for all.

The larger question for the Christian then is how do we go about affecting social change? There are thousands of Christians active in the political process of our nation. Consider this encouragement from a Christianity Today article entitled, “The New (Evangelical) Mainline: “We enjoy a significant position of authority — contra Meacham — in moral and political issues. Pastors Rick Warren and Joel Hunter, both of whom have had access to President Obama, exemplify this kind of standing in the culture. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family notes that the existence of laws or constitutional amendments opposing the redefinition of marriage in 43 states would be hard to explain absent the massive presence of pro-family evangelicals. Facing little competition from the old mainline, growing and dynamic megachurches, Pentecostals, and immigrant churches also have a great opportunity to appeal to the spiritually curious and open.”

However, part of the point of the Christianity Today article is that according to the American Religious Identification Survey, those who claim to be atheist, agnostic, or have no religious preference have doubled in eighteen years. Mainline denominations and even the Baptists are declining in membership. Yet, the author’s of the survey note that other trends “suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more ‘evangelical’ outlook among Christians.” Christianity Today suggests that evangelicals are becoming the new mainline. If the old mainline is now the sideline, as some are calling it, the question raised is “how do we, the new mainline, avoid becoming like the old mainline and present an authentic faith to our American neighbors?” How do we keep from becoming the sideline?

Christianity Today notes that “theological compromise in a misguided pursuit of relevance at all costs played a major role” in the sidelining of the mainline. A “rigorous and public recommitment to the unchanging truth of the gospel is essential.” Further, “spreading the gospel, not seeking social or political relevance, is the heartbeat of evangelicalism. More often than not, cozying up to the culture has been a ticket to later embarrassment. To be sure, we also must remain engaged in the larger culture. . . .Our future as a movement depends on that which is in our name, the evangel, the good news of Jesus Christ.”

The point is that Christians should be involved in the political process and indeed every area of civil life. But, we must never see the government as our savior. If the gospel does not permeate a culture, not only are people not saved, but political victories will be fewer and farther between until they are gone completely. Political victories are rooted in worldview as President Obama demonstrates. At the same time, if we focus on political victories apart from the gospel, what have we gained? We have gained a temporary victory based on what we want America to be. That’s all Obama wants: an America how he wants it to be. So, we go back and forth trading victories without really affecting change at the heart level both in terms of political ideology or salvation. If we continue on a course of political activism divorced from the gospel we may win a few victories in the short term, but the overall victory in the long term will be lost both in terms of the nation and the souls that need to be saved for eternity.

“Politics and legislation are the main engines of social change in Obama's view, said University of Chicago law professor David Strauss.” Sadly, many Christians and indeed Christian leaders hold the same view.

In the much talked about Newsweek story, “The End of Christian America,” Jon Meacham noted, “While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago.” In that statement, Meacham has unwittingly done us a favor. He is right. And, the solution is in the statement. Believers must realize that social change ultimately comes about by “arguments of an explicitly Christian character.” We battle in the realm of ideas. Paul said, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5).”

Let’s go one step further than Christianity Today’s proper assessment. The reality is that our future not only as a movement but as faithful representatives of Christ and the advancement of His kingdom in America depends on that which is in our name, the evangel, the good news of Jesus Christ.

To schedule Dr. Dean to speak on Christian Worldview or to schedule biblical counseling training for your church through the Southern Baptist Association of Biblical Counselors or the International Association of Biblical Counselors, e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com.

Sign up free for “The Dean’s List,” a news and Christian worldview e-letter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. The e-letter is sponsored by "Calling for Truth," a live, call-in radio program hosted by Dr. Dean. Simply e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com to receive your first issue.

To listen live to "Calling for Truth" each M-W-F from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm Eastern Time, go to www.callingfortruth.org and click on the "Listen Live" button. You may listen to archived shows as well. They are uploaded each day after the broadcast.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

In an interview with the BBC, Ludwig Minelli, founder of a Swiss right-to-die group, said that suicide is a “marvelous, marvelous possibility for a human being.” He further stated, “Suicide is a very good possibility to escape a situation which you can’t alter.” At the same time, Bonnie Erbe of U.S. News and World Report, asserted that abortion is “not a bad choice” in an economic downturn.

Minelli and Erbe avow that taking human life is a viable option when economics are an issue. In fact, Minelli sees suicide as a viable option for any number of reasons including wanting to die at the same time as one’s spouse.

