Let’s begin with a refreshing dose of sanity. Eric Reinhold wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel (published on October 8, 2014) that was well crafted and spoke the truth. He was responding to what a rabbi had written earlier when he wrote that “believing in God is less important than acting, in a goodly way toward everyone.” Reinhold asks first: “What is good?” and second: “Who defines what is good?” (A12).
These are excellent questions to ask any time morality is being discussed. If the highest authority is men, then opposing views will be considered equally valid, whereas if morality is defined by God, then there are objective definitions of good and evil. The problem with man being the only authority was illustrated by Reinhold in the following way:
An atheist helping a woman get an abortion through a Planned Parenthood clinic might describe their [sic] actions as compassionate and “good,” while a Christian would call that accessory to murder.
Refusal to acknowledge the existence of God and His morality is the reason people are confused about what to think or believe. Reinhold makes it clear that right and wrong cannot be determined by the Supreme Court, the President, Congress, a majority vote, or any individual. Only God can declare what is morally right and morally wrong.
Returning to the claim of the rabbi that doing good is more important than believing in God, Reinhold points out that, while doing good is important, the Bible teaches that it will not get a person into heaven, which is accurate. No proof of this claim was published, but that does not mean his original letter lacked a passage of Scripture. Newspapers are loathe these days to print many Bible verses—unless they think one favors their viewpoint. Reinhold might have quoted Jesus:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt. 7:21-23).
Not only will doing good in general not save anyone—neither will doing religious works in God’s name! One must know God and obey Him in all things. Actions are not enough. In other words, Jews are not saved by their good works; neither are atheists, Buddhists, or denominationalists. A person must know the truth and abide in it (John 8:31-32).
Many people do good for reasons other than believing in God. Some just have a natural inclination to help other people. Others must work at it. Undoubtedly, there are atheists and those not walking according to the truth who are practicing good deeds towards others on a daily basis. While these are helpful to society, it will not compensate for knowing God or obeying the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8). Does this mean that Christians hold others in contempt? Certainly not! As Reinhold wrote:
Yes, everyone should treat each other with dignity, but that doesn’t mean that I have to believe your behavior, lifestyle, and beliefs are good for society.
So, Christians can oppose what is wrong and expose the flaws in the arguments that people are making—yet still treat an opponent in a kind manner. Notice that the “politically correct” seldom do so; they generally resort to demonizing their opponents and mischaracterizing their motives.
Chimps
Also on October 8th a story was published that takes us back to the insane world in which we now live:
A New York appeals court will consider this week whether chimpanzees are entitled to “legal personhood” in what experts say is the first case of its kind (A3).
Does this kind of thinking result from too many Planet of the Apes prequels and sequels? Or is it the result of the efforts of the “animal rights” crowd? Undoubtedly, it is the latter. In this case, a lawyer has filed suit on behalf of a chimpanzee named Tommy. The lawyer may be working pro bono (or pro banana). The lawyer may have a credibility problem, however. He claims that the chimp in question has been living in a dank, dark shed in upstate New York. Tommy’s owner, however, claims that he lives in “a state-of-the-art $150,000 facility.” That’s nuts! How many human beings do not have a place to live that costs that much money—not only in the United States but all over the world?
The lawyer is seeking a ruling that will say that Tommy has been unlawfully imprisoned and that he ought to be released to a chimp sanctuary in Florida. As a resident of this state, I can only speak for myself in saying that Tommy would be more welcome here than his attorney. But more important than the place Tommy lives is the claim of “personhood.”
According to the paper, if Tommy’s lawyer wins, it “could lead to a further expansion of rights” for “elephants, dolphins, orcas and other nonhuman primates.” Seriously? With so many potential clients, law schools should be absolutely buzzing with new students specializing in Animal Law. We can already anticipate a new television series, Lawyer on a Dolphin. When asked how his latest case is going, he will look into the camera and crisply reply, “Swimmingly.”
Or there could be Orca the Friendly Killer Whale. If they do one on elephants, they should bring back the character from Happy Days, Pinky Tuscadero. This animal emphasis might give a whole new meaning to such old favorite series, such as Leave it to Beaver. No doubt there will be a revival of Fury, My Friend Flicka, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie, and Dumbo, the Flying Elephant. Okay, we’ll mercifully skip all the cartoons.
The lawyer, who is also representing another chimp named Kiko, is using a legal mechanism usually used for human beings who claim to have been unlawfully imprisoned. If the attorney wins the case, he will next argue bodily integrity so that animals could not be used in biomedical research. Can’t that be fought on some other basis? And if personhood is achieved, how soon will hunting be illegal? God gave animals for food (Gen. 9:2-4). In a sane world, animals would not be accorded the same status or rights as human beings. So, we will have to wait for the verdict.
“So Help Me….”
Some are wondering what to do with the atheistic airman in Nevada who was not allowed to re-enlist because he refused to sign an oath that contains the phrase, so help me God. At one time, enlistees were allowed to forego uttering these words, but that option has not existed since October 30, 2013. Of course, the simple solution would be to allow anyone to re-enlist under the same terms of his original enlistment, but so far such a course of action has not been approved. It would be the fairest thing to do in this situation while pondering the question if the phrase should be included at all.
As it stands now, the Air Force wants the phrase included, and they are seeking legal counsel in order to retain it, according to an October 5, 2014 article in the Orlando Sentinel (A14). It is surprising that any part of our government would be so adamant concerning a phrase which recognizes Deity, considering the current social and political climate. But one can always count on a liberal theologian to help out the enemy. James Coffin, executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida, wrote:
As a U.S. citizen and a member of the Christian clergy, my advice to my fellow Christians is to consider two sets of principles: the law of the land and our Christian faith.
