103 Sermon Illustrations on Religion

A.J. Jacobs is the editor-at-large for Esquire magazine. He grew up as a secular Jew and describes himself as an agnostic. He knew next to nothing about religion or the Bible. He thought, How can this 2,000- to 3,000-year-old book have any relevance to my life?

For a special assignment, he decided to find out if the teachings of the Bible could be followed literally, every jot and tittle. He spent one year eating Kosher, going to synagogue and resting on the Sabbath, growing a beard, and reading the Bible and praying every day. The result was the book THE YEAR OF LIVING BIBLICALLY.

He said it was the most fascinating year of his life. It also changed him in profound ways. He learned from the Bible to be much more thankful. He became more community-minded as opposed to individual-minded because the Bible is all about being a part of community.

One of his hardest lessons was forgiveness. For A.J., forgiveness is a really hard thing. Even when he did forgive, he forgave with an asterisk. He read in the New Testament where Paul says love does not keep score (1 Corinthians 13:5). He disobeyed this literally because, before his year, he had been keeping score of his wife’s arguments with him. Any time he would win an argument or she would make a mistake, A.J. would always jot those down in his Palm Pilot so that he could remember them.

The Bible taught him to get rid of that. He showed his wife the list, and she just laughed at him. Her response was amusement mixed with pity that he would even need to keep such a list. It took a commitment to a Bible-centered life to change this trait in him.

What could the Bible change in you?

________

Adapted from Christianity Today International/LEADERSHIP Journal. Winter 2008, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, Page 17; copyright © 2008

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #2107]

Jerold Simms (Jewish) and Dorothy Boeke (Catholic) got a divorce, and the judge ordered the children to be raised as Jews. Boeke had re-converted to Catholicism. Shows dangers of interfaith marriage.

Medved, co-host of “Sneak Previews” on PBS and a devout Jew, castigates “The Last Temptation of Christ” as a bad film and anti-Christian. He sees an anti-religious bias in Hollywood. It is more than economics and first amendment freedom, because bad religious films lose money and positive ones make it.

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that there is a perverse sort of idealism at work here. For many of the most powerful people in the entertainment business, hostility to traditional religion goes so deep and burns so intensely that they insist on expressing that hostility, even at the risk to commercial disaster.”

Sermon in Minor Prophets series. Amos and religion.

1. What God thinks of religion. (He hates it)

2. The marks of corrupt religion.

a. Simplistic, one-sided approach.

b. Co-existence with moral corruption.

c. No sense of sin.

d. No seeking of God.

3. The results of corrupt religion.

a. Cut off from God.

4. Truly seeking God. [1409]

*

[Not your typical pastor's resource -- a photocopy of the article was given to me.]

“Ronald Reagan often called religion the world’s mightiest force for good, ‘the bedrock of moral order.’ George Bush said that it gives people ‘the character they need to get through life.’ This view is held by millions. But the truism isn’t true. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can a society hope to become humane. The history of religion is a horror story.”

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry “Deus Vult” (God wills it). First Jews in the Rhine valley were persecuted, then all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were slaughtered. The ecstatic cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: “In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses’ bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God.”

In the Third Crusade, Richard the Lion-Hearted slaughtered 3,000 captives from Acre in 1191. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: “The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified.”

In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses believers in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered - many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.

(The blood libel against Jews and other acts of anti-semitism are described.)

(The bloody practices of the Mayans and Aztecs are detailed.)

In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to two million. In the first half of the seventeenth century, about 5,000 “Witches” were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg.

Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 1500s - until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew’s Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.

Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible- carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, “God made them as stubble to our swords.” He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s.

The Thirty Years’ War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany’s population dropped from 18 million to four million.

When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

(Persecution of the Baha’is.)

In 1984 Shiite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it “for the pleasure of God.”

“It’s fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn’t the real cause of today’s strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, India, and Iran - that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions would blur with passing generations. Children would adapt to new times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps them alien to one another. Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that ugly purpose.”

WITNESSES TO FACTS OF THE GOSPEL

The Gospel is not presented to mankind as an argument about religious principles. Nor is it offered as a philosophy of life. Christianity is a witness to certain facts -- to events that have happened, to hopes that have been fulfilled, to realities that have been experienced, to a Person who has lived and died and been raised from the dead to reign for ever.

-- Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., FAR AND NEAR

Politics and religion do mix, but the question is what is the best formula.

When even the textbooks refer to the Christian Right’s style of politics as “angry,” it is clear that the movement has an image problem. That revealing word choice, which occurs twice in Robert Booth Fowler and Allen D. Hertzke’s impressive survey text, “Religion and Politics in America,” speaks volumes about the popular perception of Christian Right politics as sub-Christian in spirit. It also reminds us that, while performing commendably on specific issues and in practical politics, the Christian Right is not positioned to address the problems of increasing polarization and civic disintegration in modern America.

Fowler and Hertzke’s solid text can be used as a measuring stick to examine how religion and politics get along in contemporary America. It has a few disappointing omissions: its content is almost strictly limited to national rather than state or local politics, and it concentrates solely on how religion affects politics, never (except for one brief reference to James Davison Hunter’s theory on the coming liberalization of evangelicalism) on how political involvement affects religious practice. But, on the whole, this book is a reliable benchmark of where the action is — and where it isn’t. Thus it is striking that Fowler and Hertzke need 40 pages to describe religious politics and the courts, while they have nothing to say about the role of religious believers as reconcilers in the political realm.

Some of the discussions in the book suggest the reasons why believers spend so much time in court and so little time in peacemaking. Fowler and Hertzke stress that many of the key religion-and-politics battles are not resolved in Congress or in state legislatures, but argued forcibly before the judicial branch. The authors’ superb summary of church-and-state cases in the Supreme Court over the last 60 years lays bare the Court’s judicial hairsplitting and strained logic, which inevitably leads to further legal and political haggling. Furthermore, they note that, despite the strength of the Christian Right and the continuing statistical preeminence of Christianity, the defining characteristic of American culture today is a “moral pluralism” in which no single religious group can exert dominant power.

The impact even of strongly committed Christians in politics is muted by the diversity of their views, with figures like Sen. Mark Hatfield, Rep. Tony Hall (both politically moderate evangelicals), and African-American congressman and clergyman Floyd Flake counterbalancing more conservative impulses.

Fowler and Hertzke keep the book consistently balanced and dispassionate (which is why the aforementioned references to fundamentalist “anger” stick out so sharply) and leave the moralizing to others. Yet their survey of the landscape induces a sense of pessimism. Amidst the current polarization of American public discourse, the most important political battle facing us today may not be between Left and Right, but over whether we will be able to maintain the terms of engagement without which we can no longer have a productive debate at all. Christians should be ideally suited to serve not just as combatants in the culture wars but as bridgebuilders; yet Fowler and Hertzke find no one positioned to play this role. Thus arises the unspoken yet pervasive pessimism, not just about the prospects for effective religious-based politics but also about the possibility of getting activists with such a wide range of views — most of them claiming to be acting as Christians — to talk with each other, let alone work together.

