Culture

I love Jesus. I love my country. I see no reason why one should be conditioned by the other. From time to time, I read articles from a brother or sister in The Faith which try to label what I accept as true as an “ism” (some call it “Christian Nationalism”). So, during this election season, let me be very clear to say what I have said many times and, in many ways, since I began writing online in 2008:

1. I am and will always be pro-freedom. In all of human history there has been no country like America with its titanic freedoms; the most important being free speech. All other freedoms depend on that one. If we lose the freedom to speak without fear of reprisal, we lose the American experiment. I will stand up with you to protect your free speech even if our viewpoints are diametrically opposed. I hope you will do the same for me.
2. I am and will always be pro-life. The child in the womb is a human person: I trust “the science” and The Bible on this one.
3. I am and will always be pro-justice. Will we see perfect justice on earth? Of course not. Perfect justice will be meted out in the next life. Laws create necessary boundaries between right and wrong, creating the opportunity for stability in a country. Americans like me are grateful for order over chaos that I see elsewhere.
4. I am and will always be pro-American. Is American application of justice and law perfect? Of course not. But consider the alternative. Imagine not being able to speak out against wrongdoing. Imagine having no protection from others who would want to hurt you. Imagine a place where a government throws you in jail for your speaking or writing. Now compare those scenarios with our country. I stand when the flag appears, putting my hand over my heart when I recite The Pledge of Allegiance. I get a lump in my throat when the Star-Spangled Banner is played or sung. And I thank God that I am an American (just as much as anyone from another land might love their country).
5. I am and will always be pro-military. American warriors keep bad guys at bay. The strength of our fighting men and women put fear into those who only want to create terror. My peaceful work in academics owes a great deal to all our armed services, who stand between me and those who want to wreak death and destruction. And tears will flow when I remember the sacrifice of those who gave their life so I could live mine.
6. I am and will always be pro-education. No, I don’t agree with a number of educational theories or theorists. However, throughout my forty-two years of teaching I have wanted students to grapple with all ideas. I do not believe in force feeding a certain viewpoint in the classroom (though, if you ask me, I will tell you mine). I believe in open, fair discussions about anything. But I also believe honestly addressing the problems of any system of thought, setting up a compare-and-contrast method, exposes students to all points of view. Students then have the opportunity for ownership (my one-word educational philosophy), whatever position they hold, without being defamed by a professor or shouted down by others who refuse to hear another point of view.
7. I am and will always be pro-conservative. What do conservatives believe? This conservative believes in

(1) preserving the great ideas and ideals passed on to me by others (which would include #’s 1-6 above),

(2) limiting government involvement in a citizen’s life,

(3) stewarding the resources I have been given, after paying my fair share of taxes, to do with the monies as I deem best,

(4) caring for my family, the essential governing body of any nation,

(5) loving my neighbor, no matter who they are or how they identify,

(6) protecting my home, community, and nation against any who would want to do harm, and

(7) maintaining borders (which is an obvious way of declaring a person lives in a ‘nation’) making sure that U.S. citizens obey the law while creating a lawful path for others who want to become U.S. citizens.

My vote in this or any election will be premised on these creeds. I stand by all my words and will act on them as long as I am given life and breath. Your creed may be different than mine and I will defend your right to say it. My statements are not directed against or toward any person or party. But I will vote based on these ideals as much as I know my idealism will be tempered by realism. I understand that what many call “the human condition” (we theologians just call it ‘sin’) will debilitate what I think is “best.” Nonetheless, as a Christian, I have been given a voice in my time and place for the flourishing of my country, knowing that God sets up leaders and takes them down again. I rest in His Providences while acting with individual responsibility for where He has allowed me to live and what I have been given to do.

 

Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration, Liberty University, Lynchburg Virginia. My political views are my own.

