Reviews

When I was a boy, I wanted to be an astronaut. My favorite TV program was “Lost in Space.” I remember fervently praying that I would be allowed to be someone who could travel to distant stars. [I became a theologian instead. Some may see a connection there. 😊] Coupled with my space odyssey, I read wild tales of mystery and suspense (think Bradbury, Serling, Asimov, and Hitchcock). My mind took me to places through my imagination. All I needed was the idea, the spark of interest, someone to tell me about possibilities, and I was off.

My mind wandered through such a maze of thought last night as I rewatched Gattaca, a not-too-distant-future idea of a boy who wanted to be something only he could dream about. This boy, Vincent, had his own dreams of space travel. It is a tale of intrigue, subterfuge, discrimination, and triumph. From this boy, now a man, I encourage a viewing (available on Netflix or a $3 rental on Prime).

Like many discrimination stories, a nameless, faceless autocracy has determined that gene manipulation is the only way to birth humans. Someone somewhere has decreed that genetic perfection is the only way to create a master-race. The less fortunate, the “In-Valid,” were given a slave position; one lower class serving those higher. And the way to know a “Valid” from an “In-Valid” is through human DNA. Every skin cell, every hair follicle, urine sample, every drop of blood served as one’s identity. The opening sequence of the film where skin and hair thud onto a table is all the viewer needs to understand the weight of each membrane. The perfect interview consisted of a “clean” DNA screening.

In an early scene a geneticist played by Blair Underwood explains to Vincent’s parents that they want a perfect brother for Vincent, a boy without genetic defect. Even though the parents argued to “leave something to chance” any possibilities of imperfection were eliminated from Vincent’s brother Anton: under a microscope. The first of three swim races display Anton’s superiority and initiates Vincent’s resolve to discover a way to overcome his crookedness.

A quotation from Ecclesiastes (7:13) opens the movie encouraging the viewer to consider that what God has made crooked cannot be straightened. A second quote suggests that tampering with Mother Nature is something Mother would want us to do. But, to me, the quote that suggests the key to the movie is the original tagline, “There is no gene for the human spirit.” Overcoming a sterile, dystopian dictatorship will take more than the material world.

Here it is important to note Andrew Niccol’s movie themes. Gattaca was written and directed by Niccol. His writing tends toward science-fiction (The Truman Show, Gattaca, S1m0ne, In Time, The Host, Anon). In a 2018 interview, Niccol said, “There is an eye-of-God perspective that I am drawn to.” To his credit, Niccol seems attracted to questions of information gathering, surveillance, governmental controls, and anti-authority. Niccol strives against anonymity, artificiality, and the invasion of individual privacy. He cares for the intersection between humanity and technology. The power of futuristic genres is caution. The question of “What if?” is an important idea: this is what will happen if we continue down this road.

For me as a theologian, more than the material universe is necessary for one’s personality; there must be a Person who establishes personhood. To overcome “In-Valid” discrimination, there must be an external, eternal ethical code that gives the basis for acceptance no matter one’s genetic makeup. Concerns about discrimination are universal concerns, transcending time, and place. The viewer is encouraged to consider what it takes to overcome the impediments of a top-down autocracy. Vincent cannot accomplish his goals by himself. Several sympathetic individuals are necessary to complete his dreams. But the viewer is also encouraged to consider, “If all I am is my genetic code what is the origin of my spirit to overcome obstacles?” and “By what authority do I know discrimination to be wrong?” These and other questions should be asked by us all.

General Questions for Discussion How is innovation corrupted by human thought or action? Do we consider the human source of invention, the creative person’s beliefs? Define the words “utopia” and “dystopia.” Has any person or group ever created a utopia? Do utopias become dystopias? Why or why not? What assumptions conflict with a Christian view of truth? What systems of thought or worldview teaching affected the approach of a director or movie? What ethical objections give the foundation for understanding for anti-discrimination? Does the writing of a screenplay suggest an ethical neutrality in research? Is the nature or definition of the film’s subject built on a worldview?

 

“Tech Execs Require Nannies to Sign Contract Barring Screens,” was an article I introduced in a course I teach entitled “Reading, Writing & Inquiry.” The students were stunned to learn that Silicon Valley leaders do not allow their own children to view anything on screens during the day. Students astutely noted, “they must know something, we don’t.” In fact, Song’s purpose connects what Big Tech knows: “our contemporary digital lives are fundamentally shaping our imaginations and appetites about what it means to be human” (13). It stands to reason, then, that every college professor, every parent, pastor, social worker, I would argue, any person who works with people, should read Restless Devices. One feels the pathos of Felicia Wu Song as she expresses her personal decisions about digital communities. In Part One, Song displays a wholistic concern that screens have taken over our lives. In Part Two, a concerted effort is made to give a Christian response to the cultural issues. If there is one book that could provide an off-ramp from the digital highway, Restless Devices is it.

Essential ideas run through every page. There is no neutrality in any field of inquiry much less the technologies we handle (27). The origin of the internet and how we access the web is a powerful story Song tells well (28-30). She then connects the reader’s thinking to digitization’s dominance which create inherent structures that weave themselves through all cultural entities (31-32). Song suggests that the technologies have changed us. I would add we allow technologies to change us, so we don’t have to change ourselves. We bear responsibility for our choices (35). Song’s classes are introduced to practices designed to have students rethink “restrictions and limits” (37), since media can be like any other idolatry, demanding our attention, sacrifice, and obeisance (consider Deuteronomy 4:17-19).

In Western terms, obedience to the cultural gods includes consumerism, which allows our “emotions, thoughts, and relationships” to be “ground to a pulp” (45). We become what we buy. And we are seduced into believing we will be left behind if we do not have access to the most current media. Brain science demonstrates the impact of digital desires and the results those desires activate; it feels good, so we want more (47-51). Along the way, Song acquaints us with multiple resources that further our understanding: everything from books on media addiction and social disconnection to New Yorker and Axios essays on what electronic devices are doing to ourselves and our kids (52-61). One of Song’s greatest contributions is her constant questioning. Banks and lists of questions dot the book providing not only opportunity for personal introspection but educational application; Song uses these questions in her own classes (i.e., 60, 75, 87, 99, 123, 160). It is obvious to any educator that Song is a practitioner. Her multiple “experiments in praxis” throughout the book (62-63, 90-93, 147-49) are designed for students – for anyone – who want to break free from digital shackles. Our collective enslavement to “shadow industrialization” tends to “instrumentalize and reduce us as persons” (69). Here Song offers an important list of “drives” that could be used not only as future research but classroom assignments: drives to quantify, perform, reify, and control (71-84).