Such a pessimism would not be cured by Conor Cruise O’Brien’s “On the Eve of the Millennium,” an irreverent set of five essays by an Irish writer with considerable diplomatic experience. O’Brien is intentionally provocative, and so to appreciate him one must tolerate both factual carelessness and ideological hammering.

Population control is his pet issue, leading him to applaud any movement that promotes contraception and safe abortion and to blast the Catholic church for trying to turn back the Enlightenment and keep population-control methods from penetrating Africa. O’Brien even claims that, after George Bush’s loss in 1992, Republican candidates in 1994 backed off from the pro-life cause — a statement clearly refuted by the actions of the large class of GOP freshmen who won election that year.

But when one looks past these flaws, one finds plenty of useful provocation in O’Brien’s writing. Most insightfully, he questions whether democracy as we know it can survive the battering it is receiving from the ascendancy of sophisticated polling and sound bites. “Democracy is turning into a series of instant plebiscites, over which the spin doctor is king,” he says, and this dependence on government by popularity contest is guaranteed to give us leadership by mediocre career politicians. As his favorite example of the problem, O’Brien reserves his most biting wit for the Clinton administration’s Haiti initiative, calling it an exercise in hypocrisy aimed not at helping Haitians but at averting an influx of no-longer-wanted boat people and preventing a backlash against Democrats in Congress. “Operation Restore Democracy was really Operation Return the Democratic Candidates,” he charges.

O’Brien notes the irony that the Enlightenment he cherishes is threatened by the anti-elitism of impulses it has spawned, toward political correctness and multiculturalism (PCM for short). Although no friend of traditional religion, he suggests that if any nation is positioned to recover the dying spirit of effective democracy, it is the United States, the only nation where the Enlightenment tradition is supported by national pride and civil religion.

Where can we find the seeds of this recovery? Not within the religious Right or Left. The Christian Right, though far more effective and constructive than in its early years, remains driven by pragmatic rather than philosophical imperatives. It is too wholeheartedly committed to the task of electing ideologically friendly legislators to ruminate on the more foundational but far more complex problem of making a distinctly Christian contribution to the restoration of civil society. And if Charles Stith’s “Political Religion” is any indication, the Christian Left can do no better.

Stith, a Methodist minister and self-described liberal, agrees with the Christian Right that the issue is not whether religion and politics should mix — of course, they should — but how. Unfortunately, Stith exemplifies the cynical definition of a liberal as someone who is tolerant of everyone except conservatives. This stance is particularly ironic because he urges Christians to pursue “the politics of consensus” and says Christian politics should be marked by a spirit of reconciliation. Stith discusses consensus- building with Hispanics, Jews, and women, but he has no time for dialogue with the Christian Right, which he dismisses as a movement “predicated on outdated precepts” and “defined by conflict rather than reconciliation.”

The Christian Right needs to be challenged by thoughtful arguments from fellow believers of more liberal political leanings. However, not only does Stith close the door to reconciliation between the Christian Right and Left, but his arguments are shallow and often unfounded rather than thoughtful. He trots out, with no documentation, the tiresome claim that Pat Robertson’s style of politics “would result in the obfuscation of the line between church and state.” Faulting conservatives for opposing sex education, he makes the dubious claim that “studies” (he cites none) show that sex education reduces teen pregnancy and promiscuity. And he simply asserts, without any acknowledgment of or engagement with opposing views, that Christian principles of equality should lead to support for the era and gay rights.

Politically conservative Christians ought to read this book simply to understand better what liberals think of them and what misconceptions they must dispel. Admittedly, a conservative who reads Stith will feel as if he or she stumbled into the wrong sanctuary while Stith was preaching to the choir. But maybe that is an experience all of us need once in a while to keep us from being satisfied with preaching to our own political choirs.

Why is the Christian Right, as the dominant form of American evangelical political engagement, having such a hard time communicating an effective Christian message to the broader culture? In “Saints as Citizens,” Timothy Sherratt and Ronald Mahurin, both professors of political science at Gordon College, have pinpointed the primary answer: evangelicals “do their politics piecemeal, on an issue-by-issue basis.” As a result, they are reactive, playing by rules others have set and never grounding their action on identifiably Christian principles.

Having diagnosed the prevalent lack of adequate philosophical reflection, Sherratt and Mahurin proceed to overreact somewhat. They spend nearly half their 120-page book reflecting on the Christian as sojourner and citizen, the nature of the kingdom of God, and the concept of church, providing an excellent theological refresher that made me feel I was retaking my Ph.D. comprehensive exams. They then admit frankly, “This handbook on politics has taken up three chapters without getting close to the subject, or so it must seem.” Indeed. This weakness would be less glaring had Sherratt and Mahurin discussed more fully not just why the type of reflection they recommend is necessary, but how it might prove to be productive. They acknowledge that realists and pragmatists will object to the complexity of their project, and they point to Britain’s Movement for Christian Democracy as a real-life example of theologically grounded politics. But on the whole, in my judgment, their proposal is too demanding; it expects more theological preparation, with less clarity of destination, than the impatient, pragmatic, beleaguered American church will tolerate.

Perhaps we could find a compromise, combining pieces of Sherratt and Mahurin’s reflectiveness with the growing resources of Christian practical expertise to create a movement more Christian in both style and content than any of the current options. But perhaps, as Don Eberly boldly suggests, the problem is not that we are doing politics badly, but that we are doing it at all.

As a former White House aide, Eberly speaks from experience when he says “politics has been oversold.” In his probing introduction to “Building a Community of Citizens,” he continues his argument (previously presented in his book Restoring the Good Society) that America’s crying need is for civic and cultural renewal, a reshaping of the habits of our hearts that no politics, whether conservative or liberal, can reach. Polarization is the enemy of this civic renewal, Eberly suggests, and he even hints indirectly that political movements like the Christian Right may be part of the problem: “Attempts to restore declining cultural values and order through power often only provoke and exacerbate the conflict.”

Eberly’s paradigm has one major problem of its own: it is hardly apolitical. He stresses the breadth of consensus in support of the values of “civil society,” such as self-government, family stability, and mutual respect, but the contributors to his volume range generally from Right to center, not Right to Left. Many of them urge, as one contributor puts it bluntly, “the dramatic decentralization of power and accountability away from the centralized, bureaucratic ‘Nanny state’ in Washington.” But this is not a plank on which to build a new social consensus; rather, it is precisely the root of the intense debate that has produced a partial shutdown of the federal government.

The residual political component of Eberly’s paradigm limits its potential as a basis of society-wide consensus. But the paralyzing level of political polarization we experienced in 1995 and continue to face in 1996 makes Eberly’s core concern for rebuilding civil society timelier than ever.