 

I love the study of politics and politicians (my favorite politician is Vaclav Havel. My personal perspective is that 

 

(1) I bear responsibility as a citizen to participate in my culture’s prosperity for a productive future for all (read Jeremiah 29:1-7), 

 

(2) as a U.S. citizen I have been given the privilege of voting for what I have come to consider the best possible option for that future (Prov 29:4, 14), 

 

(3) I realize that I am often told what someone thinks through some media personality’s interpretive lens, seeking out the primary source instead (Prov 28:26), 

 

(4) I take a person’s words at face value, believing in their sincerity, while verifying their stated positions via past results (Prov 29:7-8), 

 

(5) even if the person I believe to be the best choice is elected, I know I will be disappointed in comments, choices, and policies along the way (multiple statements throughout Proverbs 28 -29),

 

(6) hate has no place in my view of any candidate, any group, or any person even if others display or say hateful things about my beliefs (Luke 6:27-29),

 

(7) ultimately, I do not put my future hope in the hands of human beings. Am I disappointed by outcomes of elections? Sure. The Scriptures are clear, however, that YHWH raises up leaders and sets them down again (Ps 75.7; Dan 2:21) and The Providences of God turn the king’s heart wherever YHWH pleases (Prov 21:1). 

 

[Just as a refresher if you’re new, my 2016 political statement has not changed.]

 

My political views are my own.

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

What will our country look like in 2028?

I believe that neighbors should care for neighbors. Government’s role and responsibility to protect its citizens so that citizens can carry out the work of helping others: something each of us does with our families, for instance. Government is responsible to maintain landowners’ opportunity to care for their property: we do this with our homes. Government is responsible to provide space for entrepreneurs to be creative and produce health-care goods, something The Constitution provides for in protecting copyright (Art 1, Sec 8, Clause). Government is responsible to provide safety for its people so that we can have constructive, even contentious, arguments about life’s issues. And remember, when we say, “government funding,” the government has no money; all “funding” is accomplished by U.S. citizens paying their taxes.

Americans may differ on the role of government. But we do not, for the most part, differ on responsibility to neighbor. I believe that’s where we begin, with what we agree on. I believe that agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and “nones” can work together; I believe this because of the theological principle called “common grace” given to all people. I bear responsibility to live graciously, in common, doing good on behalf of my neighbor. For my part, whether it be a cultural or economic issue, I am a conservative political pluralist. Scripture is clear about beneficent conservation and careful management of what has been given to me. Without apology, my desire is to conserve-preserve the great ideas and ideals handed down to us. When it comes to government and neighbor, applying the preservation principle means abiding by the Constitution’s original intention, most famously summarized by the first three words, “We the people.”

“Serving the public interest” means that it’s government’s role to create boundaries of law that benefit all American people. [It’s one of the reasons why I support a Constitutional amendment that says politicians must abide by all the laws they create.] Government’s role is not a top-down, fiat-driven, “I’m going to tell you how to run your personal life” (as I would argue, is often the case in American life today). Government’s role is limited in the Constitution. [Notice the clarity of division between the three branches of government in the first three articles of the Constitution, for instance.] Elected leaders’ responsibility is to protect U.S. citizens, no matter ethnicity, status, socio-economic situation, identity, or belief. This approach, I believe, allows the greatest freedom for you and me, allowing us both to be responsible in life for family, neighbor, city, workplace, and country. Freedom is key. Government’s job is not to restrict freedom; government’s job is to enable and protect freedom.

We have a unique opportunity in American politics to evaluate the two major candidate’s views of government in the 2024 U.S. election. We can compare the differences between the administrations of 2016-20 and 2020-24. By their own admission, what will we see from either candidate will be a replication of the policies we saw in their administrations. All a voter need do is cut through the reinterpretations of pundits and politicians to compare actual economic and social results between the two, four-year periods. Every American citizen voting in this election needs to be honest about Ronald Reagan’s famous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” to either administrative tenure. I believe we must ask the question, “What do we want our country to look like in 2028?”

I have added content to a similar social media post from 8 October 2020. I am driven by biblical witness and preservation of the American freedoms given to me.

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration, at Liberty University. My views are my own.

