The Star-Spangled Banner

Fireworks remind me of the “Star Spangled Banner” – “And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” In September 1814, Francis Scott Key and John Stuart Skinner, with the approval of President James Madison, sought to secure the exchange of prisoners, especially Dr. William Beanes, a popular physician who was accused of aiding the arrest of British soldiers. Key and Skinner spoke with Major General Robert Ross and Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane over dinner aboard the British flagship HMS Tonnant. Although the British agreed to the exchange, Key and Skinner were held captive until after the bombardment of Fort McHenry. Key witnessed the barrage of rockets during the night and feared the embattled fort would have to surrender. On the morning of September 14, the larger flag known as the “Star-Spangled Banner” still flew. Key penned his poem on the back of a letter he had been carrying and called it, “Defense of Fort McHenry.” The last stanza of the poem, which is relatively unmentioned, reads:

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Notice the connection—free men—heaven’s rescued land—in God we trust—our flag represents freedom because of the brave. Freedom and God go hand in hand. No God; no freedom. The flag reminds us of this. Destroy the flag; obliterate the memory of the True Rescuer.

John Jay and Court

John Jay was a Founding Father of the United States. As a patriot and diplomat from the Colony of New York, Jay eventually became the first Chief Justice of the United States appointed by George Washington. Jay was a Christian and believed that God was involved in the fabric of his creation. He served as vice-president (1816–21) and president (1821–27) of the American Bible Society and believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. He believed that Christians must become involved in the politics of their nation. “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,” he once said, “and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Today, of course, we have politicians claiming to be Christians, but what they do and vote on in congress belies that fact. Jay, as a politician, believed that the moral precepts of Christianity were necessary for good government. He reiterated, "No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.” He would not like the trend of our nation today, for we now have “freedom from religion,” not “freedom of religion” as delineated in the Constitution.

Jay would be mortified at the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. He would see the court as doing the job of the legislature with activist judges placing their political and societal views on America under the guise of a legal ruling. Today, we have at least five jurists who believe that God is irrelevant—that human desire and preferences rule. If religion collides with these personal predilections, religion in the future will have to yield. Although the ruling of same-sex marriage did not dictate that religious institutions must comply by performing same sex marriages, it is only a matter of time.  The recent ruling is a victory for special interests that claim they should have the same benefit of marriage as heterosexual couples. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority in this hideous decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

What is the “something greater” for a homosexual couple? They cannot produce progeny or become one as Scripture says (Gen. 2:4). “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” A man was to cleave to his wife. The genders are made quite clear here and in other parts of Scripture. This is the marriage ordinance of one man to one woman. God created male and female (Gen. 1:27) in order for them to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:28). A same-sex couple cannot do this. Oh, they will adopt children and have agencies forced to place children with same sex couples, but being “fruitful and multiplying” refers to procreation, not proliferation of ones aberrant views.

Although we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, as Christians we must be gracious in our witness to a degenerating society. We are to stand firm on God’s Word and convey our differences, but be diplomatic, amiable, and sensitive in our replies. We all are sinners in constant need of grace. We don’t know what lies ahead, but we can be sure that our enemies will push for the legislation of their immorality while decrying the fact that congress is not to legislate morality. We live in an upside down world, where good has become evil and evil good. Yet it is an exciting opportunity for Christians, for now is the time that will try our souls as God expands his kingdom through tumult and turmoil. Have heart and be encouraged, for God is still in charge.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Isa. 5:20

Conversations with an Atheist, Part 2

My atheist friend told me the main reason he doesn’t believe in God has to do with all the evil he sees in the world. “A good God,” he says, “would not allow all kinds of evil to exist. Because evil exists, there can be no God.”

The question I asked my friend was this, “How do you know evil exists? By qualifying God as good is to make a moral judgment. Defining evil based on the notion of good is to admit that God also exists!”

Atheist: “How so?”

Me: “Because your definition of evil assumes moral goodness. Otherwise, how would you define evil? You had to have some idea in your mind what is good to declare something evil.”

Atheist: “Not really! As we evolved into mental creatures, our survival depended on what is better for our continuation as a species; and good is better than evil.”

Me: “But who determined what was better? Darwinism teaches the survival of the fittest. If the stronger, healthier, and more robust is fitter, they survive. If they are also more evil, they will still survive. Isn’t this what Nazi Germany tried to do? Hitler wanted to eliminate what he thought were the weaker link in a strong nation. And I think you would agree that Hitler was evil! So, please tell me how you define good, for evolution is not the answer.”

Atheist: “Good is doing that which is right for our species; and trying to eliminate a part of it, a certain people group, is wrong. It only brings war and war kills people, which is bad.”

Me: “You can’t mean that all war is bad. Otherwise, how would Hitler have been stopped?”

Atheist: “In that case, it was good people rising up against evil to stop evil from continuing.”