In what sense is suicide a marvelous possibility for a human being? The reality is that such an option can only be considered viable and attractive on a naturalistic (evolutionary) worldview. Because humans are the product of random chance and no different than animals on that worldview, life is meaningless. Therefore, putting oneself out of misery is a good option if the misery is too great. Of course, the next step will be for social engineers to make those decisions for others even as they increasingly attempt to do so now. Just as it is humane to put a horse out of its misery, so too it will be deemed a humane decision when others put a human being out of [its] misery.

Christians know that there is life after death; apart from Christ there is a Hell which is far worse than any so-called hell on earth. Practically, situations can always be altered. Even when someone is physically unable to alter his situation, he can alter his thinking about his situation (Phil. 4:6f). And, there is a heaven to gain for those who look to Christ for real life.

Further, pragmatic conclusions are not always the best nor are they usually right in an ethical sense. Minelli argues that successful suicide attempts will increase and failed attempts will decrease if we as a culture adopt a favorable attitude toward suicide. As suicide success rates rise, costs to society will decrease. Expenses associated with caring for those who attempt suicide but fail will decline.

Such a position is horrific (though not unexpected when one considers Scriptural teaching on fallen man’s inability to think rightly about these matters). Do we really want to live in a society where economic concerns are supreme? What about relationships; ideas; or human potential? What about a culture’s values: life; essential dignity; man as a special creation of God in His image? Who says cost savings are the greatest benefit to society? Press the logic here. What if your six-year-old becomes too expensive? Should you simply kill him?

The man (or woman) apart from Christ will find biblical assertions irrational when they conflict with his/her pursuit of happiness. While compassion for this spiritually helpless individual must grip our hearts, we must recognize that economic materialism has become the god of our culture.

This god is manifest in Erbe’s comments as well. For her part, with reference to an unwed, Oakland couple who opted to abort a wanted child when the father lost his job, Erbe lamented the media referring to the decision as tragic: “But in the long run, can we not agree that an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.”

Erbe demonstrates a complete lack of compassion toward the Oakland couple cited. Compassion has no place on a materialistic/naturalistic worldview. Rational decision making is supreme. There is no thought given to the value of life or the value that one might bring to the lives of others including parents and siblings. On a materialistic worldview, then, the flood gates are open. Anyone who is not productive may simply be put to death for economic reasons: and that is judged a good thing (on that worldview).

A significant and related problem subtly develops when this cultural mindset grips the church. Many couples delay or forego having children so career pursuits won’t be hindered. Mothers are put to work in an effort to grasp the culture’s definition of the good life. Couples opt against having a second or third child for economic reasons. Erbe’s assertions concerning abortion should appall us. But shouldn’t the stance that so many believers have adopted also give us pause? Children are a heritage from the Lord. Our culture has a wrong view of what’s valuable; what is a blessing; and what is the good life.

Material pragmatism drives Erbe’s thought process. There is another side to the pragmatic equation however. Erbe says abortion, with particular reference to the Oakland couple, will spare public resources (welfare). Could the man not find another job? Could he get private assistance for the baby? What about the future economic potential and productivity added to the economy that may derive from allowing the child to be born? What about new technology and solutions forced by need as populations grow? In other words, unforeseen problems will arise with population growth that will necessitate creative solutions. Some of those solutions will benefit us in ways that are also unforeseen. Those benefits will not come about without population growth.

As alluded to however, these arguments are pragmatic as well. The only satisfying answer lies in philosophical consistency and that is found only in God.

Of course, materialism/naturalism collapses upon itself; it is philosophically self-destroying. Materialism says there is nothing but the physical; nothing but cause and affect. With reference to human beings and thinking there is nothing but brain (no immaterial soul). On that worldview thoughts are nothing but programmed responses to stimuli.

Now, think here. If thoughts are nothing but programmed responses to stimuli, true reason then is non-existent. Reason is only perceived; it is but a natural response to a set of stimuli. So, when the materialist asserts reason as supreme, he asserts something as supreme that does not exist on his worldview. Reason can only exist on a Christian worldview.

In the end, God values human life. He says that life is His to give and take away, not ours. An attack on a human being is an attack on God (Gen. 9:6). When this truth is firmly implanted in our minds, these issues will be simple for us to resolve. Moreover, the biblical worldview makes sense. It is philosophically consistent. Your worldview is a matter of life and death. A commitment to God’s existence (and salvation in Christ) is the only thing that will save your life and our culture of death. And, saving your life and the lives of others is valuable.

