Duck Dynasty Dropped Over Freedom of Religious Expression Issue

  A&E Shoots Self in Foot - Having First Put Foot in Mouth ...

Ned Barnett

First, a disclaimer.  From 1973 until his death earlier this year, my oldest and closest friend was Gay, and while he didn't advertise this, he made no secret of it.  He was also a member of a Christian Church, and prayed that God's infinite grace would save him.  I share that prayer, for he was a good man - and though his sin lists high among many conservative Christians, we are all sinful, and all need God's Grace.  It's impossible for an honest man to have a Gay man who was, for 40 years,  my very closest friend, my frequent business partner and my co-worker and also harbor ill-will toward Gays.  I hold no such animosity.

But, like hundreds of millions of other Americans, I also believe in the bible - and I have a good idea of what the bible says about sin in general, and that one particular sin (among all the particular sins).  Finally, I know that all people (including me) sin.  So anything you read here that you "think" is anti-Gay is either your mistaken impression or, more likely, my own poor choice of words.

Now, another (the last) disclaimer.  I have never watched Duck Dynasty - from what I've seen, I don't much care for reality TV, but beyond that, I'm not a hunter.  By choice, I don't tend to watch shows about hunting. I prefer target shooting.   I'm not anti-hunter, either - my son's a bow-hunter, and I'm proud of his skill - but hunting is just not my "thing." 

However, I am passionate about the First Amendment (I make my living as a writer and communicator).  In one sense, I do not see this as a First Amendment issue - a private company can fire or hire whom they please, and only government censorship is prevented by the First Amendment.

The idea that a man should be punished, publicly and financially, for expressing his own deeply-held religious beliefs, that is anathema in a country protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion clause.  In addition, that this man was punished for sharing his mainstream Christian beliefs that are spelled out repeatedly in the bible - in a country with a nominal majority of Christians - well, that says something deeply serious about the culture war against those persons of faith in America.  That's my other disclaimer, or caveat.

On with the show (so to speak).  Those two disclaimers aside, and more to the point, since 1975, I have routinely been called in by clients and employers to resolve self-generated crises, and this is a great example of just such a self-inflicted business and PR disaster.  A&E was pressured to take action when one of its stars honestly spoke of his honest religious beliefs - which is odd since he was hired because of those beliefs and because of the way he expresses them.  A&E, in promoting Duck Dynasty, called this employee a "bible-thumper" in their show promotion.

But they were pressured by well-organized advocates who speak for a minority of Americans, as is their right.  They have the same First Amendment freedoms as does Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, to say what they believe in the public marketplace of ideas.  However, unlike Phil Robertson, who asked for no censure or punishment for those who violate God's laws, leaving that up to God Himself, GLAAD insisted that any public figure who disagrees with them must be punished - including being deprived of their income.

The irony here is rich.  By asserting the right to demand that others be punished for disagreeing with them, GLAAD, by necessity, must grant the right for others to demand that GLAAD and its constituents by punished for speaking out their own views.  Either that or they're saying that only one set of views (GLAAD's) is legitimate of public protection, and that view can be found nowhere in the Constitution or in statutory law.

A&E, which is in business to make money, not to advocate for fairness or constitutional principles, felt the pressure from GLAAD, and decided to act.  However, they didn't have to boot Robertson off his own show - they could have just decried his position and moved on.  But they did choose to punish Robertson, and now, millions of their viewers will make sure that A&E pays the consequences for their one-sided and anti-religious stance.

The Problem

A&E essentially fired key program cast member Phil Robertson for something he said. Worse, they didn't fire him for anything he said on the show, but for something he said to a reporter from GQ, a magazine interviewing him.  Further, they fired him for speaking out about a topic that had nothing to do with the show.  What Robertson said was a bit crass, but I take it that "crass" is part of his style, part of what makes the show a financial and ratings success for A&E.

I have read the comments, which offer his perspective on what the bible says about all the varieties of sex a person can have that is outside of marriage.  Basically, the bible says that any extra-marital sex is bad, and lists a number of examples, from infidelity to bestiality to homosexuality to male prostitution. 

Here's the rub.  A&E has promoted Robertson and his show for their bible-thumping religiously-conservative and very outspoken views.  They attracted 11.8 million fanatic followers to the premiere episode of their current 4th season - a landmark viewer record for any cable program - and for A&E, that's a gold mine.  According to some sources, episodes of Duck Dynasty have been all five of the top-five A&E shows of all time.

In creating and promoting the show, A&E executives have all but egged Robertson on to become an outspoken redneck "character," and to do that for all for the almighty dollar.  Now, when Robertson does nothing more than express his belief in the bible - which very definitely speaks out against all manner of out-of-wedlock sex, including infidelity, bestiality, homosexuality, the temptations of lewd women (the book of Proverbs is filled with that) and male prostitution.  In this, he was acting in character as a bible-believing saved-by-Christ "bible thumper," exactly the character A&E bought and paid for - exactly the character who helped create the most profitable program in A&E history.