The oversized power of Big Tech begun in Part One (41) initializes Part Two (97-98) reminding us that those who manage the digital environment, do so intentionally. But here Song wants us to remember that we bear responsibility for our own identities. All the way through Part Two she focuses on The Church as community. She explains we believers need to return to our own rituals, assumptions, and commitments, not have them imposed on us (100-103). Here the author begins to give a broad theological view of anthropology (chapter five), liturgy (chapter six), soul formation (chapter seven), and faithful presence in our places (chapter eight). In all her writing Song gives a theological treatise leading to change of affections, culminating in explicit applications. Changing one’s liturgical practices could lead anyone from information to transformation.

One concern that runs through the book is the lack of footnotes for some entries. Often the references are listed properly at the bottom of any page where a person, idea, or quote is enumerated. But elsewhere (i.e., pages 21, 115, 122, 135, 150) perhaps it is the publisher’s desire for a book to cross from academic to popular spheres of influence which results in uneven attribution. Some theological statements could be refashioned. “Taking a leap of faith” (121) suggests a disconnect from the historical veracity of biblical belief. There is a lack of Scriptural rootedness that could have bolstered any of Song’s foci: Trinity, idolatry, or “principalities and powers” where a book is quoted rather than The Bible (136). Deeper biblical focus is suspended at times; the anecdote about boredom (157-60), for instance, could have been replaced by the Psalmist’s basis for “meditation,” or “reflection” in our modern parlance. Misgivings noted, however, could never outweigh the need for everyone to read this book.

Song’s easy style, her reader friendly approach, makes us sense the author is sitting across from us. Restless Devices is written in a popular approach with grounding in research that will attract both everyday people and academicians. Song acknowledges her bent toward cognition but is quick to say, “lived experience” is also an important pathway to knowledge (128) because she knows “our embodied behaviors . . . act on us” (131). Like any good Socratic teacher, Song asks the questions allowing us to come to conclusions on our own. Song’s last chapter is important for its title, “The Church as Counterliturgy.” Christians always lose when we try to beat the world at its own game. “Turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) should be the result of how unbelievers see our actions. What is so winning about Restless Devices is that Felicia Wu Song has gone through the process of extricating herself from the tidal pull of cultural currents. Her honesty, her investigation, her praxis, her teaching the next generation, and her gentle approach – easily applied in and outside Christendom – is what draws us in to her exceptional work. If Silicon Valley elites know the power of screens, shouldn’t that tell us something? But perhaps, just perhaps, we should begin the spadework Restless Devices provides to plant seeds of change in us, our families, our churches, and our universities.

This review will appear in Christian Education Journal.

Restless devices: Recovering personhood, presence, and place in the digital age. By Felicia Wu Song. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021. 232 pp. $24. Softcover.

Review by Mark D. Eckel, President, The Comenius Institute, Indianapolis, IN; Professor of Leadership, Education and Discipleship, Capital Seminary and Graduate School, Lancaster, PA.

My review of Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell by Jason L. Riley (New York, NY: Basic Books. 2021. 291 pp. $30. Hardcover.) will appear in an upcoming issue of Christian Education Journal.

A legacy of ideas generates generational impact. For a long time, I have wondered if my own ideas would be lost to the present but unearthed one hundred years from now. “There will be good people carrying on the fight after we are gone” (248), says Thomas Sowell. His response reminds me that my work, your work, anyone’s work could be recognized and revered long into the future. Adherence to “true Truth,” Francis Schaeffer’s phrase, based on permanent, eternal connections to God’s coherent universal order will always find traction in the world of ideas. If there is anyone whose ideas have taken root in the soil of the next generation, it is Thomas Sowell. Over thirty books, over forty years of weekly writings, and hundreds of videos found everywhere on YouTube has fostered decades of influence and created a Mount Everest of research summitted by millions. Jason Riley, himself a prolific writer, has done the academic world a service by reviewing the lifetime impact of Thomas Sowell in Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell.

Maverick should be read by all faculty in every department throughout their current institution. Every conceivable academic circle whether in the sciences or the humanities needs such an exposure to intellectual history and ideas that Maverick provides. Not only does Riley give an exceptional review of Sowell’s life and thought, but he also shows how the Hoover Institute fellow establishes the premises from which all academics should base their thinking. In fact, it should be argued that every course begin with a philosophy of education, knowledge, hermeneutics, and apologetics. As Riley assesses,

“Viewed in its totality, his scholarship showcases a willingness to grapple with some of our most enduring philosophical questions: how knowledge is developed, how justice and injustice are defined, how basic conceptions of human nature differ and have led to contrasting political theories going back more than two centuries” (124-25).

Not only would it be impossible to review every salient detail mined from the wealth of Sowell’s biography, but it would also take the lifetime of multiple scholars to adequately unearth the riches of Sowell’s ideas. But by itself, Maverick could set the stage for regenerative thinking on behalf of “true Truth” across the academe.