Democratism: Democracy as Religion*

I employed an exercise with students in high school to compare the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1787) and the American Declaration of Independence (1776). Side by side, it is easy to see the differences. The American Declaration includes references to a transcendent being the source of freedoms. The French Declaration repeats the phrase “the will of the people” fifteen times. Even in revolt against tyranny, the origin of authority matters.

The backdrop of “the people’s will” is a fitting entry into Jacob Wolf’s review of The Ideology of Democratism by Emily Finley. Wolf records Finley’s words that democracy is “perhaps the dominant political belief system in modern Western society.” Finley expands the impact of the process of “democracy” into a product, “the ideology of democratism.” Wolf contends, “Democracy has become a secular religion, complete with its own dogmas, practices, clerics, and eschatology.”

The Philosophy of Democracy

Ahead of any discussion of a worldview’s doctrine, comes its first principles, its philosophy. It is the “ism” in “Democratism” that sets the stage for belief. “Ism” as a suffix indicates the noun’s worldview. A plethora of examples exist to show how the designed ideal is corrupted by its worldview substitution: human becomes humanism, natural becomes naturalism, pragmatic becomes pragmatism. And as with any worldview, it is imperative to begin with its assumptions. What does “democratism” presuppose? In Wolf’s words, “a suitable replacement for Christianity.”

In a post-Christian culture, “Progress replaces providence, humanitarianism replaces charity, and mind (or reason) replaces God himself.” Nature and culture both abhor a vacuum. “Into the void left behind by Christianity have rushed all sorts of ideologies – that is, comprehensive systems of belief that purport to explain the whole of human thought, action, and purpose.” The obvious next step is the authority behind the new institution.

According to Finley, democratism needs “an elite legislator or vanguard” who will coerce through “propaganda” stripping individuals of their “particularities” who then become “little democrats.” Science fiction literature constantly warns humanity by asking the question, “Who watches the Watchmen?” With the question of authority comes the question of human nature, “Are we perfectible or are we corruptible?”

The Anthropology of Democracy

The worldview of democratism gained its doctrine of anthropology from none other than Jean Jacques Rousseau. Wolf rightly connects the people’s will “as Rousseau’s total redefinition of human nature, the natural goodness of man.” And when applied to governance, “Enter Rousseau’s deus ex machina – a quasi-divine legislator who can ensure the people choose rightly.” Once democratism’s dogmas about authority and humanity are set, “Finley see this divorce between actual and idealized wills as leading inevitably to a divorce between the people and their democratist leaders.” Politics are now detached “from individuals’ actual concerns” allowing “powerful parties to cloak their own interests in the guise of something universal.”

Supplanting “powerful parties” was one of the aims of American framers in the U.S. Constitution. The first three articles in America’s founding document deliberately separate powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Separate divisions of government rely on the premise that authority can be abusive from a few but mitigated by many. Further, contrary to Rousseau’s “natural goodness of man,” which is a “fundamental shift in anthropology,” three separate roles limit and restrain each branch, respecting the supposition that the human condition will tend toward corruption. [A pure democracy allows the majority to impose its will on a minority. In contradistinction, a constitutional republic assures all its citizens that their inalienable and minority rights will be protected against a majority.] America’s founders understood authority and humanity to be the hinges on which the door of governance would swing.

The Eschatology of Democracy

Democratism, on the other hand, has its own “belief system.” Apart from any outside source of authority and understanding humanity’s tendencies toward corruption, democratists “import into democracy a full-blown eschatology,” the “dream of a future utopia.” Achieving the promise of heaven on earth rests on a “sentimental humanitarianism.” Wolf counters the foundationless premise

“By suggesting perhaps that it is not merely democracy, but progress, that is modernity’s reigning ideology. In truth, democracy worships at the altar of progress, which is why the democratists wait in expectation of a future blessed estate.”

Wolf’s next paragraph comes as no surprise, admitting, “Democracy, like many good things, is destroyed if it is elevated above all else.” The U.S. Constitution restrains the French declaration’s “will of the people” with a republic of “checks and balances that parallel the complexities of human nature.” Wolf concludes by suggesting Rousseau’s influence on the French revolution was “bewitched by a simplistic and false notion of human nature that is prone to delusional optimism.”