Had any member of the A&E leadership team bothered to check their cash cow, they'd have known that:

a.  He believes what the bible says; and
b.  The bible says that homosexuality is a forbidden sin

If anyone should have been punished (and nobody should) it should be the A&E executive who didn't bother to read his bible before unleashing the Robertson clan on America.  Phil was just doing what he's always done - and what A&E had been paying him handsomely for.  He was telling the truth as he saw it, citing the bible as his source of truth.

Apparently, speaking the truth about belief and about what's in the bible has become - if not against the law - then punishable here in the United States, which was once a bastion of religious freedom.

The Solution

Predictably, the Gay defense groups such as GLAAD immediately denounced Robertson for exercising his First Amendment rights of free practice of religion and free speech.  In their eyes, free speech of course applies to anyone who will speak out in favor of homosexuality - as it should, because advocating for rights and respect for homosexuals is absolutely protected speech.  However, in their eyes, that freedom only works one way.  You're free to support them, but if you oppose what they stand for, you should be pilloried, fired, banished, castigated and mocked in public.  That's their position, and they're entitled to it, but it does tend to make them look like hypocrites, and does make it harder for non-members to support their extreme and one-sided position.

GLAAD also showed themselves to be clueless about Christianity.  GLAAD's spokesman Wilson Cruz told the public that "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe."

"What true Christians believe?"

If GLADD's spokesmen and leaders had just read the bible, they'd know that Phil Robertson didn't lie about what the bible says.  The bible takes a harsh view on any kind of sexual activity outside the man-woman marriage bed, including homosexuality - but the bible doesn't single that out as an especially damnable sin.  The bible - and bible-believing Christians - take it as an article of faith that all sexual activity outside the marriage bed shared by a husband and wife is on God's sin list.

This isn't "hate" - as far as the bible goes, it's "fact." 

From a purely PR point of view, GLAAD could have decried Phil's views without trying to "out-Christian" a man known primarily for his Christian beliefs.  It's just foolish to appear both more knowledgeable about a belief than it's believer, and to also appear so ignorant in public, especially when there are other options.

But that was GLAAD.  Their default message for those it opposes is a commercial "off with his head."  No surprises there.  But what about A&E?

A&E, which had many options, decided that it's solution was to suspend Robertson indefinitely.  They had other options.  Take a look at their public statement:

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community ... "

If A&E had stopped there, they would have expressed their displeasure at Robertson's statement - and his beliefs - and distanced the network from its largest-ever and most profitable star.  End of story.

Except ... they added one more sentence.  They took a reasonable statement and pushed it into the realm of trying to destroy someone financially for the sin of  sharing his heart-felt religious beliefs, beliefs backed by the bible (the best-selling and most-read book in history).  A&E added:  "The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely," and immediately all hell broke loose.

Already, the Robertson family has rallied around Phil.  They have said publicly:  "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Phil would never incite or encourage hate."

Much more important, however, the family is fighting back, with the only weapon they have - threatening to walk, calling into question the very future of the show that is the top-rated cable program of all time, and A&E's biggest cash cow.  

"We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty." 

Along with that ringing but not unexpected rebuke, CNN reports that more than 350,000 people have already signed online petitions or in some other way "voted" against A&E.  Those who are serious won't just boycott this one A&E program - they will vote with their eyeballs and their wallets and take their viewing elsewhere.  With 500-plus cable channels, plus Netflix and Hulu and Red Box, those viewers won't be starved for entertainment - but A&E will be starved for the revenue they'll lose because of the way they caved in to a special interest group.

There's real iron here -  is A&E's suspension of Robertson is a kind of hollow suspension. It doesn't include next season's shows (which include Robertson in all of them) because they have already been filmed, and to throw them away to enforce the suspension would cost A&E money.  The suspension, if it actually happens, will apply to next season (2015), but only if the show's renewed, and only if anybody still remembers this kerfuffle in 12 or 13 months.

To me, this is a lose-lose situation, and for a couple of reasons.

First, this action has already begun to polarize Duck Dynasty viewers who share a strong Christian faith with its star - and it's a fair bet that few of GLAAD's members are avid Duck Dynasty viewers.  Beginning now, A&E is losing business, and it will only continue as the controversy roars on.

Second, this is a "lose" for GLAAD because it exposes the group's intolerance to a wider public than ever before - and as Christians begin to see GLAAD as an oppressor actively stifling public expressions of faith and belief, they will see a backlash from those who neither want to victimize Gays nor to be victimized by Gays.

Finally he big losers are A&E's shareholders, most of whom (statistically) are more likely to be at least nominal Christians than they are to be Gay, or passionate supporters of Gay advocate groups.  Were I a stockholder, I'd already be asking the executives why they'd taken actions sure to "tank" the value of the stock.  Wall Street doesn't give a tinker's dam about "causes."  They care about profits, and when they see A&E losing viewers, stock prices will inevitably fall.

I would not want to be an A&E shareholder today, nor would I want to be an A&E executive.  Stocks will fall and heads will roll.