A Christian role in restoring civil society would mean not just energetic participation in the voluntary organizations (families, churches, nonprofits) that communicate the essential values of citizenship; we already do plenty of that. It would also mean taking the leadership in restoring a civil form of public discourse, encouraging the sort of reasoned, respectful discussion that divisive political campaigns, governed by the lure of negative advertising, seldom produce. This is no pie-in-the-sky goal; on the contrary, it is achievable wherever we perceive the need for a thoughtful forum for dialogue and step forward to assemble the pieces that can make one happen. As founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Eberly has given us a practical example to follow along with a philosophy.

Compare the core value statements promulgated by conservative evangelicals and the liberal Children’s Defense Fund, and you will find that their widely noted divergence in political proposals masks a significant convergence in shared concerns. Maybe, as we capitalize on the areas of convergence and seek to bring people of all political persuasions to the same table, we will find that they too are crying out with needs that can be solved not by politics, but only by religion. And maybe we Christians will become known more as the reconcilers rather than as the angry ones.

=============================

“Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices,” by Robert Booth Fowler and Allen D. Hertzke (Westview Press, 287 pp.; $55, hardcover; $18.95, paper).

“On the Eve of the Millennium: The Future of Democracy Through an Age of Unreason,” by Conor Cruise O’Brien (Free Press, 167 pp.; $12, paper).

“Political Religion: A Liberal Answers the Question, ‘Should Politics and Religion Mix?’” by Charles R. Stith (Abingdon, 160 pp.; $14.95, paper).

“Saints as Citizens: A Guide to Public Responsibilities for Christians,” by Timothy R. Sherratt and Ronald P. Mahurin (Baker/ Center for Public Justice, 123 pp.; $7.99, paper).

“Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century,” ed. by Don E. Eberly (University Press of America/Commonwealth Foundation, 376 pp.; $75, hardcover; $29.50, paper).

******************

Bruce Barron was for four years an aide to Congressman (now Senator) Rick Santorum, R-Pa. His book “Politics for the People,” a guide to politics for the average reader, has just been released by InterVarsity.

Copyright (c) 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine April 29, 1996, Vol. 40, No. 5, Page 35 ctap2996mrj6T50356417

RELIGION

If 'religion' is understood ... as man's search for God on man's own terms, as

his effort to make some kind of adjustment to the 'ground of being' on a level

less radical than that of the self-forgetful commitment of faith, it clearly

can become faith's greatest enemy, the last bastion of human pride to hold out

against God. The experience of the Jews in relation to Jesus, and of the

churches throughout the ages, demonstrates that this is the most persistent

and far-reaching temptation which confronts men. To call attention to this is

always an urgently necessary part of the prophetic ministry within the Church.

... Daniel Jenkins, "Religion and Coming of Age"

#4291

*

[Evolutionist claims that this theory is incompatible with religion. Also gives some of the ramifications of being a materialist.]

I am a committed evolutionist and, like most evolutionists, a materialist to the core… While I readily acknowledge its defects, I am a staunch and unapologetic admirer of science. Like it or not, the modern world is almost entirely a product of science. Despite unparalleled success, however, science is currently under assault by various pseudo- and anti-science constituencies that attack the materialism that is the central ontological bias of the scientific world view. Usually considered a “science-like” endeavor, archaeology is caught up in this controversy…

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Science can be defined as a collection of methods for evaluating the credibility of knowledge claims about the experiential world. Science does not pretend to certainty; it only seeks better and better approximations of it. Scientific conclusions are continuously subjected to critical scrutiny. Science is, therefore, self-correcting. No topic or question is off-limits to science. The only thing that is antithetical to the scientific world view is dogma. Dogma is the stuff of religious belief. From the standpoint of science, the illusion of absolute, unchanging truth is the most pernicious of vanities.

Physicist Edgar Pearlstein points out that the essential disagreement between science and religion is not in the conclusions (e.g., evolution, the heliocentric solar system, the origin of disease), but rather in the way of arriving at conclusions. Religion relies upon authority (from a book, a person, or tradition) and its truth is claimed to be universal, unchanging, and eternal. In science, authority lies in evidence and reason, which are always open to challenge, so its truth is always relative and tentative. Scientific investigation starts with a question, and tries to find an answer through strong inference founded on evidence and reason. A theological investigation, on the other hand, starts with a conclusion, and tries to wiggle around any impediments of logic and reason in order to warrant, or justify, that conclusion (1).

EVOLUTION AND MATERIALISM

There are, of course, many views of humans and their place in the natural world. I argue, however, that there is only one scientific view – that of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. As the most powerful explanatory framework that humans have ever devised to account for the origins and diversity of life on Earth, evolution is central to Western science, extends far beyond the life sciences in which it arose, and subscribes to the same materialist biases and assumptions that underlie all of science.

Materialism is the idea that only matter exists, and that what we regard as “mind” or “spirit” consists exclusively of matter arranged in complex ways (2). More precisely, “mind” is a consequence of brain evolution, and, because our brains have evolved over the 5 million years for which we can document the existence of the Hominidae [human ancestors], what constitutes “mind” has also evolved. From this perspective, humans are only animals (albeit highly intelligent, technologically sophisticated, socially complex ones). Religious views of humans and their place in nature, dependent as they are on concepts that have no reality outside the mind, are epiphenomena (and – for a materialist – absurd). Despite our very considerable capacity for compartmentalization, ONE CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS, AND SUSTAIN A BELIEF IN THE NONMATERIAL [emphasis by Holwick]. From the standpoint of science, religious beliefs are curious survivals of earlier cognitive evolution (3,4). As our cognitive capacities expanded slowly over the long millennia of the Pleistocene, we came to imagine more and more complex realities, and populated them with the gods, demons, and spirits that are the stuff of conventional religious belief. Religious tenets and precepts (especially those dealing with morality and ethics) are ex post facto rationalizations for existing social conditions. To the extent that they converge cross- culturally and through time, it is because they reflect universal aspects of human social life.

–––––––––

1. Pearlstein, E. 1997. “Science and religion.” Science 279:1591.

2. Gould, S. J. 1994. “Darwin’s Revolution in Thought.” Northampton, Mass.: Into the Classroom Video, Inc.

3. Mithen, S. 1997. “The Prehistory of the Mind.” London: Thomas & Hudson.

4. Mithen, S. 1997. “Cognitive archeology, evolutionary psychology, and cultural transmission, with particular reference to religious ideas.” In “Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archeological Explanation” (C. Barton and G. Clark, eds.). Washington: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7, pp. 67-74.