It is obvious to Hebraic-Christian thinkers that delusion is the essence of idolatry. YHWH warned the Israelites that idolatry begins by elevating creation over its Creator (Deut 4:17-19). The distinctive Hebraic-Christian view assumes human propensity for wrongdoing, in need of restraint. Necessarily, ubiquitous earthly ideals originate from a transcendent source, a total, cohesive, God-centered worldview (Col 1:15-20). Instead of an eschatology based in the vapid hope of human deliverance, Scripture clearly reveals the need for a supernatural Savior who is indeed “our blessed hope” (Titus 2:13).

The Idolatry of Democracy

Figure #1

I use a diagram (Fig. #1) showing how original Truth is divorced from erroneous spinoffs such as democratism. I draw a large circle on the board identifying the totality of life given by God. Inside that circle I draw a tiny circle labeling it as an aspect of the whole, such as the concept of “democracy.” I then draw an arrow from that tiny circle to another large circle to the right. That circle now becomes the whole truth for that worldview vision, in this case, democratism. Wolf’s “association with Christian theology” certainly “assumes some of that original framework,” the necessity of doctrinal coherence, Heaven to earth. Any human declaration, by itself, will always be insufficient. Human government finds its best principles, then practices, in the large circle, representative of the Whole Truth.

Anything good – including any form of human government – can be twisted into something bad. Democracy can indeed “die in darkness,” as The Washington Post declares. But the newspaper’s original goal is insufficient if not every political candidate is painted with the same brush. Indeed, democracy by itself is inadequate to mold a stable political sphere. A majority in control without restraint to guard minority perspectives will devolve into tyranny. The French Revolution is a constant warning to any country, any people group who believes majority rule without Transcendent Law, without an understanding of inherent human corruption, can bring justice, much less, peace.

*[The majority of this essay was written July 2023]

Dr. Mark Eckel is the Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration, Liberty University

13th and final episode in our Summer 2024 series,

“With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Find out what it will take to maintain freedom against tyranny. Watch our last Truth in Two.

 

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

FULL TEXT

At the beginning of the movie Boondock Saints, two young men are praying in church. During the service they walk the middle aisle to kiss the feet of the crucified Jesus’ statue. The Catholic priest tells the story of Kitty Genovese who, in 1964, was stabbed to death as neighbors stood by doing nothing as she called for help. As the two Irishmen leave the auditorium, the Catholic priest is heard to say, “There is another kind of evil we should fear most and that is the indifference of good men.” As they exit the building one says to the other, “I do believe the monsignor gets it.”

How should we think about any injustice in the world? Peace is what we desire but peace does not come out of mid-air. There is no justice without a standard, and that standard is righteousness. Justice then forms the basis for peace and finally peace establishes hope. We look for justice in this life. But notice what Proverbs 29:26 says, “Many seek the ruler’s favor, but justice for man comes from the Lord.” While we’re concerned for what happens now, we rest in the fact that ultimate justice, according to Psalm 73, will not take place until after this life.*

As I end this summer series, “What will you replace it with when it’s gone?” I implore us all to carefully consider the consequences of the following:

(1) giving the creation of laws to unelected government bureaucracies,

(2) forgetting the original basis for law rests upon The Transcendent Lawgiver, and

(3) accepting information given to us which does not consider all sides of a story.

If we stand for permanent things, for justice, freedom, honesty, truthfulness, and transparency, our children and grandchildren will thank us. For the Comenius Institute, refusing to be indifferent, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

*NOTE Some of the content of this essay was taken from my 17 November 2015 post at my earlier website WarpandWoof.org

 

What happens when law is left up to popular opinion?

Compare the alternative in this week’s Truth in Two (2 min vid + text)

#12 in our Summer 2024 series, “With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

FULL TEXT

In last week’s Truth in Two I showed the difference between the American Declaration of Independence and the French document The Declaration of the Rights of Man. The American document clearly premised its view of human life and authority on a Transcendent standard, a law outside of human government. The French document gave authority over human life to government, controlled by people. The result of the French Revolution was a system of law based on the popular opinion at any given moment.