But this should also concern any foresighted GLAAD leader, because as networks see the financial cost of supporting a single-issue advocacy group that has nothing to do with their (the network's) business, those networks will re-think blindly caving to GLAAD in the future.

In the long run, the big loser is A&E - a bigger loser will be GLAAD (once for-profit businesses see the dollar-and-sense cost of blindly caving to their high-pressure demands).

But the big winner may be bible-believing Christians, who come to realize that their beliefs are under attack, but that they are also not alone

Science vs. God vs. The Church - Part One ...

Originally Published on Facebook (Ned Barnett):  Science vs. God - Part One ...

INTRODUCTION: This essay was originally published on Facebook.  My goal then and now was to demonstrate that Science cannot disprove God - rather, that Science defines a possible way by which God  worked and works his miracles, and provides continuing Godly oversight to the human race.  God and Science are not incompatible - rather, God created the Laws of Science, and He then uses them, modifies them or miraculously steps beyond them - but always in the context that He created those Laws, and that He alone has the power to control those Laws.  That is still my point  here in this longer and more complete essay.

The initial series of opposing-view comments all seemed to come from people who confuse God with the Church ... for instance, they cite Galileo vs. the Pope as a reason for saying belief in God is incompatible with a search for scientific truth. They do so, apparently not realizing that the Catholic Church (not to mention one very fallible Pope), those two forces that blocked and punished Galileo, are not the same as God. They make the same mistake the Pope did, conflating their views with God's views.

 So, before I put forth the first in my series of perspectives on God and Science, allow me to offer a few thoughts on God vs. Church vs. Science.

 CHURCH vs. SCIENCE:  In most cases, when a Church stands in opposition to the pure discoveries of Science, this opposition is due more to a man-driven desire by those in the Church to retain or exert power than to any G0d-based theology.  In some cases, however, this faith-based opposition is due to a man-driven desire to encourage or force society to follow God's law ... as they personally understand and interpret God's Law.  However, most of the time, this situation of the Church or "men of faith" opposing science comes about because of a complete misunderstanding on everyone's part.  

Those of faith mistake their perception of God and His Law for the reality of God and his Law. They don't "get it" that their fallible human perception of God can never the same as the reality of God Himself, because the reality of God is infinitely beyond human ken.  That's why man's relationship with God is built on faith in the majesty of the Infinite God, rather than on provable knowledge about the totality of a well-understood and easily-categorized God.

An example of this misunderstanding can be found in the debates over the teaching of Charles Darwin, father of the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.  Those who avidly support Darwin's Theory want to present this Theory (perhaps I should say, "insist on presenting it") as a secular version of Divine Law: absolute, true, infallible and beyond question.  They ignore the fact that scientists themselves insist on calling Darwin's postulate a "theory," and they do so for a very good reason. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has not been proven, and despite how well it seems to explain some observable phenomena, Darwin's Theory may never be proven.  

For all its scientific and lay acceptance since Darwin first published his Theory in 1859, Darwin's vision of Evolution remains just a working hypothesis. It is an hypothesis that seems to explain many or most of the known facts regarding Evolution that the scientific community has been able to come up since 1859 - but because it's a "theory," what Darwin postulated will stand only until the next (and better) scientific hypothesis comes along, probably some time in the very near future.  Breakthroughs in DNA and molecular biology challenge Darwin at a core that he didn't even know existed - life at the sub-molecular level.

Even Darwin himself noted that his theory had many troubling problems to overcome. In his landmark Origin of Species (P.159), Darwin wrote:  "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Will Darwin's Theory ultimately be replaced?  Almost certainly.  After all, one Harvard scientist and advocate of Evolution has essentially disproved it (but in his loyalty to Darwin, he merely suggest that his new theory modifies or explains Darwin better than Darwin did) with ideas such as Punctuated Equilibrium.  This theory was created by Harvard faculty member Stephen Jay Gould to refine (his words) Darwin's theory.  I was for all of my adult life until his passing in 2002 a major fan of Professor Gould's - I read his collected columns from Natural History, as well as all of his other books, and generally read them more than once.  Genius is not too small a world to describe Professor Gould - nor was "defender of the (Darwinian) faith" too strong an accolade.  Yet it was his own work that ultimately disproved a major and significant part of Darwin, and it was only his willingness to engage in intellectual gymnastics that kept his toppling of Darwin's steady-state natural selection theory from being more widely known.

More recently than Gould's punctuated equilibrium, the science of microbiology has put up perhaps an insuperable barrier between our current Darwin's "Theory" and any future Darwin's "Law."  The same kind of replacement-through-science happened to Newton (more below), but when the dust settles, I believe that unlike Newton's continued utility in the world beyond the Quantum, there will be a completely new and different Theory to replace Darwin's Evolution ... however, I also believe that Christians who are so inclined will still oppose this new theorem, and that evolutionary scientists will, in a total absence of irony, still insist that, like Darwin's Theory before it, the new evolutionary "theory" should be - no, must be - treated as provable fact.