The fullness of Sowell’s life – at this writing he is 92 – can only be expressed by the essence of the man, an invaluable service that Riley provides. The introduction to Maverick frames his subject. Here we find not only the process of excising Sowell’s life and work, but we discover the linchpin arguments “challenging liberal orthodoxies” (12). A person’s intellectual shaping is often left out of curricula vitae but should be a necessary component of any academic review (chapters 1-2). Faculty should rehearse for everyone who and what has most formulated their thinking to provide academic transparency. Sowell’s traverse through higher education (chapter 3) gives experiential understanding of institutional academic processes that need review. Sowell’s castigation of elite university administration and faculty expose “the most intolerant places you can be these days” (94). A review of Sowell’s thinking and writing (chapters 4-6) is the necessary centerpiece of the man’s person. Because Sowell has stood athwart progressivist assumptions in the academe showing the “assumptions behind conflicting views” (156), attacks on his work have been ad hominem at best (i.e., 219-21), but in large part, ignored: public intellectuals have been unable to respond to his arguments, so they don’t. Within these pages (156-66) Sowell’s explanation of “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions is not to be missed, “What drives our ideological disputes about the nature of reason, freedom, equality, justice, and power” (157). Riley’s distillation of Sowell’s thought on “Civil Rights and Wrongs” (Chapter 7) subverts the shallow arguments made of the supposed causes of racial discrimination. Here again Sowell’s “constrained” and “unconstrained” methodology maintains that “what matters most” are “facts and evidence” to support a theory (180); or, as the subtitle to one of Sowell’s many books asks, is the concern over civil rights “rhetoric or reality?” In the important chapter “Culture Matters” (chapter 8) Sowell rejects “unproven assumptions” (197) about racial inequities but categorically maintains “discrimination and social inequality were part of the human condition and couldn’t definitely be ‘solved’” (195). Chapter 9 summarizes “Sowellian black conservatism” (241). Influences on Sowell and those Sowell influenced is summarized here as Riley deftly demonstrates how ignoring a person’s ideas is discriminating against the person who holds these ideas. In Sowell’s own words, “The most brilliant thinkers typically grasp only part of the truth, and a fuller understanding comes only after a clash of ideas with others” (242). In this reviewer’s humble opinion, there is no other American public intellectual whose work has set the precedent for both understanding the history of ideas but the application of ideas in any culture.

As a matter of full disclosure, I have been reading Thomas Sowell’s books and columns and watching his videos for decades. Sowell’s thinking has been influential to my own intellectual processing for most of my teaching life. As Hebraic-Christian thinkers inside and outside the academe know, it is important to weave definitive doctrinal thinking through an explanation of Sowell’s thought processes. Essential to biblical understanding is the origin of ideas, acknowledging that The Personal Eternal Triune Creator of all things has set the stage for human understanding of everything. The matter of being honest about the origin of one’s assumptions is imperative in scholarship and teaching; a matter essential to understanding Sowell’s work. Following closely is the imperative that human thinking is both finite and fallen, our abilities tainted by sin. Any kind of regenerative solutions would be best seen through the lens of Scriptural wisdom books noting that all endeavors, humanly speaking, are what Sowell would call “tradeoffs” (a word used repeatedly throughout Maverick). Sowell’s examination of “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions is woven through The Bible. In Hebraic-Christian terms how we view human nature will set the stage for how we view social ills. We can, on the one hand, advocate for perfectibility expecting a utopian outcome (Sowell’s “unconstrained” explanation). Or, on the other hand, we can recognize the human tension between dignity and depravity “constraining” how we address life’s questions. Issues from slavery to reparations for slavery to social justice to racial preferences – and so much more – is examined by the black scholar, Thomas Sowell. And Sowell upends the current cultural narratives on these and other topics, not neatly compartmentalized into a “conservative” label. Sowell is concerned with assumptions, evidence, data analysis, and giving all sides a fair hearing, a need for viewpoint diversity which is supposed to be the hallmark of university thinking. Ultimately, Sowell’s concern should be the concern for all citizens of whatever country everywhere, “The most basic question in not what is best but who shall decide what is best” (emphasis his, 132). Answering the question, “Who says?” is at the heart of every concern; the undergirding and overarching conception throughout life is one of authority. Christians and non-Christians everywhere need to read Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell. The book is an introduction to a man and his ideas which are central to how we think and teach. Jason Riley’s work should be in the hands of every professor and student – no matter their discipline – who desires to be both broadminded and evenhanded in their discovery of “true Truth.”

Mark Eckel is President of the Comenius Institute, Indianapolis, IN and Professor of Leadership, Education and Discipleship, Capital Seminary and Graduate School, Lancaster, PA. He is also a Senior Associate Faculty member at Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). He teaches and speaks for other institutions and groups, writing weekly at warpandwoof.org and here at MarkEckel.com. Visit The Comenius Institute YouTube channel (here).

 

 

My mom was a nurse for sixty (60) years. During our weekly talks she asks me about my physical health: exercise, diet, doctor visits, and these days, vaccination. Her concern for my safety is also triggered by my writing. If I put something out on social media that causes a cultural “stir” mom will inquire about my health in a different way. “Are you sure you’re going to be alright?” Within the context of my writing mom is asking if people will come after me for my beliefs. My response has always been the same,

“Authoritarian states always come after academics first, intellectuals who stand against The State. Totalitarian leaders hate people who traffic in ideas, especially ideas that go against the accepted despotism. Tyrants want to silence people like me, people who speak for freedom against dictatorship. When the day comes to silence opposition, the dictator will come for me first.”

I do not type these words lightly, nor do I want to exaggerate any claims. My concerns come in the form of warnings. The flashing “red light” of warning is to stop, consider, understand, and plan. The downfall of any people can come in a long, slow slide of destruction; the barbarians taking over Rome comes to mind. A national downfall can also be immediate, cataclysmic, as is the history of the ancient Mayan and Aztec nations.

Further, I do not believe I am a “cry baby,” as Tim Keller suggested in a March 10th interview. Within the context of “Christian Nationalism” and Evangelical treatment of the gay community Keller stated in a podcast series entitled “Woke in the PCA”

I am not in denial about the fact that ten years from now, if you have evangelical convictions about sex and gender, you may not be able to work for a major university or for the government or for a big corporation. And it’s not that Christians haven’t faced that other places in the past. We shouldn’t be crybabies. Nevertheless, having said all that, yeah, we nurtured this. And Christian nationalists use that. And therefore, we brought it on ourselves.

I am anything other than a Christian Nationalist. [See my 2017 response to a White Nationalist who accosted me on social media here.] And I certainly have not attacked anyone because of sexual beliefs or practices. But I DO work for a major university. And I have encountered a fair amount of critique for my Christian beliefs. [On a side note, working at IUPUI is one thing, working at Berkley (CA) or Columbia (NY) is quite another. One of my unbelieving friends on campus admitted that I would not be able to work at either of the aforementioned universities.]