Could Mr. Coffin first of all point to a verse of Scripture that defines or even mentions “Christian clergy” or what an “Interfaith Council” is? The word clergy does not appear in any version of the Bible. Since it is supposed to be “Christian,” why does not Christ our Lord use the term? Why didn’t His apostles, in any of their preaching or writing, ever use it? It is that which is foreign to the Scriptures; Mr. Coffin obviously does not believe Colossians 3:17. Likewise, an Interfaith Council lacks Biblical authority of any kind. The New Testament teaches “the faith” (Jude 3). Only one faith is claimed by the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4:5). Although the columnist has already discredited himself as an expert on Christianity, nevertheless, his arguments should be considered.
He first appeals to the Constitution—in fact, to the First Amendment, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
One must understand that in England there was an established religion—the Church of England. Dissent was sometimes allowed, but it was not encouraged. To require someone to invoke the name of God (which is about as generic as one can get) is not establishing a religion.
Coffin also refers to the Sixth Amendment, which mentions that no “religious test” shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust. Right. But we understand that the “religious test” means, “Are you an Episcopalian?” If not, you cannot serve. The same thing would go for a Quaker, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, or any other test. Does Coffin seriously think that our founding fathers who called upon God and His providence really intended these words to be in the Constitution for atheists? Such a false notion is easily refuted. These Constitutional arguments have no merit except possibly for liberal judges who desire to foist meanings that were never intended upon our society.
The Religious Argument
He invokes the third commandment by quoting the NIV’s mistranslation of the third commandment: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” He does, however, insert in brackets the correct meaning, “take in vain.” Misuse is such a tepid rendering that one wonders how anyone would ever obtain the correct idea from reading it.
So, Coffin’s argument is that the Air Force should not require any of its men to misuse God’s name by saying, “so help me God.” How can an atheist misuse God’s name when he does not believe in God in the first place? He can only take God’s name in vain (in his own mind) if he believes in God at all. Coffin explains it this way.
From my perspective, if I seek to deprive atheists of their livelihood and the chance to serve their nation unless they call on God—when they don’t believe God even exists—I would be aiding and abetting the misuse of God’s name. What kind of God could possibly be honored by such coercion to make such a phony declaration? The Scriptures say, “The Lord detests lying lips.”
Yes, and the Scriptures say, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1). Does Coffin want fools defending this country? Does he want fools representing him in Congress, the Senate, the White House, the courts? How does he answer that question? “Yes, I want fools defending us—but not lying fools.” Oh, well, that would be different.
The Lord does detest liars, but He is not particularly fond of fools, either. Is Coffin, therefore, making a very good argument? While we are considering the subject of atheists and lying, on what basis does an atheist ever have to tell the truth? The New Testament is the only basis for morality that exists. Atheists cannot agree amongst themselves whether or not lying is always wrong. Joseph Fletcher made that argument more than 50 years ago. He was another clergyman (an Episcopalian who became an atheist). Atheists may dispute whether or not lying is always wrong, but Christians believe that it always is. Besides, he can get other jobs that don’t require honesty, such as being a mechanic or a politician (many, anyway)..
Coffin is missing an important point. Often times companies, Christian schools, or various concerns may ask potential employees to fill out a loyalty oath, or sign a statement agreeing with the philosophy of the company or school. Many churches ask for teachers and preachers to fill out a questionnaire to determine if those who want to teach will uphold the truth. Someone may sign such an agreement but not believe portions of it—just so they can have the job. The company is not trying to make any of them liars; it is a precaution. If dissent is later observed, the person in question can be brought in and reminded, “You signed a statement of agreement, which you have violated. This is grounds for dismissal.”
“So Help Me…” (Part 2)
Courts used to ask the question, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” This was a solid approach to charging any witness. What they said under oath had to be the truth. They could not leave anything out of their testimony that was pertinent; it had to be all of the truth. Nor could they embellish what they said with opinions and speculations. What they said had to be factual. They swore to do precisely that in the name of a higher power—the only Higher Power—God Himself. Thus, everyone expected to hear the truth.
Did people lie under oath? Yes. But in so doing they damaged themselves and the credibility of their testimony. Furthermore, they perjured themselves and could be prosecuted for lying. With Coffin’s logic, we could not swear in an atheist since it might violate his conscience. Oh, he might affirm that he will tell the truth, but why not say it the way it really is: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you yourself, as the highest authority you recognize?”
Yes, it sounds strange, but it is the truth. For an atheist, there is no higher power. He may bow to government in order not to sound like a megalomaniac, but if he disagrees with the government, he may protest and exercise his right to civil disobedience. And, in fact, governments have been wrong, as have courts. They were wrong in the Dred Scott decision; they were wrong on Roe v. Wade, and they are wrong not to review the rulings of judges who have overturned the will of the voters in passing laws recognizing only the Biblical concept of marriage. Christians can say these decisions are unequivocally wrong based on what the Bible teaches. If an atheist says he relies upon the government as the highest authority, what can he then say when the state is wrong?
The truth is that he does consider himself the highest authority there is; he elevates his own personal conscience to the level of Deity. If this nation wants to rec-ognize a higher power than itself, then it is only relying on the truth, the way it actually is. Any other system of operating a government is doomed to failure. On our currency we say that we trust in God. Do atheists not use cash, or are they coerced into it? If we can acknow-ledge God there, we can do so with national security.