The sciences that are attacking Darwin icnlude molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics.  Over the past fifty years, mirobiologists and genetic scientists have come to know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems operating on the cellular level, all of which must be included in any "evolutionary" change. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote in his book, Evolution in Crisis, P.250, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." 

The challenge against Darwin is found in the electron microscope, not the anthropolgical digs on the Serengeti Plain.  Darwin's Theory presupposed that gross anatomical changes in a species will evolve through natural selection, and that this will occur in order to better assist a species to survive in its current environment.  Over time, these changes add up until speciation - the creation of a wholly new species - ultimately ocurrs.  However, the connection between microscopic cellular changes and gross anatomical changes is so tenuous, and the rift between Darwin's presumed cause-and-effect is so immense, that his theory - as written - shatters and crumples.  

From a purely scientific perspective, I won't be surprised if at least a few of the underlying theses of Darwin's Theory survive into a new, as-yet not-written evolutionary theory.  Darwin was, after all, a genius, and his Theory does seem to define and explain at least some scientifically observable facts.  However, on the global level, Darwin and DNA are just not compatible.  I predict that some already-born future scientist is already on his or her way toward coming up with a challenge that brings down Darwin, even as it brings something at least remotely akin Darwin into the 21st Century.  When that happens, the Darwin that scientists and secularists have insisted be treated as FACT for more than 100 years will be proven false.

Don't think Darwin can be overturned? Then consider Newton.

For centuries, Sir Isaac Newton's three LAWS were considered sacrosanct, beyond question - right up until the moment that Quantum Physics came along.  Quantum Physics demonstrated that Newton's Laws, while still completely viable at the gross physical 3-dimensional level, are completely wrong at the sub-at0mic Quantum level.  Newton identified three laws - each of them repeatedly provable, yet he was overturned at the micro-level.  Darwin, on the other hand offers only a theory which, while it seems to explain some of the observed phenomenon (though not at the molecular or sub-molecular levels - think of those to biology as quantum is to physics), has yet to be proven.  To prove Darwin would require a time-frame for observable evolutionary change that is measured in terms of millenniums, eons and epochs, rather than in years, decades or even lifetimes.

Yet some who "believe" in science, and who presumably know the difference between a "theory" and a "law," nonetheless insist on Darwin being presented and treated as fact. On the other side of the debate, some of faith insist that Darwin's all hokum - but they do so while forgetting that God can exert change by any means He deems appropriate.  

Who's to say that God can't use Darwin's theory to accomplish His timeless aims?

Not me.  And not, I suggest, my fellow believers, or my fellow followers of science.  As the English poet wrote, indeed, "God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform." More important He's not answerable to us ... not to believers, and not to scientists.  He does what He wants, in His way and on His timetable, and any human who says otherwise, be he a believer or a scientist, just doesn't 'get it' about who and what God is - God is the Creator of All Things - including Newton's Laws and their Quantum Corollaries.  God also created the truth behind Darwin's Theory and the truth behind what is now being developed to replace Darwin with a 21st-Century microbiologically-sound alternative to Natural Selection.  

God created it, and God can use it to work his wonders.

CHURCH vs. GOD:  Church is the organized effort by believing humans to codify and act on their beliefs in God - and what those beliefs mean (or should mean) in the lives of humans.  Church is not God, and Church is not God's presence on earth.  Church is man-made.   Because men can't agree, not even on their shared beliefs, within every major religion there are many branches of that religion - denominations, they are called to Christians (I don't know what the Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Shintos call their inner divisions, but I do know they have them).  Church is a human construct and has no "authority" to speak for God. This fact means that whatever Churches or Church leaders say on a given subject only refer to what they, themselves, believe is accurate.  The Church's pronouncement is not the Word of God - it's the Word of Man.  

When a Church (or group of believers who share a common belief) speak out on anything to do with Science - and when they speak out AS believers - whatever they say, no matter how logical sounding, is not God's Word ... it is, at best, their honest interpretation of God's Word. At worst, it is something else.  Therefore, it goes without saying that what I present here in this essay is my view, my honest interpretetation of God vs. Science vs. Church, and not God's word.

SCIENCE vs. GOD:  Those who worship "science" (though they call this belief something else, it is obvious that "science" is their "god"), and those among science's worshippers who claim that - while science is pure and noble - churches are at least potentially wrong and maybe even corrupt have a point.  However, they are, at best, only half-right.  All Churches are potentially wrong, and every denomination has, at some point, toyed with corruption, starting with Cain for the Jews and Judas for the Christians.  

On the other hand, however, we need look no further than the "climate-gate" email scandal of a couple of years ago to know that "science" (the belief in it, and the active practice of it by fallible human beings) is just as potentially wrong, and just as potentially prone to corruption.

However, at its essence, "Science" is pure, in that it deals with provable facts, and with theories which  may or may not be provable at some future point.  Just as true, at His essence, "God" is pure, the ultimate source of creation and the one infallible element of creation.  You can believe that or disbelieve that, but it doesn't matter. Regardless of your beliefs (or mine), "Science" is pure at its essence, and so is God.  Neither require your belief, nor mine, for that to be a fact.