But I certainly push-back on Keller’s remark that “we brought this on ourselves.” And the “not being able to work” comment is not ten years out but is happening around us all the time (see tip-of-the-iceberg evidence here and here and here).

The kind of suffering that Dreher rehearses in chapter ten runs the gambit from execution, torture, imprisonment, and forced separation from children. For those who have not suffered, young people in The West, consider suffering “anything they find difficult” (184). Individuals being taught “the good life is free from suffering” (185) have no resistance against tyranny. Testimonies from Eastern European believers who lived through the awfulness of tyranny say, however, that suffering for The Faith is a marker of Truth (186-87). The stories of heroism Dreher recounts in chapter ten should help stiffen the resolve of anyone willing to listen.

And for those willing to watch, Dreher highlights an important resistance film by Terrence Malick, A Hidden Life (188-89). Yet, testimony to the difficulty of resistance is clear. As the old painter in Dreher’s story reflects, “We create admirers, we do not create followers” (189). And then we encounter Soren Kierkegaard’s punch in the face, “The admirer never makes any true sacrifices.” Whoa. And then we are reminded of our Lord’s words “Love your enemies” (191). To be charitable toward those who first mock, then defame, then ostracize, then accuse, then steal all your earthly goods . . . I think about how hard that would be. Testimony from one who was hauled to court, having personally experienced such personal griefs responded in a way that made my eyes go wide when I read it:

We will not allow ourselves to be led to hate, to rebel, or even to complain . . . That is where our strength and superiority lie (193).

And then to reread Solzhenitsyn’s words, words I had read in his Gulag Archipelago as a teenager “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life” (194). The stories on pages 197-98 and 199-201 are, frankly, heart-stopping. Reread those stories over and over. And then do as Dreher instructs, “These stories are near the core of the lived Christian experience and form an essential part of Christian cultural memory. Learn them, so you will know when and how to live them” (206).

Because stories are SO important, I offer here a few stories in film that would be fitting for us to consider. Watch them on whatever viewing service you use. Purchase them to show in large groups. “Never forget” are words we use for situations and people that remind us to retell the stories of. We retell stories to strengthen ourselves and others.

List of movies:

A Hidden Life

The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas

Life is Beautiful

Into the Arms of Strangers

Chronicles of Religious Persecution in China

China Cry

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. Jesus, John 12:24-26

If a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live. Martin Luther King Jr.

Freedom Rally Cobo Hall, Detroit, MI, June, 1963

 

 

Self-censorship is the first response to soft totalitarianism.

Here I’m not talking about being kind and generous with others in public. We should focus on others-centered care. We should be ethically upright in communication

No, I’m talking about wariness of saying anything in public that could jeopardize our social standing, economic livelihood, media de-platforming, or public de-friending. Being concerned about Big Tech, Slant News, Job Speech. Social Distance is not a result of a pandemic but of systemic quieting.

What is the best response to censorship? How does a community respond which has become estranged from its neighbors? R. R. Reno writing in First Things (March 2021) suggests we counter “acids of mistrust” with “gestures of loyalty” (62). Against cultural storms Reno encourages believers to stand firm:

Our trust will be tested – our trust in God and our loyalty to one another. This testing reflects, perhaps, the wisdom of God’s providence. As long experience in marriage teaches, it is not intelligence or beauty or even principled conduct that undergirds a couple’s enduring life together. It is fidelity, not just of two people to each other, but to the institution of marriage itself, which we trust is noble enough and strong enough to survive our failings. Let us apply that trust as widely as we can. In the coming storm, we will need each other and the institutions that are worthy of our loyalty (print edition, 63).

Rod Dreher’s “Standing in Solidarity” (chapter nine) targets the need for an “underground church,” where “communities could feel free” (167).

Perhaps unwittingly Dreher assembles practical principles of allegiance in chapter nine. Here are a few in his and others’ words. I have combined the whole of them throughout the chapter into ten principles below. Christians “should not neglect to nurture friendships with people of goodwill outside the churches . . . with people of goodwill belonging to other religions, and no religion at all” (174, 181). “Join your grief with the grief of others, and then you will find it easier to carry” (178). Create or join a “third place” (al la “The Great Good Place”) where one can find “shared purpose” (179). Have a “bend don’t break” philosophy of living (182). My ten principles inspired by the chapter follow:

Small groups combined create a strong bond.

Courage is knowing who or what to fear.

Spreading the word makes a louder voice.

Patience is a strategy.

Find goodwill allies, one in spirit if not in doctrine.

Grieving with others is better than grieving alone.

Create spaces of shared purpose.

Digital friends are great, local friends are greater.

Dissent against what matters most.

Deep roots of belief weather storms.

I wrote to one of my young friends recently asking them to spread the word about a certain event. The response was, “I’m not on social media anymore.” The young person I mention here is following the directives of former dissidents under Soviet rule: get off social media. I absolutely appreciate the mindset and the action taken. Personally, and regularly, I feel the pressure of self-censorship. But I stay on social media for one purpose: to offer light in darkness. Those who are believers on social media sites have told me they are glad I’m there with them. For those antithetic to the gospel, there is active resistance and, at times, outright outrage against my postings.

We will each have to decide what to do personally and collectively in our spheres of influence. Some will leave social spaces. I understand why. Some will be belligerent, opposing the status quo. I understand why. Some will decide to silence themselves for personal reasons. I understand why. Some march in the streets to show their refusal to submit. I understand why. Some will write, speak, and challenge the dominant system, the authorities which set themselves against the believing community. I understand why because I am one of them. [Read again what I wrote here at the inception of this site: https://markeckel.com/2021/01/13/9021/ ]

Whichever position you take, form alliances with others. Consider chapter nine as a watershed moment, a time to decide your course of action. Be serious about the times in which we live. Understand the gravity of our situation living in a culture which despises us.

Further practical responses and biblical principles to consider:

Find out how The Church in Communist China thrived in the 20^th century (here, $5 for the magazine).