*

A skeptic's viewpoint on why religion "works":

The anthropologist Ruth Benedict first pointed out the common thread of religious practice in all cultures: religion is a technique for success. Ambrose Bierce defined "to pray" as "to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." People everywhere beseech gods and spirits for recovery from illness, for success in love or on the battlefield, and for good weather. Religion is a desperate measure that people resort to when the stakes are high and they have exhausted the usual techniques for the causation of success - medicines, strategies, courtship, and, in the case of the weather, nothing.

Not long ago, Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura made headlines when he called religion "a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people." He then chastised the faithful for "[sticking] their noses in other's people's business."

Plenty have people have been setting Ventura straight -- and for good reason. There's plenty of evidence proving that the world is a far better place when the faithful do, as the former wrestler put it, stick their noses in other people's business.

Ventura's comments appeared in Playboy, a magazine that's not exactly known for sympathizing with religious concerns. When the magazine hit print, the former wrestler was taken to task by liberals and conservatives alike. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne reminded Ventura that many American social movements, such as the anti-slavery and civil rights movements, were started by people of faith.

The fact is that, through the centuries, churches have carried on a tradition of promoting the social good. They've founded schools, built hospitals and orphanages, and ministered to those in prison.

In other words, even if Christianity WERE a "sham" and a "crutch," it would be in a society's best interest to encourage piety, because people of faith help build liberal societies. Yet the stereotype persists of Christians as repressive and ILLiberal.

One person who could give Ventura and like-minded cynics a crash course on religion's influence is Guenter Lewy of the University of Massachusetts. Lewy is the author of the recent book Why America Needs Religion.

Interestingly, Lewy is neither a Christian nor a theist. He originally set out to write a book with the opposite thesis: Why America DOESN'T need religion. It was to be "a defense of secular humanism and ethical relativism."

But when Lewy researched the data, he reversed himself 180 degrees. Lewy discovered that Christianity has historically been a strong support for human dignity and social justice. He also discovered how faith makes a difference in the lives of so-called "weak-minded" people. Lewy found that Christians exhibit measurably lower rates of marital conflict, divorce, prejudice, out-of-wedlock births, juvenile delinquency, adult crime, and other "indicators of moral failure and social ills." Though remaining a nonbeliever, Lewy concluded that Christianity is vital to creating a healthy, humane society.

Lewy's research points to one reason why Christians are motivated to seek reform in the public arena: Objective evidence shows that living by biblical principles makes people happier and healthier.

We Christians know that we are called to be agents not only of God's saving grace, for redemption, but also of His common grace. He intends for us to works toward a just and humane social order -- one that reflects the great liberal ideals.

As Lewy demonstrates, it is Christians who worship a God who became poor so that we might become eternally rich. And it is Christians who are on the side of the poor and exploited.

That's why Christians should never tire of trying to persuade their secular neighbors that the principles we espouse truly are the foundation for a humane society.

And that's why -- whether Jesse Ventura likes it or not -- Christians ought to keep "sticking their noses in other people's business."

It's a truly liberal thing to do.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

"Religion is nothing but a crutch." How often have we heard that sneer directed at the faithful?

The jibe reflects the teachings of Sigmund Freud -- that belief in God is nothing more than wish fulfillment, a projection of a childish need for security.

But now a psychologist is turning the tables on Freud's followers. It turns out that Freud's teachings were based not on psychoanalytical evidence, but on his personal hostility towards religion.

In his new book, Faith of the Fatherless, psychologist Paul Vitz describes Freud's theory that religious people suffer from unconscious and infantile needs. Freud's disciples have promoted this theory so successfully that today it's taught in many a college classroom.

But according to Vitz, Freud's "interpretation of religion is ... unsupported by psychoanalytic theory or clinical evidence." It's "not really a part of psychoanalysis -- and hence cannot claim support from psychoanalytic theory." Instead, Vitz writes, Freud's rejection of religion is "rooted in his personal predilections."

Surprisingly, Freud himself acknowledges this. He once wrote a friend that his views on religion "form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal views."

Nevertheless, Vitz writes, "Freud implies ... that he is very familiar with the psychology of belief in God." In reality, "Freud had very little psychoanalytic experience with patients who believed in God or were genuinely religious."

Why was Freud so hostile towards religion? Vitz's own research provides an answer. In a study of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, including Freud, Vitz found that all had defective relationships with their fathers -- fathers who were weak, dead, abusive, or who abandoned their kids. Clearly, one's relationship with one's father has a tremendous impact on one's attitude toward God.

This finding is certainly true of Freud. He despised his father, a devout Jew who was a weak, passive man, unable to support his family. Moreover, Freud claimed his father was a sexual pervert. According to Vitz, in Freud's mind, his father's passivity and perversion was "clearly connected to Judaism and God."

Is it any wonder that in proposing the Oedipus complex, Freud places father hatred at the center of his psychology?

Ironically, Freud himself provides evidence that supports Vitz's theory. He once wrote that psychoanalysis "has shown us that the personal god is ... nothing but an exalted father" and claimed that this demonstrates why children lose their religious belief as soon as the father's authority breaks down.

According to Vitz, Freud is acknowledging that "a child's psychological representation of his father is intimately connected to his understanding of God." That "once a child ... is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible."

Freud's story illustrates the fact that for many an atheist, barriers to religious belief are not rational, based on empirical evidence. Instead, their atheism is based upon a non-rational need to reject God.

So when you hear those old stereotypes about religion being a crutch for people with infantile needs, be sure to set your friends and neighbors straight: It's atheists who engage in unconscious "wish fulfillment."

And that's a "crutch" that only the healing love of Christ can overcome.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

My appreciation for George Washington stems in large measure from the quality of his Christian character and the wisdom he espoused as the leading Virginian and American of his generation. As usual, space does not allow for a full exploration of his virtues, but a few particularly meaningful quotes may offer us a glimpse at his greatness. We would do well to ponder the wisdom of his words when he said in 1796:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In

vain would that man claim tribute of Patriotism, who should labor

to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest

props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked,

Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if

the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the

instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice. And let us

with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be

maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the

influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,

reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national

morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

--George Washington's final public

speech, Sept. 17, 1796

[Dick's Note: George Washington is my Uncle - six generations removed. His sister married Col. Fielding Lewis. His picture hung on the schoolhouse wall when I attended school. Now only our kindergarten children hear of him. I trust my children will continue to remember their uncle, and his precepts. A great American, but a great Christian first.]