 God, in His infallible essence, created the universe. In this process, He created the scientific laws that man continues to try to uncover, and to understand.  At its core, Science is merely a way by which man can try to understand how God works - how He created all of creation, and how he acts within and around and above that Creation in order to express his will for all to see, and to intervene in the world when He deems it appropriate.

A Brief Side Journey - Does God Intervene?  A side point on that whole "God intervenes" thing.  There are perishingly few scholars of the American Revolution and the subsequent birth of our nation who consider George Washington anything but the truly essential man, the man without whom we'd still be British Subjects.  During the battle at Fort Duquense, part of the French and Indian War, during a massive defeat of the British, Washington had two horses shot out from under him.  His coat was pierced with bullets that didn't touch him.  By some counts, 86 holes were shot or stabbed into his clothing - yet he was unscathed.  Perhaps God didn't intervene, but he survived where most others fell, and he didso without a scratch.  He then went on to lead the Continental Army, defeat a superior British force, lead the Constitutional Convention, set an unimpeachable role for future Presidents to follow, and - in the process - proved to be the one key man without whom our nation would not have existed.

Did God intervene?  I choose to believe so, but that's an article of faith.  What is beyond an article of faith are the many prayers that are answered - some in my life, but many in others' lives.  Believe in God or not - that doesn't change this truth.

Science vs. God Part II:  Many "scientists" think (actually, it's not so much a "thought" as it is a "belief," but if I were to call it a "belief," some might choose to be insulted by this, no matter how accurate the description) that if science can prove something, then the fact of that proof must also somehow disprove God. However, this belief (or thought) is based on the unproven and unprovable (and arguably false) assumption - and as scientists, in the realm of science, they would routinely reject any unproven and unprovable assumption.  

They assume, without fact, proof or even logic, that God can only work outside the provable physical realm as defined by scientists. This unproven assumption ignores the provable fact that they are trying to narrowly define a universe-creating God. They are trying to limit a God who is without limits, a God who, in the process of creating the Universe, also created the physics, and the physical laws, that these scientists try to use to discredit their Creator.

He created the universe, and as a universal creator, He is free to choose to work inside those physical laws, or to bend those physical laws to His will.

For instance, there's no reason at all that God could not have decided, from the moment of Creation, to use what Darwin came to call evolution in order to create man, and the beasts, and the plants, and the microbes. 

The only part of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection (and Darwin himself called it a theory, not a proven fact) that stands against the idea of God using evolution to create Man is that part of Darwin's theory that calls for random selection. God takes the random out of the selection process, but remember, Darwin called his whole story "a theory" and random selection was just one small part of that.  In his first edition of Origin of Species, P. 6, Darwin admitted as much:  "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main, but not exclusive means of modification."

Another:  There is a mounting set of still-disputed scientific evidence that a catastrophic breech in a barrier wall keeping the ocean-level Mediterranean Sea apart from the 330-foot-below-sea-level "Black Lake" caused a  raging flood that lasted for a full year.  "Disputed" because scientists with various personal axes to grind seem to be able to find different answers to the same evidence - however, the find of a populated shoreline 330 feet below current sea level is beyond dispute. 

This deluge occurred at the very dawn of civilization, when man first discovered agriculture, created communities and instituted animal husbandry. Indisputable archaeological evidence of towns surrounding the fresh water lake have been found by reputable undersea archaeologists at the old lake-level shoreline. This great flood, while devastating, tended to advance along the shoreline at a rate of a mile per day. People living around the once-freshwater lake, now a churning and silt-laden dead saltwater sea (the survivors) were scattered to the four winds. In this diaspora, they were no longer connected by navigable waters or trade routes. 

Some survivors went to India. Some followed the Danube into the Balkans, where settlements and technology reflecting that lake-sure culture have been found. Some refugees went to Russia. Some survivors went to Turkey, or Assyria (Iraq), or even Palestine and Egypt.  Everywhere they went, they brought their knowledge, even as they intermarried and blended into aboriginal populations. Over time, their common or connected launguage, known as PIE - or Proto-Indo-European - faded, but remnants of that common tongue remain even today in the various surviving "Indo-European" languages. This language dispersion process happened naturally, but it also happened at exactly the right time for spreading the bedrock of civilization from a single location, while at the same time cutting off those first-to-become-civilized people, one from another.

Who can say with any scientific certainty that God did not speak to a man, Noah, and tell him how to survive the coming great deluge, along with his family and his flocks? Certainly any God who can create worlds can breach a rock barrier wall, when and how he chooses, and give a head's up to people He's chosen to save.  those who debunk the notion of Noah assume a certain kind of "straw man" Great Flood, one that they can then be knocked down.  But even they cannot prove that the largest flood scientifically known to have afflicted Mankind could not have been the means and basis of Noah's salvation.