Loving One’s Neighbor The documentary Film Weapons of the Spirit (1989) is the stirring account of the villagers of Le Chambon, France, many of them of French Huguenot (first Protestants in Catholic France) ancestry who remembered their own persecution but who also believed the biblical injunction to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Led by their pastor, Andre Trocme, they defied the Nazis and took in thousands of Jews into their homes, giving them safe haven. Not a single Jew who came to them was turned away, and about 5,000 Jews were saved.  The villagers never spoke of it until much later and then only reluctantly viewing their acts as the human and Christian thing to do.

What Scripture Says (from Part 9 PDF, “Suffering” video series on MarkEckel.com):

Why Were Christians Persecuted? 1. Threat to Roman Authority: a. Enemy of the State (Jesus as “Lord” and “King”); b. Insurgent Terrorist (Acts 4, 5, 7, etc.); c. Individual Non-Conformist (Acts 21, 22); Antithetic to Cultural Mores: A. Protecting the Ethos of the Roman Mindset (Acts 15; Romans 1); B. Threatening the Economics of the Roman World (Acts 19); 3. Scapegoat for Societal Ills: A. “Blame the Christians” (Acts 24:2-9); B. “They are turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6)

A Response to Pressures from Without: Persecution  Jesus: John 16:33; Paul: 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:18-20; 3:1, 13-17; 4:1-4, 12-19; 5:1

What Kind of Persecution? 1 Peter 1:6 “Now for a little while you may have to” Indicates that the opposition was sporadic, limited to pockets of social, financial resistance against believers and physical attacks on Christians. 1 Peter 1:6 “trials” of “various kinds” are general words, the result of some evil intent. “Suffer” means there are difficulties and sorrows caused by opposition. This opposition is broad—everything from slander to threats to physical torment. “Suffer” = same word Jesus uses at last supper describing all He would face

How Should Christians Respond to Persecution? 1. Understanding Who We Are: “Aliens and Strangers” (1:1; 2:11); “God’s People” (2:9-10). 2. Understanding Our Place in The World: a. Good Citizens (2:13-17); b. Model Slaves (2:18-25); c. Gentle Wives (3:1-6)

The Results of Persecution in 1^st Peter: a. Silencing, Shaming Evildoers (2:12; 3:16); b. Gives Meaning to Life (4:12-19); c. Perseverance (1:7, 13; 2:1; 4:7, 19; 5:8-10); d. Hope in Eternity (1:3, 13, 21; 3:15); Solidarity with Others who Suffer (5:9)

2^nd Peter Challenges to Readers: 1. Grow in Knowledge (1:2-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14, 2:9, 20-21; 3:3, 17-18); 2. Beware (3:17; see 1 Peter 1:17); 3. Be Holy (3:10-13; see 1 Peter 1:13-16); 4. Remember the Truth (1:12, 13, 15; 3:1, 2, 15; “don’t forget” 3:5, 8); 5. Stay on The Way (2:2, 15, 21; Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22)

A Culture Must Be Sustained by the Presence of Good

The source of that “good” is essential.

How do you help students at a public university to consider the “source” or “origin” of “good?” You create an assignment based on a document most everyone can agree to. Interpretation of the document may be dissimilar. But one cannot dismiss the need. This past week in my “Argumentative Writing” course I did exactly that. For every assignment, I give a “rationale,” a reason why we are doing the assignment. 

The so-called “humanities” should care most for what is human. Notice, however, that I used the word “should” in the first sentence. “Should” demands a standard for right and wrong. “Care” is also loaded with ethical freight, the first question being, “Why care?” Being a “human” suggests responsibility in that sentence. Here is the real issue: we tend to assume “shoulds” and “oughts.” We really do not spend much time in the humanities discussing the source, the origin of what makes something good or bad, virtuous or evil. And then there is the problem of consequence. What does it matter at the end of the day – or the end of life –  whether I do or don’t do something “good” or “bad?” Here is your opportunity to add to the important discussion.

And here is the assignment in part (I attached the full assignment page below):

Phase 1 Read “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR, find the link here). Do a bit of historical research to identify why the UDHR was written (timing is important) and which former First Lady was most responsible for initiating the UDHR (in 1947 by another name). Culture and context matter in everything, in any discussion.

Phase 2 Ponder, think deeply, about the following ideas and questions. In the first line of the preamble (the first “Whereas”) you will notice the issue I raise in the rationale above. What is the origin, the source, the authority by which any individual or institution can make such a claim? The second line (the second “Whereas”) suggests humanity has an “outraged conscience.” Where does conscience originate and why do we consider something an offense against another? “Rights” are mentioned in each of the first three lines of the preamble: what are “rights” and who decided what the “rights” are? [Article 1 frames the claims initiated in the opening lines of the preamble.] And why does this discussion matter in a course on “Argumentative Writing?”

Over and over, students tried to come to grips with the “origin” of any concept within the U.N. document. Over and over they gave definitions that came from human-centered sources. One or two considered that the views of people would not sustain the culture of “good.” In addition to my personal comments to each student, I included these thoughts affixing them everyone’s comments at the end:

Without a definition, we are left devoid of an ability *within ourselves* to answer. People may “disagree” but we are still left with the problem of “origin” or “source.” Humans “deciding” right and wrong is different than where the concept came from.

Rod Dreher’s point in chapter eight of Live Not By Lies is well summarized by the title, “Religion, the Bedrock of Resistance.” As one interviewee put it, “You have to be for something good, otherwise, you can get really dark and crazy” (151). The “good” has to be linked to “objective reality” which is submerged in “faith” (152-53). We must not sidestep the important idea that our “spiritual life” is essential to “objective reality” (154). And it is important to say that anyone who has been “shattered” by persecution of belief is vital to our God-ordained human community (155, the Uighur Muslims in China being an obvious connection).

For the Christian, we become as Dreher notes “powerless” (155) which is its own power. We should be pleased to be marginalized, diminished, subjected to minority status, and un-privileged from our current position of prominence in the culture. People are not drawn to strength but to people “living in the light of truth” (157). That is why stories such as Albert Camus’s The Stranger can be so inviting by asking the question, “What is the point of living?” (158). The Christian, displaying submission to political power, can, as was true in ancient Rome, accept Jesus’ words

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account (Matthew 5:11).