In the survey taken in early 1991, interviewees were asked, "Do you

agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree

strongly with the following statement: There is no such thing as

absolute truth; different people can define truth in conflicting ways

and still be correct." Only 28% of the respondents expressed strong

belief in "absolute truth," and more surprisingly, only 23 percent of

born-again or evangelical Christians accepted this idea! What a

telling revelation! If more than 75 percent of the followers of Christ

say nothing can be known for certain, does this indicate, as it seems,

that they are not convinced that Jesus existed, that He is who He

claimed to be, that His Word in authentic, that God created the

heavens and earth, or that eternal life awaits the believer? That's

what the findings appear to mean. If there is no absolute truth, then

by definition nothing can be siad to be absolutely true. To the

majority, apparently, it's all relative. Nothing is certain. Might

be. Might not be. Who knows for sure? Take your guess and hope for

the best! James Dobson, December 1991 letter, quoting George Barna,

What Americans Believe

Prison Fellowship mourns the loss of our friend, Dr. David Larson, who died unexpectedly last week. Dr. Larson's name will be familiar to BreakPoint listeners, especially those who've attended our conferences: Larson conducted groundbreaking research proving that religious commitment can help people live longer, healthier lives.

That's a finding that's in direct contrast to what Larson heard during his training in psychiatry. In fact, one of his professors, knowing Larson viewed religion to be a potentially helpful factor in patients' lives, urged him to give up psychiatry. "For psychiatric patients," he said, "religion can only be harmful."

The psychiatrist was stating the conventional wisdom handed down from Sigmund Freud, who viewed religion as "a universal obsessional neurosis."

But Larson refused to be deterred. As he continued his research, he noticed a surprising pattern: The published data showed that religion, far from causing harm, actually helped protect against both mental and physical disease.

For example, studies have shown that older adults who frequently attend religious services may have healthier immune systems. Heart patients with strong religious beliefs are much more likely to survive surgery. Church-going folks also have lower blood pressure, even when risky behavior like smoking is factored in. Most dramatic of all, the simple act of attending church each week is linked with reducing risk of earlier death by about twenty-five percent.

Religious commitment also protects people from addictions and mental disorders. Consider: Alcohol abuse is highest among those with little or no religious commitment. Studies have found an inverse correlation between religious commitment and drug abuse in youth. The non-religious are also much more likely to suffer from depression and to commit suicide.

The standard view that associates religion with psychological problems does have one small kernel of truth. Larson found that people who believe in Christianity but don't practice it do experience greater stress. People who believe in God but who neglect church attendance and Bible-reading, who are divorced or abuse alcohol, show higher levels of anxiety than the general population.

In short, the inconsistent Christian suffers greater stress than the consistent atheist.

Dr. Larson's scientific data provide a wonderful tool for apologetics. Christians believe that God created humans to have communion with Him, and to live according to His laws. If we live contrary to God's plan, the research shows that we pay a steep price in stress, depression, family conflict, and even physical illness.

It's a sad irony that Dr. Larson himself was taken from us at a relatively young age. We grieve for his family and for the kingdom, but we remember that no one knows God's timing or his divine purposes. And I can only pray that others will pick up the cause of the psychiatrist who proved Freud wrong.

If you call BreakPoint, we'll send you an essay written by Dr. Larson that will help you make arguments to friends if they repeat that old canard that religion is harmful.

Paul wrote that while bodily training is of some value, we should train ourselves in godliness, for godliness holds promise both for the present life and also for the life to come.

For further reading and information:

Call toll-free 1-800-995-8777 to receive Dr. Larson's essay, "Patient Spiritual Distress a Risk for Dying Sooner," free of charge.

Visit the International Center for the Integration of Health and Spirituality.

Paul C. Vitz, PSYCHOLOGY AS RELIGION: THE CULT OF SELF-WORSHIP (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994

David B. Larson, Michael E. McCullough, and Harold George Koenig, HANDBOOK OF RELIGION AND HEALTH (Oxford University Press, 2000).

"Analysis of Studies Shows that Religious Involvement May Be a Factor in Living a Long Life," American Psychological Association, 4 June 2000.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A rabbi and a soap maker went for a walk together. The soap maker said, “What good is religion? Look at all the trouble and misery of the world! Still there, even after years -- thousands of years -- of teaching about goodness and truth and peace. Still there, after all the prayers and sermons and teachings. If religion is good and true, why should this be?”

The rabbi said nothing. They continued walking until he noticed a child playing in the gutter.

Then the rabbi said, “Look at that child. You say that soap makes people clean, but see the dirt on that youngster. Of what good is soap? With all the soap in the world, over all these years, the child is still filthy. I wonder how effective soap is, after all!”

The soap maker protested. “But, Rabbi, soap cannot do any good unless it is used!”

“Exactly!” replied the rabbi.

In preparation for Sunday's lesson, I gathered these quotations from the first 25 presidents of our country. Many internet sources we very helpful. Also America's God & Country (Encyclopedia of Quotations) was helpful. I hope that some of this is useful to you. I know that it is long, but I didn't have the time to pick 'n choose. God bless. Mike

George Washington -- 1st U.S. President

1752 -- private prayer journal

"Most Gracious Lord God, from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift, I offer to Thy Divine Majesty my unfeigned praise and thanksgiving for all Thy mercies towards me. ... I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake. ... Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavoring to conform my life to His holy Precepts and example. ... Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus Christ. ... I beseech Thee to defend me this night from all evil, and do more for me than I can think and ask, for Jesus Christ sake. in whose most holy Name and Words, I continue to pray, Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. ..."

John Adams -- 2nd U.S. President

1756 -- personal diary, 2-22-56

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God. ... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

1813 -- letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Thomas Jefferson -- 3rd U.S. President

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

1820 -- letter to Jared Sparks

"I hold to the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man. ..."

1814 -- letter to Miles King

"... Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind. ... Let us not be uneasy about the different roads we may pursue, as believing them the shortest, to that our last abode; but following the guidance of a good conscience, let us be happy in the hope that by these different paths we shall all meet in the end. And that you and I may meet and embrace, is my earnest prayer. And with this assurance I salute you with brotherly esteem and respect."

James Madison -- 4th U.S. President

"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of 'every good and perfect gift' [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land."

1778

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the 10 Commandments of God."

James Monroe -- 5th U.S. President

2nd State of Nation

When we view the great blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us, then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good.

5th State of Nation, Washington, DC, 1821-12-03

Deeply impressed with the blessings which we enjoy, and of which we have such manifold proofs, my mind is irresistibly drawn to that Almighty Being, the great source from whence they proceed and to whom our most grateful acknowledgments are due.

8th State of Nation, Washington, DC, 1824-12-07

For these blessings we owe to Almighty God, from whom we derive them, and with profound reverence, our most grateful and unceasing acknowledgments.

John Quincy Adams -- 6th U. S. President

1821

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." (http://www.riversidebaptist.com/ff01.html)

1890 -- from The Churchman, 7-11

"There are 2 prayers that I love to say -- the first is the Lord's Prayer, and because the Lord taught it; and the other is what seems to be a child's prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep," and I love to say that because it suits me. I have been repeating it every night for many years past, and I say it yet, and I expect to say it my last night on earth if I am conscious. But I have added a few words more to the prayer so as to express my trust in Christ, and also to acknowledge what I ask, for I ask as a favor, and not because I deserve it. This is it:

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the Lord my soul to keep;

If I should die before I wake,

I pray the Lord my soul to take;

For Jesus' sake. Amen."