Beyond that, this flood-diaspora story rings very true with the core elements of the Tower of Babel.  Here around the Black Lake was, for the first time in human history, the most advanced culture on earth. It was there, presumably, because of their proximity, they shared a language in common - a key element in the Babel story.  And, because they were at the very  forefront of humanity's transition from hunger-gatherer to agriculturist/merchant, these first-to-be-civilized humans could have conceivably had a good deal of hubris. 

Can anyone factually and with scientific rigor say that God didn't destroy the Black Lake and send its shore-residents scattering?  The fact of the deluge are there, lacking only a cause for it occurring at this very fragile time in humanity's road to civilization. And who can say for a scientific fact that this great deluge isn't enshrined in the stories of Noah and Babel?

I am not saying that God used these scientifically provable events to save Noah and disperse humanity.  I am saying that there is nothing in Science to disprove this.  Which leads me to my core hypothesis - when people claim that because Science proves something as a fact, then that also proves that God had no hand in the event, or its aftermath.  But that is an unprovable assumption far harder to prove than Darwin on the sub-molecular level.  It can't be done.

There are many other examples where an open mind could see how God both created and used natural events he created to fulfill the stories he was also creating. Some in science claim that the volcanic eruption at Santorini was the proximal  cause of the Red (or Reed) Sea pulling back, just in time to allow Moses to save his people during their Exodus. But why, then, did that super-volcano blow up in just the right way, and at exactly the right time, in order to save the Children of Israel? The Creator of the Universe - determined to save his Chosen People - had many options open to him.  Who's to say that He may have chosen to create a "natural event" in order to save His People.  If not, why not?  After all, He created everything anyway?

I'll reflect on this more from time to time, but with the holiday closing in, I thought I'd use a bit of time off to raise this issue. 

If a creator God exists, then that God created the root cause of science - which means, logically, that God can use science to manifest his Will, his Power, or any Message he cares to share.

Proverbially Speaking - Finding the Wisdom

With 1,100 or so Verses in Proverbs, How do You Find Your Wisdom?

Ned Barnett

To me, The Book of Proverbs is like God's Instruction Book for Life. In just 31 brief Chapters, each with 30 to 40 verses - and with almost every verse containing two precious gold-nuggets of wisdom, the Book of Proverbs really does provide readers with an exceptional guidebook for living their life to the fullest by following God's Wisdom.

But with all that wonderful information at my fingertips, how do I find the wisdom God has put there for me?

That's the question I asked myself a week or so ago.

I know some people find value in flipping open the book, picking a page at random, running their finger down the page, then reading whatever the finger lands on.  They believe (and who am I to doubt this) that by using Proverbs (or the Bible itself) as some kind of cosmic Ouiji Board, they'll find guidance.   I've tried that, but I don't think that's what God has in mind for me.  Perhaps I'm too logical, or perhaps I'm torn between Moses ("Cut not the corners of thy head, nor round the corners of thy beard, for I am the Lord" - Leviticus 19, as best I remember it) and Paul ("Long hair is a woman's glory and a man's shame" - one of Paul's epistles, again, as I remember it).

Others choose to commit things to memory - but for me, the old joke applies ... "memory is the second thing to go ... and I can't remember what went first."

For me, I'd rather have a workable and methodical way of finding the Wisdom that I know God has waiting for me in Proverbs.

Back in 2010, I thought about putting together some kind of digital database - a great idea, but I'm really not a "digital database" kind of guy.  Still, the idea of pulling together all of the Wisdom of Proverbs in some kind of topical form really did appeal to me - in principle.

As I said, I'd asked myself that same question in 2010, the last time I went through Proverbs chapter by chapter over a month's time.  Like many people, I have found that Proverbs is a perfect book to read more or less in one big gulp.  It has 31 Chapters, so it's ideal for a one-a-day-for-a-month kind of reading self-assignment.  That's what I did in 2010 - I read one chapter a month for 31 days - and that's what I found myself doing in November of 2013.

And as I did, I came across the same thought I had in 2010:

"Wouldn't it be really helpful, if only to me personally, if all of the Wisdom in Proverbs was organized topically?  Wouldn't it be great if I could turn to that book and - in just a moment, and with certainty - find exactly what I needed to guide me, inspire me, "convict" me of something I'm doing wrong, or motivate me to follow God's instructions.

However, this time, I was reading Proverbs in the New Living Translation (a great "study" translation) that had been pulled together by Jud Wilhite, Senior Pastor at Central Christian Church in Henderson (suburban Las Vegas).  He had taken that great translation, gone through and highlighted the verses that meant the most to him ("If God is for us, who can be against us?"), then also inserted a dozen or so 15-page essays (super-blogs, if you will) on issues that anyone studying the bible would welcome.  The result, his book:  "The Uncensored Truth Bible for New Beginnings," is a very insightful guide, as well as a wonderful biblical translation.

  I sat down and read each one of those super-blogs of Jud's - then, after reading a few of the shorter old and new testament books as a kind of warm-up exercise, I turned to Proverbs.