To schedule Dr. Dean to speak on Christian Worldview or to schedule biblical counseling training for your church through the Southern Baptist Association of Biblical Counselors or the International Association of Biblical Counselors, e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com.

Sign up free for “The Dean’s List,” a news and Christian worldview e-letter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. The e-letter is sponsored by "Calling for Truth," a live, call-in radio program hosted by Dr. Dean. Simply e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com to receive your first issue.

To listen live to "Calling for Truth" each M-W-F from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm Eastern Time, go to www.callingfortruth.org and click on the "Listen Live" button. You may listen to archived shows as well. They are uploaded each day after the broadcast.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss

Spiegel Online International reported that “Michael Jackson is considering having his body ‘plastinated’ by Body Worlds founder Gunther von Hagens. The controversial doctor says he could give the wacky pop star ‘the gift of immortality.’” The process would preserve Jackson’s body after his death. “Von Hagens said that his patented plastination process could continue the process of reshaping Jackson's body that the self-styled King of Pop has pursued through multiple plastic surgery operations. ‘I could give Michael the gift of physical immortality -- he has already achieved this with his music.’”

Aside from the sad sideshow Michel Jackson has become, his desire to preserve himself beyond the grave is something that God has put in the hearts of each one of us (Ecc. 3:11). The problem lies in the fact that we have suppressed our knowledge of Him so that our hearts and understanding are darkened by sin apart from Christ (Rom. 1:18-21). Jackson’s desire is but one among a myriad of ways that human beings attempt to somehow gain immortality apart from Christ. Despite what the naturalists tell us, we know in our hearts that there is more to life than what we have now. Persons search for meaning in their lives, want to make a difference in this world, long to leave a legacy, and hope for something hereafter. When people seek to have themselves “plastinated” or do similarly foolish things, it is owing to our sinful nature coming into contact with the knowledge of God within us. Suppression of that knowledge manifests itself in many forms.

At the heart of seeking immortality apart from Christ is a denial of the fall of man into sin and a failure to recognize its affect on us. It is sin that causes us to seek satisfaction in anything apart from Christ including self-attained immortality or even the way we look in the here and now. “Plastination” is simply the logical conclusion to Jackson’s ongoing efforts to alter his appearance. The booming business of cosmetic surgery, tummy tucks, implants, collagen injections, lip plumping, etc., has its root in the same dynamic: an idolatrous failure to find satisfaction in Christ. It is pride and self-worship that drives persons to find their joy in themselves in any form.

“Plastination” is also a patent denial of the resurrection. Our bodies are subject to decay by virtue of the fall. They do not last. Even those present at the return of Christ will experience a bodily transformation. Because we place so little emphasis on the resurrection we fail to understand its significance as a major part of the hope we have in Christ (Phil. 3:14).

Certainly we need to take care of our bodies as good stewards of that which God has given us. Moreover, the bodies of those who know Christ are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Christians need to present their bodies in appropriate ways in public for God’s glory. At the same time, Christians need to accept God’s providence for them in the aging process. That does not mean that we cannot avail ourselves of medical care when needed. God gives us the gifts of life and intelligence. Preserving that life through medical advance honors God’s gift of life and His command to subdue the earth.

But, cosmetic surgery is in a different category. While it may be biblically warranted in certain cases, we must check our motivation. If the issue is rooted in pride or an attempt to slow the outward appearance of aging, heart issues are involved and must be brought before the Lord.

At the same time, consider the fact that one can advance the gospel by accepting the aging process. Aging visibly displays the affects of the curse and the need for redemption. When we accept it gracefully, we openly declare that satisfaction is in Christ and that our hope is in the resurrection, not the mythical fountain of youth, plastic surgery or “plastination.” And, in the end, only God can give the gift of immortality.

To schedule Dr. Dean to speak on Christian Worldview or to schedule biblical counseling training for your church through the Southern Baptist Association of Biblical Counselors or the International Association of Biblical Counselors, e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com.

Sign up free for “The Dean’s List,” a news and Christian worldview e-letter highlighting relevant news stories affecting Christians. The e-letter is sponsored by "Calling for Truth," a live, call-in radio program hosted by Dr. Dean. Simply e-mail pauldeanjr@juno.com to receive your first issue.

To listen live to "Calling for Truth" each M-W-F from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm Eastern Time, go to www.callingfortruth.org and click on the "Listen Live" button. You may listen to archived shows as well. They are uploaded each day after the broadcast.

Reader Comments

• Email
• Print
• Discuss