Andrew Jackson -- 7th U. S. President

1834 -- letter to mourning family of Gen. Coffee

"Rely on our dear Savior. He will be father to the fatherless and husband to the widow. Trust in the mercy and goodness of Christ, and always be ready to say with heartfelt resignation, 'may the Lord's will be done.'"

1835 -- personal letter

"All who profess Christianity believe in a Savior, and that by and through Him we must be saved. We ought, therefore, to consider all good Christians whose walks correspond with their professions, be they Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist or Roman Catholic."

"The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests."

(http://www.riversidebaptist.com/ff01.html)

Martin Van Buren -- 8th U. S. President

"Beyond that I only look to the gracious protection of the Divine Being whose strengthening support I humbly solicit, and whom I fervently pray to look down upon us all. May it be among the dispensations of His providence to bless our beloved country with honors and with length of days. May her ways be ways of pleasantness and all her paths be peace!"

1862 -- during his final illness

"The atonement of Jesus Christ is the only remedy and rest for my soul."

William Henry Harrison -- 9th U. S. President

* died in office after 1 month with pneumonia

1841 -- Inaugural Address

"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time."

John Tyler -- 10th U. S. President

* took over after Harrison's death

1841 -- Inaugural Address,

(http://www.castle.net/~rfrone/history/1841-jty.htm)

"My earnest prayer shall be constantly addressed to the all-wise and all-powerful Being who made me, and by whose dispensation I am called to the high office of President of this Confederacy, understandingly to carry out the principles of that Constitution which I have sworn "to protect, preserve, and defend."

James Knox Polk -- 11th U. S. President

1845 -- Inaugural Address

'In assuming responsibilities so vast I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are the destinies of nations and of men to guard this Heaven-favored land against the mischiefs which without His guidance might arise from an unwise public policy. With a firm reliance upon the wisdom of Omnipotence to sustain and direct me in the path of duty which I am appointed to pursue, I stand in the presence of this assembled multitude of my countrymen to take upon myself the solemn obligation "to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Zachary Taylor -- 12th U. S. President

* died in office

1849 -- Inaugural Address

"In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence has conducted our common country. Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings to the eminence we this day occupy, ..."

1849 -- personal "thank you" for a gift Bible

"I accept with gratitude and pleasure your gift of this inestimable Volume. It was for the love of the truths of this great Book that our fathers abandoned their native shores for the wilderness. Animated by its lofty principles they toiled and suffered till the desert blossomed as a rose. ... I trust that their principles of liberty may extend, if without bloodshed, from the northern to the southern extremities of the Continent. If there were in that Book nothing but its great precept, 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.' and if that precept were obeyed, our government might extend over the whole Continent."

Millard Filmore -- 13th U. S. President

1850 -- State of Nation Address. 12-2

"And now, fellow-citizens, I can not bring this communication to a close without invoking you to join me in humble and devout thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the multiplied blessings which He has graciously bestowed upon us. His hand, so often visible in our preservation, has stayed the pestilence, saved us from foreign wars and domestic disturbances, and scattered plenty throughout the land. Our liberties, religious and civil, have been maintained, the fountains of knowledge have all been kept open, and means of happiness widely spread and generally enjoyed greater than have fallen to the lot of any other nation. And while deeply penetrated with gratitude for the past, let us hope that His all-wise providence will so guide our counsels as that they shall result in giving satisfaction to our constituents, securing the peace of the country, and adding new strength to the united Government under which we live."

Franklin Pierce -- 14th U. S. President

1853 -- Inaugural Address

"But let not the foundation of our hope rest upon man's wisdom. It will not be sufficient that sectional prejudices find no place in the public deliberations. It will not be sufficient that the rash counsels of human passion are rejected. It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."

James Buchanan -- 15th U. S. President

1857 -- Inaugural Address

"I am a believer, ... But I ought constantly to pray, 'Help Thou my unbelief.' I trust that the Almighty Father, through the merits and atonement of His Son, will yet give to me a clearer and stronger faith than I possess."

Abraham Lincoln -- 16th U. S. President

1864 -- words acknowledging a gift Bible

"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, I believe the Bible is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong."

Andrew Johnson -- 17th U. S. President

"Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it an inscribed for our motto: "Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever," and exclaim, Christ first, our country next!" http://jeremiahproject.com/heritage.html

Ulysses S. Grant -- 18th U. S. President

1876 -- letter to editor of Sunday School Times

"Your favor of yesterday asking a message from me to the children and the youth of the United States is this morning received. My advice to Sunday Schools, no matter what their denomination, is: Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your life. To the influence of this Book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this must we look as our guide in the future. 'Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people.' " (AG&C, p 264)

Rutherford B. Hayes -- 19th U. S. President

"I am a firm believer in the Divine teachings, perfect example, and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I believe also in the Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of God to the world for its enlightenment and salvation." (AG&C, p 286)

James A. Garfield -- 20th U. S. President

1876 -- centennial of Declaration of Independence [spoken while he was a congressman]

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brace, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. ... If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."

Chester A. Arthur -- 21st U. S. President

1881 -- Inaugural Address

"Summoned to these high duties and responsibilities and profoundly conscious of their magnitude and gravity, I assume the trust imposed by the Constitution, relying for aid on divine guidance and the virtue, patriotism, and intelligence of the American people."

Grover Cleveland -- 22nd U. S. President

1885 -- Inaugural Address

"And let us not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke his aid and his blessing upon our labors."

"I may do all I can her in the White House, and Congress may do all it can over there, but gentlemen, after all, that Book [holding up a Bible] has got to settle the Indian Problem." (AG&C, p 108)

Benjamin Harrison -- 23rd U. S. President

*writing to his son, Russell

"It is a great comfort to trust God -- even if His providence is unfavorable. Prayer steadies one, when he is walking in slippery places -- even if things asked for are not given."

William McKinley -- 24th U. S. President

1893

"We live to make our Church a power in the land while we love every other Church that exalts our Christ. That broad Christian liberality lies at the basis of your work ... Every organization of this kind demonstrates that Christian character is helpful in every avenue or emergency of life. . The demand of the time is the young man thoroughly grounded in Christianity and its Book."

"There is no currency in this world that passes at such a premium anywhere as good Christian Character. ... The time has gone by when the young man or the young woman in the United States has to apologize for being a follower of Christ. ... No cause but one could have brought together so many people, and that is the cause of our Master."

Theodore Roosevelt -- 26th U. S. President

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." "After a week of perplexing problems ... it does so rest my soul to come into the house of the Lord and to sing and mean it, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty' ... My great joy and glory is that while occupying an exalted position in the nation, I am enabled to preach the practical moralities of The Bible to my fellow-countrymen and to hold up Christ as the hope and Savior of the world." (AG&C, p 540)

In his book Dying for Change, Leith Anderson cites a 1988 survey of

18,000 respondents published in McCall's magazine which found that 55%

claimed to be "born again" and 41% said they attended church every

week: "Yet most said they relied primarily on their own consciences

rather than the traditions of their religions to make moral decisions.