Perhaps it was because this version of the bible included someone's personal interpretation (I'm not sure, but that answer "feels right"), but I began thinking once again about how I could get more out of Proverbs. After rejecting (again) the idea of creating a digital database, I thought, "why not take each chapter, one at a time, then divide each set of verses into a broad topical arrangement?"

For instance, there is a lot in Proverbs about fools, and about people who are wise.  So, hypothetically, you might find a verse that reads, "The fool runs his mouth, but the wise man chooses his words carefully."  That could easily be sorted into a broad section (Fools and the Wise), and then more specifically into sub-sections "Fools Talk Too Much" and "Wise Persons Think Before Speaking."

After a few days of contemplating this, I began taking the Book of Proverbs, one chapter at a time, and dividing the verses into broad subject areas. At first, I had a dozen, then 24, now probably 36 different broad topical areas.  The deeper I did into Proverbs, the more vital and distinctive topic areas I find.

Best of all, I found it was relatively easy to assign each verse to at least one or two topical sections, and some verses fit under three or four topics.  I was on my way.

However, once I had the first 13 chapters divided up, I realized that I was too focused on sorting verses by Chapter - for instance, all of the verses about fools from Chapter 12 were batched together - rather than honing this down to just a topical focus.  Having the comments from many chapters on the same broad topic now together, I was able to see that very similar pieces of wisdom were presented in different chapters, and that those topically-similar verses had more in common, one with the other, than they did with other same-topic verses from a single chapter.

Suddenly, with a flash (not Paul's, but an eye-opener nonetheless), I realized to get the most value out of this exercise, I was going to need to put the topically most-closely-related verses together - not by chapter but by message - if this effort was to help me (or help the proverbial "other" reader) get the most out of this labor of love.

Rather than heaving baby and bathwater out with the same heave-ho, I've decided to continue the broad sorting I'd begun, taking it through to the end of the Book of Proverbs. Then, once it's all together, I'll be better able to analyze each broad topic area, then come up with reasonable topical sub-divisions (and maybe sub-sub-sub-divisions).  In this way, I can refine the sorting process until what I have is the best reference tool I can craft, starting with the Book of Proverbs.

This new, revised process will clearly take longer - probably a lot longer - but the end result will be more helpful.  To me, and - I hope - to others.

Along the way, a publisher who's a friend of mine has already offered to publish this when it's done.  I was telling him about this project, not to seek a publisher, but to share with a friend who's also deeply spiritual what I've been doing - and his enthusiasm was immediate.

So now I'll be thinking about sources (I'm not a bible translator, so I'll need to use someone else's translation), and that means obtaining the rights.  Either that (my first choice) or I'll have to settle on an older translation, one that's long-since been in the public domain.  However, those older translations bring in their own level of potential confusion - King James, for instance, is beautiful and inspired poetry, but unless you're a Shakespearean scholar, some turns of phrase in the KJV might be less than elucidating.

However, one way or the other, I intend to complete this personal labor of love, and if others agree that it has value, I'll try to find some way of publishing the book, sharing this resource tool with others.

Finally:  To the reader of this blog.  I'd be very interested in your insights.  You can reach me directly at ned.barnett (at) gmail (dot) com, and when you do, please share with me any thoughts you might have.  Literally, the more the merrier.

Christ's Coming Foretold in the Book of Proverbs

Did You Know That Solomon Also Foretold Christ's Coming?  

Neither Did I ... 

I guess all the other times I read Proverbs, I was looking for glimmers of guidance on how to live a Godly life in a secular age.  Because of the structure of Proverbs, which tends to jump form subject to subject with each passing verse, the prophecy of the coming of Jesus just never sank in.

At least for me.

It didn't sink in until last week, when I was revisiting Proverbs for the first time in three years.  When I came across Proverbs 8, suddenly the scales fell from my eyes, and I saw clearly (I believe) what Solomon was trying to tell in what may have been his only venture into prophecy (if Solomon was prophetic elsewhere, I haven't found it yet, and would welcome anyone else's insights here).

Here's what I found (in the New Living Translation version):

Proverbs 8

¹⁷ “I love all who love me. Those who search will surely find me.
¹⁸ I have riches and honor, as well as enduring wealth and justice.
¹⁹ My gifts are better than gold, even the purest gold, my wages better than sterling silver!
²⁰ I walk in righteousness, in paths of justice.
²¹ Those who love me inherit wealth. I will fill their treasuries.

²² “The Lord formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.
²³ I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.
²⁴ I was born before the oceans were created, before the springs bubbled forth their waters.
²⁵ Before the mountains were formed, before the hills, I was born—
²⁶ before he had made the earth and fields and the first handfuls of soil.
²⁷ I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans.
²⁸ I was there when he set the clouds above, when he established springs deep in the earth.
²⁹ I was there when he set the limits of the seas, so they would not spread beyond their boundaries. And when he marked off the earth’s foundations,
³⁰     I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight, rejoicing always in his presence.
³¹ And how happy I was with the world he created; how I rejoiced with the human family!