The story of God’s gift of cigarettes (160-61) is a strange statement to the outside world that there is a Source of  Good. And it is here that Dreher drives a stake in the ground, a statement that begins with “miracle” because our supernatural belief is the basis for everything else: “If you are not rock solid in your commitment to traditional Christianity, then the world will break you” (163). 

So, weave my apologetic assignment in the public university with how we might communicate our belief that God is the source of good. Conceive of ways to incorporate prompts toward the source of goodness in your community. Ask questions. Tell stories. Share experiences. Do good. God’s power to save is often shown through our human weakness, through subordination of position. Scripture attests to the central truth over and over (Scriptural stories about Abel, Abram, Joseph, Moses, David, and so many more, leap off the pages).

Here is where you might use the Suffering Video (part 9) about “persecution” in your own teaching. I have noted below key ideas (which also appear in the pdf for that series) that we might begin to consider for our own lives.

From Part 9 “Suffering” MarkEckel.com video series:

“Their usually peaceful and quiet beliefs stand as a rebuke to those who are corrupt, to those who cannot tolerate the presence of any view but their own, and to those who want to make their own political regime the only focus of loyalty.  Christians are silent witnesses to the sovereign God.  And evil men hate it.” Marshall, The Blood Cries Out

Why Were Christians Persecuted? 1. Threat to Roman Authority: a. Enemy of the State (Jesus as “Lord” and “King”); b. Insurgent Terrorist (Acts 4, 5, 7, etc.); c. Individual Non-Conformist (Acts 21, 22);

2. Antithetic to Cultural Mores: A. Protecting the Ethos of the Roman Mindset (Acts 15; Romans 1); B. Threatening the Economics of the Roman World (Acts 19); 3. Scapegoat for Societal Ills: A. “Blame the Christians” (Acts 24:2-9); B. “They are turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6)

Pressures from Without: Persecution in 1 Peter NT Theme: Jesus: John 16:33; Paul: 2 Timothy 3:12

Peter: 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2:18-20; 3:1, 13-17; 4:1-4, 12-19; 5:10

Pressures from Within: Prostitution in 2 Peter: OT Theme: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea

Because persecution is hard to take, some people feel the need to fit in rather than stand out

1. To feel accepted we accommodate; 2. To accommodate we accessorize; 3. To accessorize we associate; 4. To associate we abandon; 5. 1^st Peter (persecution) leads some to 2^nd Peter (prostitution)

Persecution Begins Against Authority, Words: Romans could not abide any other authority but their own; Persecution of Christians was and is engendered by those who reject any other authority than their own; Persecution against authority always begins with persecution against words.

“Opponents” from 2^nd Peter: 1. Rejects Historic Christianity as “Myth” (1:16; see Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3)

2. Twisting Scripture (3:16); 3. Denial of Jesus’ Future Return (1:16-18; 3:4-7); 4. Acceptance of Moral License (2:1-3, 11-16); 5. If there is no future judgment, there is no present restraint (2:19)

What Kind of Persecution? 1 Peter 1:6 “Now for a little while you may have to” Indicates that the opposition was sporadic, limited to pockets of social, financial resistance against believers and physical attacks on Christians. 1 Peter 1:6 “trials” of “various kinds” are general words, the result of some evil intent. “Suffer” means there are difficulties and sorrows caused by opposition. This opposition is broad—everything from slander to threats to physical torment. “Suffer” = same word Jesus uses at last supper describing all He would face

How Should Christians Respond to Persecution? 1. Understanding Who We Are: “Aliens and Strangers” (1:1; 2:11); “God’s People” (2:9-10). 2. Understanding Our Place in The World: a. Good Citizens (2:13-17); b. Model Slaves (2:18-25); c. Gentle Wives (3:1-6)

The Results of Persecution in 1^st Peter: a. Silencing, Shaming Evildoers (2:12; 3:16); b. Gives Meaning to Life (4:12-19); c. Perseverance (1:7, 13; 2:1; 4:7, 19; 5:8-10); d. Hope in Eternity (1:3, 13, 21; 3:15);

1. Solidarity with Others who Suffer (5:9)

Asking the Wrong Question: Why die for something they KNEW was not true?!  Why be loyal to a God who allows you to suffer?!  The question isn’t “why does God allow suffering?” but “Why do people who suffer still worship this God?”

2^nd Peter Challenges to Readers: 1. Grow in Knowledge (1:2-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14, 2:9, 20-21; 3:3, 17-18); 2. Beware (3:17; see 1 Peter 1:17); 3. Be Holy (3:10-13; see 1 Peter 1:13-16); 4. Remember the Truth (1:12, 13, 15; 3:1, 2, 15; “don’t forget” 3:5, 8); 5. Stay on The Way (2:2, 15, 21; Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22)

4 Week Human Rights Assignment

When you’ve lost Bill Maher . . .

You’ve lost.

Bill Maher launched a broadside against “cancel culture” this past weekend on Showtime (link: Profane Language Warning). Maher’s ridicule is not to be missed since he himself belongs to the culturally progressive. But that’s not all. There were more cancellations this week. [See my past reviews of Dreher’s book to see other examples.] The cartoon strip ‘Mallard Fillmore’ was dropped by Gannett newspapersacross the country because of cartoons “critical of President Biden and transgender participation in women’s sports” (link). “The Quartering,” a YouTube channel with over 1 million subscribers, is being attacked, its sponsors being harassed, the financial future of Jeremy and his employees is being placed in jeopardy (link). And – this one is the hardest of all to stomach – Amazon took down the popular documentary about Clarence Thomas, created by Jason Riley (link). There are many more examples that should cause concern for the broad spectrum of freedom-loving people, no matter their political-cultural-sexual beliefs.