Less than 3% said they would go to a clergyman for guidance. A typical

comment came from a Cincinnati woman who clearly stated that

out-of-wedlock pregnancies and divorce are sin, but added that 'the

Bible is definitely against divorce, for instance, but sometimes you

don't have a choice. God will forgive you...and He will give you the

strength to go on with your life and be happy.'"

Earlier this year, Britain's Channel Four aired a two-part special entitled “The Root of All Evil.” No, it wasn't about money, greed or materialism. Nor was it about racism and other forms of hatred. The “root” was religion, specifically Christianity.

The special featured Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous apologist for the Darwinian worldview. While Dawkins may be an expert on Darwin, it's clear that he knows little about history, especially the history of Christianity.

Besides the old saw that religion causes violence — as opposed to peaceful atheism, as practiced by Stalin and Mao — Darwinists charge Christianity with promoting superstition and ignorance. Dawkins calls faith a “process of non-thinking” where the “hidebound certainty” of believers stifles human curiosity. According to Dawkins, for science to take off at all, humanity had to escape the “little” and “pokey” view of the cosmos it inherited from medieval Christianity.

The only “hidebound certainty” here is the nonsense that Dawkins is spouting. The truth about Christianity and science is, in fact, exactly the opposite.

As Rodney Stark tells us in his recent outstanding book, THE VICTORY OF REASON, when Europeans first began to explore the rest of the world what surprised the most wasn't what they saw — it was “the extent of their own technological superiority.”

What made the difference? Why was it that while “many civilizations,” such as the Chinese, had pursued alchemy, but only in Europe did it lead to chemistry?

According to Stark, the answer ultimately lies in European Christianity. While other religions emphasized “mystery and intuition,” Christianity “embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth.” From the start, the Church Fathers “taught that reason was the supreme gift of God and the means to progressively increase understanding of Scripture and revelation.”

This regard for reason wasn't limited to theology. St. Augustine wrote of the “wonderful — one might say stupefying — advances human industry has made.” He attributed these to the “unspeakable boon” to our “rational nature.”

This view of reason gave rise to the medieval universities of whose existence, or at least origins, Dawkins seems to be totally ignorant. As Stark puts it, “faith in the power of reason infused Western culture” in a way it did no other society. It prompted “the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice.”

The very Middle Ages Dawkins belittles saw great scientific and technological advancements that Stark chronicles, including the desire to explore God's created world — the impulse that gave rise to Christians who were scientists producing what we now know as the scientific method. To say that these were nothing more than the Dark Ages is not only wrong — it's a lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie with legs as Britain's Channel Four demonstrated. That makes THE VICTORY OF REASON must reading for any serious Christian. It contains some of the best apologetic arguments I've come across yet.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #31065 and #31104, and which replaced a previous illustration here that duplicated HolwickID #21497]

On December 19, 1891 the Evening Telegram, a New York newspaper, published a “Christmas Sermon” by Robert Ingersoll [see HolwickID #24049]. The noted atheist called Christmas a pagan observance and said, “Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition thereafter.”

Ingersoll appealed to people to abandon the psychotic dogma of religion and called Christianity a total failure. “As a torchbearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has billed the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal peritentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.”

The Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good”

Not only did Ingersoll and his followers try to destroy Christmas and the Christian hope; they never organized to do good - like build hospitals or colleges. They just tore down. It's been almost a hundred years since Ingersoll published his “sermon” denouncing Christianity as a failure. Few people even remember his name. But Christianity is still proclaimed around the world.

Who is the failure?

________

Jack Gulledge, "Ideas and Illustrations for Inspirational Talks" (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1986), 9

2002 POLL ON UNIQUENESS OF CHRISTIANITY

In a spring 2002 poll, those who call themselves Christians in the U.S. were asked, "Which [of the following] statement[s] comes closer to your own views?" They replied:

The religion you practice is the only true religion: 19%

All religions have elements of truth: 77%

Don't know/not applicable/refused: 4%

PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly/U.S. News & World Report poll conducted March 26-April 4, 2002

Citation: "Faith in America," U.S. News & World Report (5-6-02), p. 42; source:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/religion_survey.htm

Sharon works in a public elementary school in Minnesota. Each year the halls of her school are decorated with voodoo masks or images of Aztec gods that the students make in art class. In January, Chinese New Year symbols are posted on the walls of the cafeteria and the children are encouraged to figure out which symbol their birthday is attached to.

"Yet," she laments, "at Christmas, nobody can talk about Christmas or have any Christmas decorations up -- especially a tree." The children aren't allowed to sing Christmas carols. And on the last day of school before Christmas break, the school celebrates, not Christmas, but "Back to the Fifties" with decorations and clothing from that era, and fifties music blaring in the cafeteria.

Sharon asks, "Whatever happened to our American culture and national holidays?"

What happened is that fear, intimidation, and outright misinformation about what's legally permitted in public schools has created an education system that, all too often, fails to teach students about the very culture they belong to.

Eric Buehrer, the author of an article on our BreakPoint website called, "Integrating Faith and the Public Schools Without Mixing Church and State," says that legal confusion has led to mis-educating students about American culture.

For example, a school district in Wisconsin published a directive on holidays for teachers that said: "Thanksgiving is a national custom. Please try to avoid religious connotations." Imagine! It's absolutely contrary to the historical accounts of how Thanksgiving began.

The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court believes that students are learning about the religious nature of our holidays. In the case of LYNCH V. DONNELLY, involving public display of a nativity scene, the justices commented that during Christmas "people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools." The Court assumed public school children were singing religious Christmas carols.

Beyond holidays, however, confusion about what's legally permitted to teach about Christianity has led many teachers to simply gloss over or ignore significant information about the impact of Christianity on our society.

Contrary to what most people think, it is lawful for students to learn about the Christian beliefs that motivated people like Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and George Washington. They can learn about the faith that motivates the men in the Promise Keepers movement; and they can learn why Prison Fellowship's faith-based approaches to prison reform have been so successful. They can read the speeches of presidents as, each year, they proclaim a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving Day. In other words, they don't have to pretend that we're an atheist country.

In his article, Eric Buehrer offers this rule of thumb: "When there is a legitimate academic reason and it can be done without admonishing students to accept a religious belief, educators can teach students about Christianity."

The law does not require teachers to mislead or misinform students about the significant impact Christianity has on our nation and the world. But you and I need to educate the educators. Give the teachers and school administrators in your area a copy of this article and other material we'll send you if you call us (1-800-995-8777). Christians need to help officials understand that they can teach the truth without fear.