It couldn't be any planer than that, now could it?  Verses 17-21 describe some of the attributes of Christ, and of the glorious gift He offers to anyone who cares to follow him.

But the clincher is obviously Verses 22-29, which clearly evokes the beginning of the Gospel of John.  Here, in that same NLT translation, is how the Gospel of John begins:

1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God,  and the Word was God.
² He existed in the beginning with God.
³ God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.
⁴ The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.
⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this isn't "news" to any real biblical scholar.  However, I'm not a biblical scholar - I'm a believer who is trying to understand the full nuance of the bible, and especially (in this case) how the writings of the Old Testament so accurately predicted the coming and the ministry of Christ, chronicled in the New Testament.  There are, of course, many prophetic references - from the prophets, of course - but until now, I hadn't really encountered anything quite so clear in what those scholars call the Wisdom section of the Old Testament.

The more I study, the clearer it becomes that the Trinity was foretold throughout the Old Testament (another recent and - to me - surprising discovery), and the clearer it becomes that so many of the books of the Old Testament - beyond those books of clear prophecy -  directly or indirectly refer to Christ.  Some are fairly obvious - Jonah's three-day sojourn in the belly of a Great Fish before he was returned to life, and to dry land, born anew and ready (finally) to do as God had commanded.  Others require real biblical scholarship to dig out - but for those willing to understand the life and times of the prophets, their meaning becomes clear.  

But I don't think I've seen anything that was quite so clear a direct reference as Proverbs 8, Verses 17-29, and how they relate so clearly to the Gospel of John, Verses 1-5.

This may be old news to you, but it grabbed my attention and wouldn't let go until I put it down in writing.

Panhandler

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not much of an evangelist, but I'm also glad to admit that I’m working toward the day when I can comfortably affirm my faith before others. While I'm still a bit chary bringing up my faith with family and friends, neighbors and co-workers, there is one group of people with whom I'm a bit more comfortable in sharing my faith. When I give some panhandler a couple of bucks, I try to remember (and I do remember, about 85% of the time), to also give him God’s blessing.

But there's more to it than just giving a panhandler God's blessing, and that's what I'd like to address right here.

 

Which brings to mind something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Panhandlers. Beggers. I’m sure there are other names, but you know who I mean. People who are down on their luck and can't help it, or small-time con men who make it their business to look down on their luck. They often have hand-made signs. They seem prone, if the opportunity presents itself, lets show their physical deformities.  Who try to present, physically, the “case” for making a donation.

Some are frauds, good actors, but one man I saw recently had a sign saying he'd been burned - and he wore his shirt open so you could see the burns and blisters - he should have been in a hospital instead of on the street corner, but his plight broke my heart and opened myself to act in a way I hope God sees as generous.

I used to swing between handing out something to those among these panhandlers whom I “thought” were in real need (and who therefore “deserved” my help) and swinging toward avoiding all of them like they were plague carriers.

However, sometime in the past year, I latched onto a scriptural passage (Matthew 25) in which Jesus says he’ll judge harshly those who denied him – using as an example, “when you do this for the least of these, you do it for me” – then blending that scripture with another scriptural old favorite, “judge not, lest ye be judged” … (Matthew 7)

Having thought this through, having prayed on it and now feeling guided by God's influence, what I try to do is NOT judge panhandlers based on whether I think they’re worthy of my charity or not. I’ll let God judge their heart. Instead, if they ask for help – or if they just look like they need help – I give them a couple of bucks – and with that, I give them God’s blessing … Over time, I've also seen that my giving has grown - from a literal "couple of bucks" to a five or a ten. Not because I'm in a better position to afford this spontaneous charity, but because I find my heart demands increased generosity.

And when I have this opportunity, I to remember to give thanks that they have provided me with an opportunity to help one of those who just might be one of Christ’s “least of these.” That they have given me an opportunity to live my faith. I even try to keep several packets of gift bucks - two or three five dollar bills folded into my shirt pocket, ready to be plucked out and donated at the drop of a hat.

I don't know if I'm supposed to judge and evaluate panhandlers - I don't know if I should risk being an enabler (I know the stats say lots of these people are addicts or alcoholics, looking for their next score), but I do know that if I try to make judgements, sorting the worthy from the unworthy, then I'm indeed making judgments. Jesus was pretty specific on that point. And I know that everyone I take a pass on might be one of those who - in their need - are Christ visiting my life - and in my love of God, I dare not miss the opportunity to help those in need.

I know giving panhandlers a few bucks doesn't fulfill my obligation to help others of God's children, but I also believe that it's a start. And looking for people in need as I drive through "Sin City" keeps me focused, thinking about how God expects us to help those in need, as if they were Himself. I think I'm on the right track, and I ask God through prayer to help me make sure I stay (or get on) that right track.

I pray that God will help me figure things out in my life, so I can fulfill the mission He's given to me in this life. This is a small step, but it's one I take in hope that it will lead to a better understanding of what God really wants from me.