The idea of what is popular, current, in-vogue, or culturally relevant in changing times is what some call “relativism.” What may be right or wrong, good or bad is decided by authorities who based their standards on the opinion of the populace. The alternative to relativism is having an absolute standard by which to judge ideas and action. In our summer series, “What will you replace it with when it’s gone?” we need to consider the importance of maintaining a consistent, dependable, universal basis for law. In the book of Proverbs, the word “law” meant the eternal law of God, coming out of the Mosaic law of the Hebrews. God’s authority is clear. We should not base law on the arbitrary whim of public opinion or what may be convenient for a given time.

Accordingly Proverbs 28:7 states, “The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding.” To “keep” something meant to guard and protect it, to preserve it for generations to come. As we come toward the end of our series, it is imperative to say, that the question I have raised is a call to preserve the good ideas that have been given to us. We should not place our trust in what is popular but in what is permanent. For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

 

The financially powerful versus

the financially powerless.

Discover the problem of excessive taxation in this week’s Truth in Two.

#10 in our Summer 2024 series, “With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

FULL TEXT

By singing the song “Rich Men North of Richmond” Oliver Anthony became an overnight sensation. His words struck a chord with many who see the problem of American government intrusion and lack of accountability all around them. Here is part of those sanitized lyrics:

These rich men north of Richmond / Lord, knows they all just wanna have total control / Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do / And they don’t think you know but I know that you do / ‘Cause your dollar is worthless and it’s taxed to no end / ‘Cause of rich men north of Richmond.

Oliver Anthony stands in a long line of common folk who wince under the weight of, among other things, taxes. Proverbs 29:4 speaks to the problem,

‘By justice a king gives stability to the land but a man who takes bribes overthrows it.”

The word for “bribes” – which are condemned throughout Scripture – points to excessive taxation for selfish purposes. Samuel gave the warning to Israel when it wanted a king like all the other nations: kings require more and more taxes. Kings were known to levy taxes to increase the view of their power and credibility before other nations. By the time of Rehoboam, taxes became so bad that the nation of Israel split in two.*

Our summer series, “What will you replace it with when it’s gone?” speaks to people being able to keep their hard-earned wages to support their families and communities. The age-old problem of the financially powerful versus the financially powerless is seen everywhere in all cultures. When people lose economic freedom, living under unbearable taxation, the only question left to ask is, “How will folks respond when it’s gone?” For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

NOTES * 1 Samuel 8:11-18; 1 Kings 12:1-19

 

“There’s a war out there.

It’s not about who has the most bullets.

It’s about who controls the information.”

Watch this week’s Truth in Two video to find out why

Ray Bradbury agrees with Proverbs.

#9 in our Summer 2024 series, “With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

FULL TEXT

Fahrenheit 451 still sends shudders through its readers. Ray Bradbury’s famous science fiction novel is a statement for all freedom loving people, to beware the government that wants to destroy knowledge and censor information. Bradbury’s novel is the story of literal book burning. An authoritarian government wants to destroy the written word by fire; 451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which paper burns. In a 1994 interview, Bradbury said that political correctness and thought control concerned him, the reason he spoke out for freedom of speech.

Controlling what people hear in media is a constant concern for freedom loving people. One of the key themes about control in Proverbs is the comparison between “integrity” and “crookedness.” The word “integrity” suggests not perfection but a wholehearted commitment to God, including the dedication to truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, and reliability. In contrast, the word “crooked” describes that which as been twisted from its original or intended design. The original has been tweaked or altered from its fundamental integrity.* Perverse people distort reality, but the righteous person is careful to guard himself from truth-twisting, according to Proverbs 22:5.

Our summer series, “What will you replace it with when it’s gone?” applies to who controls the information we consume. In the 1992 movie Sneakers, Ben Kingsley’s character summarizes the concern, as he preaches to Robert Redford’s character,

“There’s a war out there, a world war, it’s not about who has the most bullets, it’s about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think, it’s all about the information!”