For further information:

You can learn about Gateways to Better Education here: .

Eric Buehrer, "Keep the Faith: Integrating Faith and the Public Schools without Mixing Church and State," BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 2001.

"The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide," published by the National Bible Association and the First Amendment Center.

Read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, LYNCH V. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), here:

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A cartoon in the latest issue of the ATLANTIC MONTHLY shows a couple watching news reports about sectarian violence in places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East. These are followed by a report about ministers visiting the White House and the president saying that religion holds the key to world peace. The cartoon ends with the couple, frustrated by the perceived inconsistency, desperately pouring themselves drinks.

The belief that religion is the source of strife is not limited to editorial cartoons. It figures prominently in discussions about the events of September 11 -- discussions that often fail to make a vital distinction.

One such discussion took place on the PBS program "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero." As part of its effort to explore the spiritual lessons Americans took away from September 11, producers examined what they called "the potential for darkness within religion itself."

One rabbi recounted his reaction to the attacks. He said he turned to someone and said, "This is what religion is really about ... This is what religion really does."

He wasn't alone, even among clergy, in this assessment. A Catholic priest and professor of theology spoke of the passion generated by religious belief. He said that this passion, which "motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction." As he put it, "there [is] no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion."

But it's unfair to talk about "religion" in general because nobody practices "religion." People practice Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or another faith. Referring to "the darkness within religion itself" obscures the real differences between religions and obscures the facts of what actually happened on September 11, 2001.

Now, I'll agree that people have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. Yet nowadays about the darkest thing American Christians do out of religious zeal is to say hateful things about homosexuals and others whose actions we disapprove of.

While this is wrong, it cannot be compared to the terrorism of September 11. Even the most often cited example of "Christian" violence, Northern Ireland, has relatively little to do with Christianity. As Fintan O'Toole of the IRISH TIMES, among others, has written, the conflict in Ireland has much more to do with politics, power, and greed than with faith.

Moreover, Christianity continues to provide a vital, humanizing influence all over the world in hospitals, public health works, schools, economic development, and relief, as even Nicholas Kristof recently wrote in the NEW YORK TIMES. By contrast, radical Muslims started most of the wars being fought in the world today.

The effect of talking about generic "religion" is to absolve Islam of its peculiar responsibility in the events of September 11. Ironically, it was a Muslim scholar on the PBS show who pointed out that it wasn't just any "religion" behind the attacks, but "Islam in particular."

While it would be unfair to hold all Muslims responsible for the action of a small group, it's even more unfair to malign people of other faiths and treat their beliefs as equally dangerous. But that is what is happening, which makes the lessons that people are learning this week wrong, not only about Christianity, but about the real source of the threat to peace.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

BreakPoint's "9/11 Worldview Resource Kit" answers questions many Americans are asking. It includes Timothy George's book IS THE FATHER OF JESUS THE GOD OF MUHAMMAD?, Chuck Colson's WHEN NIGHT FELL ON A DIFFERENT WORLD: HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?, and a "BreakPoint Weekend Special" CD including two interviews with Chuck Colson recorded after September 11 and a year later.

Read more about the PBS program "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/faith

Jim Tonkowich, "Speaking Out: Ten Things We Should Have Learned Since September 11, 2001," CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 10 September 2002. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/135/21.0.html

Peggy Noonan, "Time to Put the Emotions Aside," WALL STREET JOURNAL, 11 September 2002. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002249

Patti Davis, "Renewal: Sept. 11 and how it left us," NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 11 September 2002. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-davis091102.asp

Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, CHRISTIANITY ON TRIAL: ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY (Encounter Books, 2001).

Daniel Pipes, "More Americans have been killed by militant Islamics than any other enemy since the Vietnam War," JEWISH WORLD REVIEW, 9 September 2002. http://jewishworldreview.com/0902/pipes.html

Nicholas Kristof, "Following God Abroad," NEW YORK TIMES, 21 May 2002. (Registration required.) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/opinion/21KRIS.html

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

NEW YORK - Christianity remained the world's biggest religion while Islam and the non-religious population posted notable increases in the 20th century, according to a major religious reference book.

Hinduism showed a slight gain relative to world population during the century, but Buddhism and Judaism lost ground. The biggest declines occurred among traditional ethnic creeds, especially in China and Africa.

The trends are reported in the second edition of the "World Christian Encyclopedia" (Oxford University Press), a compilation of statistical estimates and descriptions for each religious group in each nation.

"Christianity has become the most extensive and universal religion in history," the encyclopedia states, and has a majority of the population in two-thirds of the world's 238 countries.

In addition, "Christianity has become massively accepted as the religion of developing countries in the so-called Third World."

Even so, no one in 1900 would have predicted the sweeping defections from Christianity that took place "in Western Europe due to secularism, in Russia and later Eastern Europe due to Communism, and in the Americas due to materialism," the book says.

Christianity began and ended the century as the world's biggest religion, the encyclopedia says, with 555 million believers in 1900 or 32.2 percent of world population and 1.9 billion or 31 percent as of last year.

Counted Christians are divided among 33,820 denominations or similar distinct organizations. Some 386 million believers are in "independent" churches apart from the historic Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant branches, the book reports. Christians counted as belonging to other groups have quadrupled since 1970, with huge increases noted among Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

Islam ranks second, and during the last century grew from 200 million or 12.3 percent of population to 1.2 billion or 19.6 percent.

The total for non-religious people increased from a negligible 3 million in 1900 to today's 768 million or 12.7 percent of the world population.

Other current totals: Hinduism, 811 million; Buddhism, 360 million; Sikhism, 23 million; and Judaism, 14 million.

In the United States, while there is considerable disagreement over numbers for non-Christian religions, the encyclopedia lists 5.6 million Jews, 4.1 million Muslims - a more than fourfold increase in 30 years, 2.4 million Buddhists and 1 million Hindus. There are 192 million people in U.S. Christian groups.

The lead editor of the 1,700-page work is the Rev. David B. Barrett of Richmond, Va. He has specialized in religious demographics since 1957 and leads the Global Evangelization Movement, a research center in Richmond, Va., that collects its data from a wide variety of sources.

Sermon on societies which have "anything goes" religion. Judges 17-18

READY-MIX RELIGION

==================

I. Designer religion reflected in website Yahoo!

II. A time of messed-up faith.

A. Early in Israel's history.

B. A sorry cast of characters.

III. Do we need "organized religion"?

A. Jews were limited to a single sanctuary.

B. Jewish priests were limited to one family, Aaron's.

C. There is one true religion.

IV. How to have a real faith.

A. Beware of idolatry and feel-good religion.

B. Circumstances are not our only guide.

C. Belief must be tied to consistent morality.

D. Stands up against philosophy of world.

E. Follows guidelines of Bible.

F. Genuine faith is not man-made and cannot be stolen.