Freedom is essential to Dreher’s argument in Live Not By Lies but depends first and foremost on the family. Dreher notes what many Christians understand has been an “assault” on the family (129-35). The Bendas, a family in the Czech Republic, establishes the important reordering of family structure (135-45). These principles are solidified all the way through Scripture, practiced by anyone carefully raising their children. The Benda family bases their upbringing on the movie High Noon focused on these principles:

Model Moral Courage

Fill Children’s Moral Imaginations with the Good

Don’t Be Afraid to be Weird in Society’s Eyes

Prepare to Make Great Sacrifices for the Greater Good

Teach They are Part of a Wider Movement

Practice Hospitality and Serve Others

Parents should be “heroes” to their children (136). In the midst of fear, children should see their parents as both human (they will be scared) and mastering their fear (137). Watching movies like High Noon and books such as The Lord of the Rings provide strong internal construction for a child’s soul (138). Being “exceptional” is a good thing (139). Understanding who is cheering you on may speak louder than your words; your supporters mark your willingness to build moral fiber (140). Our view of “victory” must begin and end in eternity (141). Work

“with good and decent people outside the moral and theological community of the church” (142).

Renew a commitment to hospitality (144). Ultimately, we must teach our children “what to live for” (146). During Donald Trump’s tenure in office, the nation heard the word “resist,” a statement from a person standing against the President; those opposed to that bumper sticker, choose another word: persist. I would suggest both terms are appropriate in the correct context. Christians must “resist,” or stand against, ideas that sabotage The Faith. Christians must also “persist,” or stand with, people who stand with Christ. Jesus in Mark 9 makes clear that “those who are not against us are for us.” Matthew 25 explains that feeding, giving drink to, and clothing the poor, does so to Jesus Himself. “Doing good” is the centerpiece of outreach to pagan peoples (Titus 3:1, 8, 14). Having a good reputation before outsiders is the mark of an elder (1 Timothy 3:3).

But all of these practices begin in the home. Our closest neighbors live with us. If we want to love our neighbor, than love your spouse, your children, your extended family. One cannot say they love God or their neighbor if they do not first love their family members. Biblical principles abound about our responsibility to create “resistance” against a “cancel culture” that begins inside our house.

1. Note the ideas of heritage in the following verses also included (1) God’s people as God’s heritage (Deut 4:20; 32:9); (2) God’s law was given as a heritage for God’s people (Deut 33:4; Ps 119:11); (3) an allotment or land rights are used as a metaphor of the Psalmist’s life being “pleasant” and “beautiful” because he walks with the Lord (Ps 16:5-6); (4) The Lord Himself is the Psalmist’s “portion” or heritage (Ps 119:57; 142:5); (5) children are also considered a heritage contributing to the history of a family (Ps 127:3).

2. God-given inalienable rights are based on God’s image-bearing creatures: rights are given by God, to be protected by earthly authorities (Prov 28.12-16). Human rights produce human freedoms, creating an innovative climate for advancement, investment, entrepreneurs and profit (Prov 28.28; 29.2, 4, 7). When a nation protects the freedoms of the common person, the society at large benefits: jobs are produced, the arts are funded, hospitals are built and communities flourish (Jer 29:5-7).

3. Paul’s speeches before the Jews, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa (Acts 22-26) recite not only Israelite history, and Hebraic-Christian truth, but how Christians should function with pagan governments. We should give our children great speeches to memorize to show how people should against tyranny. One example is in C. S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair Puddleglum speaks of Aslan and Narnia. Puddleglum was on Aslan’s side, whether there was Aslan or not, and he believed in Narnia, whether there was Narnia or not. Read the speech and then ask young people to rewrite the speech in their own words for people today:

All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always like to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan Himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live like a Narnian even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives look for Overland. Nor that our lives will be very long, I should think; that that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.

Mark is unapologetically pro-life and pro-freedom.

Picture credits: Snappygoat.com; LukeRenoe.com; “Bill Maher” By Angela George, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11568939

 

 

“Misinformation” has become a term used by media outlets to detract from if not deny other points of view. National Public Radio, for instance, touts its “fact-based” reporting. Facebook has its “fact checkers” (see my comments on what happened to me from last week). The Washington Post has finally lifted the veil of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” as if we have now entered “the light.” And I continue to teach in the public university that says if you’re not hearing all sides of an issue you are not doing anything other than biased analysis.

This past week, for instance, I had my students watch an eight-minute video I created about “research” (you can watch it here). Among other principles I recited, these are five questions included in my presentation:

Could I be wrong?

Have I looked at all sides?

Am I broadminded?

Do my biases mislead?

Are my sources correct?

My questions run counter to the newly appropriated term “misinformation” acclaimed by “journalists” of our day. I use quotation marks not to denigrate the persons but wonder about the quality of their work. The latest calls to shut down Fox News, OAN, or Newsmax not to mention the outright removal of people’s opinions from social media (Kevin Sorbo’s Facebook page was removed without warning or specific reasoning which, by the way, was only reported at Fox News). My point here is not to defend the perspectives of these news groups or Mr. Sorbo. But I will always rise to stand for freedom of speech.

Enter 1984 and Dreher’s opening quotation in chapter six

Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

Dreher quotes Olga Rusanova who grew up in Siberia saying that the Soviet state “killed all the people who could remember history” (117). Yes, this chapter is about “cultural memory” (which I reviewed in part one of this series). But I would go a step farther. Again, from this week’s assignments in my “Argumentative Writing” class I recounted one of my mantras which I have been reciting for decades

Whoever controls the definition, controls the conversation.

Dreher references the problem as one of “ideological abuse of language” (119). I am witness to the abuse every week at the university. I hear it in the written assignments of my students who have obviously fallen under its spell from other professors. One young person this week suggested that her elderly grandparents (who watch Fox News) need to broaden their “conservative” perspectives. One of my comments on her paper was “Do you know any ‘progressives’ who need to do the same thing?”

Another video I created for my class is entitled “words” (you can watch it here). Some of my ideas in this review you can find there as well. Words are important because

Words have power. Words then shape the way we think. Words are necessary to interpret what we see. Words express our interpretation of the world. Words counteract the drive toward the visual alone. Words will always interpret our visual world.

So, what to do? I remember a crucial scene toward the end of the British film Fahrenheit 451 where numerous individuals are walking around a park reciting the books they have memorized. My memory of that scene was aroused when I read “create small fortresses of memory” (117). We, ourselves, become the bearers of books. “Sanctuary cities” (120) took on a whole new meaning for me – apart from our current cultural context about cities being open to illegal immigrants – when Dreher called for a “parallel polis“ whereby we could skirt the totalitarian effects of coercion. Looking “critically on what they’re reading and seeing” (125) is another way I combat the hostage taking of words. How often have I told my students over the years,

“I don’t want you to believe anything I tell you“?!