The science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, the movie Sneakers, and the book of Proverbs agree: beware those who control information so that they can twist the truth. For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Links

Bradbury’s interview: Bradbury Talk Likely to Feature the Unexpected Archived July 10, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, Dayton Daily News, 1 October 1994, City Edition, Lifestyle/Weekendlife Section, p. 1C.

*John A. Kitchen Proverbs: A Mentor Commentary. Christian Focus Publication, 2006: 640

A government controls a population

By limiting sources of information.

Find out why by watching / reading our Truth in Two.

Don’t miss the links at the end!

#8 in our Summer 2024 series, “With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

 

FULL TEXT

Freddie Sayers, host of the popular podcast “Unherd,” has recently revealed his research into what he and others have called the “disinformation industry.” According to the meticulous study, Sayers reveals the troubling prospects of “ratings agencies” such as Newsguard or the Global Disinformation Index. Questions of who funds these agencies raises, what Sayers calls, “serious questions about the freedom of the press and the viability of a functioning democracy in the internet age.” You can find links to Sayer’s research and episodes at the end of this Truth in Two.

Throughout chapters 28 and 29 of Proverbs we discover numerous statements about authoritarian leaders who want to control their subjects according to their whim. The historic context of these chapters harkens back to sixteen years of wickedness under the rule of king Ahaz. A revival of righteousness under the rule of Hezekiah is the comparison, found in 2 Kings chapters sixteen through nineteen. One such contrast is discovered in Proverbs 29:2, “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.” Assessing the idea of the words “increase” and “rule” in Hebrew, the reader understands that whoever multiplies influence is crucial. Whoever oversees controlling the population will bring either joy or groaning.

The question of influence or information control has long been a staple of science fiction writing. Who controls the controllers has been a theme in graphic novels such as The Watchmen. Our summer series, “What will you replace it with when it’s gone?” speaks to the concern for free-flowing information. Key to the continuation of free inquiry is the need for open communication and research that can both confirm and question ideas. The last thing a free people need is a disinformation industry controlling what we hear and see. For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.

Links

https://www.disinformationindex.org/research/2019-12-1-rating-disinformation-risk-the-gdi-methodology/

https://www.newsguardtech.com/

https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformation-industry/

https://unherd.com/newsroom/global-disinformation-index-removes-funders-from-website/

The Refs Are Working Us

 

 

 

Every single person in the world desires stability of some sort.

No one can have stability without law and order.

Watch / read our Truth in Two,

second in our summer series,

“With what will you replace it, when it’s gone?”

#2 in our Summer 2024 series, “With What Will You Replace It When It’s Gone?”

Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).

Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat

FULL TEXT

One of the longest running shows on television, now streaming, is the series Law and Order. Every episode describes a crime, the detective work that bring a perpetrator to justice, the lawyers who adjudicate the proceedings, and the justice system that tries to come to a right conclusion about the case. Apart from the excellent writing, acting, and directing, there is a reason why people watch the show: there is a general appreciation of and desire for, law and order. And the key to maintaining order is a foundation of law for which a nation can provide stability for its people.

Proverbs 28:2 suggests the template for such stability: understanding and knowledge. Where does a nation find that fount of wisdom? Scripture is clear that the righteous standards of God provide a steady strength for any country. What is the alternative? The first part of Proverbs 28:2 says, “When a land transgresses, it has many rulers.” When there is no universal benchmark, no sure foundation of law, then anarchy rules. The book of Judges explains such lawlessness with the phrase, “Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.” The alternative to order and stability for a country is anarchy and volatility.

One of the earliest lessons of life is that someone or something is going to tell us what to do. We have to look no farther than corner stop signs to make the point. The question for America, Americans, or any people group around the globe remains the same, “If you take away law and order, with what will you replace it?” Listen to and learn from God’s Word. If you want stability, if you want law and order, God’s fundamental principles of objective Truth from Scripture, applied to real life, must be kept. Continuing our summer series for the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.