So I end this brief review of chapter six by positing sacrosanct biblical principles about teaching (written originally here):

As a Christian professor (one who professes Christian belief) I search for true Truth; I want the same for my students. So I pass out tools. I dedicate myself to a 5-fold Truth-search plan:

(1) assimilate true truth, explaining intentional doctrinal instruction (Psalm 119:160);

(2) discover truth, demonstrating ownership through self-study of Scripture (Acts 17:11);

(3) discern truth from untruth, exposing non-Christian beliefs (1 John 4:1-6);

(4) speak truth in love, practicing persuasion over confrontation (Colossians 4:5-6);

(5) apply truth in life, synthesizing biblical principles with all things (Romans 15:4)

As consumed as I am for true Truth, I am also consumed by training students to find true Truth for themselves.  My concern as a Christian educator is to help students become competent in what I call “the 5 ‘I’ words”:

 (1) identification of erroneous powers, premises, and practices;

(2) interpretation of pagan belief from a Christian perspective;

(3) inductive study of Scripture as a basis for assessment;

(4) interaction with current issues and icons, and

(5) investment in the tools necessary for students to make the search for true Truth a lifelong practice.

Picture credits: Snappygoat.com and Wikipedia

Sometimes people ask me what I post about without reservation on social media.

My response is always the same: I am unapologetically pro-life and pro-freedom.

I will make my voice heard on behalf of the unborn. I will make my voice heard on behalf of those who are enslaved. I will speak out against Planned Parenthood and their pro-death standards. I will speak out against Communist China and its subjugation of Hong Kong. My weapons are words. I am angered – even as I type these words on my keyboard – thinking that anyone would be politically oppressed because they had the audacity to want to speak freely.

Enter Gina Carano. The actress, fitness guru, and MMA fighting champion was recently fired by Disney. Why? She compared Jews being attacked by neighbors ahead of the Holocaust with Americans who are cancelled for their political views. Disney took offense and fired her. Let me say this up front: I don’t agree with her comparison. We are not at THAT moment in history (though I think it could be coming soon enough). But I do agree with her concern with “cancel culture” and I CERTAINLY agree with her right to say that “cancel culture” is a portent of things to come. [See her own comments here. Notice the word choices in a main stream media article like this: “controversial,” “politically charged,” and “conservative.” Are these words, or their opposite, used when a narrative from the progressive mindset is referenced? Simply, no.]

Dreher’s chapter five, “Value Nothing More Than Truth,” opens with Vaclav Havel and the famed “Greengrocer Essay” (97-98). The final lines of Havel’s piece should be etched in stone,

“He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth.”

Against those who dare to be free is the totalitarian system, no matter its name. Havel says the system’s “demoralization” is its greatest weapon (99). But with one of my heroes, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn, Dreher repeats the Russian proverb,

“One word of truth outweighs the whole world.”

What does it take, to take a stand? “Choice” and “resolve” (101). Yes, but how? Dreher entertains that remembering those who have sacrificed is essential (102). Plant gardens. Build monuments. Tell stories. Never forget. What else does it take, to take a stand? “Reduced expectations of worldly success” (103). Expected to be mocked, ridiculed. Expect to lose position because you won’t compromise. Moreover, “reject doublethink and fight for free speech” (103). It will cost you something (104) when accused for not following the party line, the accepted political structures. [Note, a list of Twitter accounts which have been frozen or eliminated altogether, including the national organization defending free speech, Speech First, here. See my own experience on Facebook in my review of Dreher’s chapter four.]

“Conscience” (105) is the weapon. Deciding that truth matters, will cost. “Prudence,” however, is to be measured along with freedom-loving stands. One must decide what can be done within the beliefs of what should be done (106). What act, what statement, what belief is worth losing everything: popularity, position, purse? The section ends with dissidents who know, who have lived the reduction of freedom

“Sometimes silence is an act of resistance. Keeping silent when you aren’t expected to be silent. That, too, is telling the truth” (107).

But, to me, the key statement is made by Dreher

“Refuse to let the media and institutions propagandize your children. Teach them how to identify lies and to refuse them” (108).

Wary of “rationalization” (ketman, see my chapter one review of Live Not By Lies), stand for those who cannot, speak for those who have been silenced, remember those who have sacrificed before, tell the story of free people, no matter the cost.

A biblical worldview is essential to combat the spread of lies, of cancel culture, of ending a person’s employment because they did not agree with you. Often, the only time we hear outrage about a person’s words is when those words go against the accepted narrative of the progressive culture. The biblical narrative runs counter to cancel culture with its focus on freedom within responsibility:

1. Political power (Deut 17:14-20; 1 Sam 8:10-18) suggests that leaders should be careful custodians of God-given authority.  Government should protect the freedom of individuals, with the fewest possible restrictions.  Limited administrative power prevents abuse of position.

2. In the New Testament, “authority” meant one had the ability to give orders (Matt 8.9), tell others what to do (Luke 7.8; 19.17), or submit to others’ authority (1 Pet 2.13). The Greek word for authority means “freedom of choice.” How much authority one has determines the amount of control one has over her life, and the lives of others. How one uses her authority is another issue. Jesus had authority to lay down his life of his own accord (John 10.17-18). Paul used his authority to build up not tear down (2 Cor 10.8; 13.10).
3. The Egyptian and Babylonian views of “time” emphasized a cyclical or circular view of history, leaving people at the mercy of perceived impersonal, whimsical, supernatural forces. The Hebrews, on the other hand believed in the personal, eternal creator giving folks meaning, potential, fulfillment, and a goal in life.  Each day is a new choice, opportunity, and responsibility with something and Someone to live for (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20).

 

Picture credits: Snappygoat.com, Gina Carano, By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41633864. Vaclav Havel, By Kingkongphoto & www.celebrity-photos.com from Laurel Maryland, USA – VACLAC HAVEL, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74769308