Me: “But Hitler did not think he was evil. He thought he was right. So, now we have your view and Hitler’s view in contrast. What made you right and Hitler wrong? For you to contrast what is good and evil means that you have within you some innate moral fiber, which allows you to make a determination. And that moral fiber had to come from somewhere.”

Atheist: “Yeah, it comes from me knowing right and wrong.”

Me: “No, it comes from something in your makeup that evolution cannot explain with any precision. Just by saying that something is good points to something bigger than you, and that something is Ultimate Goodness.

Atheist: “Come on, you know that I don’t believe in an Ultimate Goodness, which you are going to tell me is God.”

Me: “I’m saying any determination of good is a moral decision and morality points to something greater than you. To conquer evil, good must exist. And to have the moral courage to fight evil must come from within, not from some evolutionary process. Evolution doesn’t explain why there are certain moral fundamentals, which crosses all cultures.”

Atheist: “Like what?”

Me: “Like not killing off your own species or clan. Like honoring the ones who brought you into the world. Like not stealing from those you love. Like doing good for those who help you. And if goodness doesn’t evolve, then it must point to a Being who instills a moral fiber it into his Creatures.”

Atheist: “So what happened to Hitler? Did he have any good moral fiber?”

Me: “Absolutely; but even then it can be overcome by evil if we let it. That is why we need reminders of what is good; and that comes from the 10 commandments. But even then, we need something more that restrains evil in the world—otherwise evil will win out. And that something is an Ultimate Morality that gives grace to people whether they believe in an Ultimate Goodness or not in order for them to recognize the true and exercise courage to fight the wrong.”

Atheist: “There you go again with the religious stuff. I still believe that all this can be explained by evolution.

Me: “If that is the case, then anything goes. Survival of the fittest tells us that those who are stronger, better situated, and more politically motivated can take what they want, including life, in order for their group to survive. Evolution would then sanction what Islamic extremists are doing—even what Hitler did. Yet, the reason most of the world dislikes what they do is evidence that there is a greater good that desires to overcome the dastardly killing of those who oppose such terrorists.”

Atheist: “There are certain things that are just plain wrong—certain actions that are basically evil!”

Me: “Can’t you see that by admitting evil exists, you have just proven that God exists. By saying ‘some things are just plain wrong’ is evidence of an absolute within your psyche that you didn’t put there. You were born with it, which means you were favored with a morality that is greater than you. Because you don’t understand why evil occurs is no reason to deny the existence of a Being who endowed you with a sense of right and wrong. Because you say there is evil in the world proves that there is a God who evidently instilled the definition of right and wrong within your soul. To argue there is no God is to argue there is no good. And that is untenable!”

Conversations with an Atheist

"Can a person be good without believing in God?" asked my atheist friend. He said that human beings need not believe in a deity or belong to any religious group in order to be good or act morally. He continued to say that the idea of the doing good preceded belief in a god, for religion evolved from the imagination of ancient man. In fact, he believed that the concept of god is alien to the algorithm of human goodness and morality. Humans already have a sense of moral right or wrong, for moral rectitude is innate within the human spirit.

I agreed with his last sentence, but disagreed with the origin. It is true that human beings have an innate sense of moral goodness. But where did that come from? Did it develop from monkeys or other genetics within the evolutionary chain of human kind? Or did a Greater Power place it within the human spirit? Probing deeper, I asked him to define good. I wanted to know his definition of good and if every human being had the same definition. What my friend failed to realize is that an atheist's morals are not absolute. Not every atheist would agree with what “good” is. Islamist extremists, for instance, believe that good is killing infidels, i.e. everyone who does not accept or conform to Islam. A secular humanist in all likelihood has no problem eliminating a child from the womb. They believe it is good for the woman to choose what is best for her. The sanctity of life people believe that killing the unborn is murder.

 

In other words, there are no absolutes when it comes to morals and ethics among an atheistic community. They do not have a set of moral laws upon which they agree. Therefore, social contracts or compacts are desirable to govern with a semblance of peace and order. Legislation is needed in order to prevent chaos within the community. Even a codified set of laws, however, are not absolute, for the legal system of what is right and wrong may change when the majority in society believes something different. Then new laws are made to reflect contemporary attitudes. For instance, in one century abortion is wrong; in another, it is right.

If there is a God, killing the unborn in a Christian society is wrong. If there is no God, then man decides the issue? If killing serves the best interest of society, then it is determined good. This is none other than situational or temporary ethics. It is tentative morality that promotes, “whatever works best at the moment is morally correct.” If humans have the innate ability to determine what is ethically right, then why is the world in such a mess? Defining good by individual atheistic standards is dangerous in that the majority determines what is good at the moment. If a totalitarian political system is established (as we see with Islamic Jihadists), then a mandate to kill dissenters, the mentally and physically handicap, or Christians and Jews become morally feasible. Atheists who may disagree with such a government will nonetheless tacitly join forces to preserve their self-interest because that is what their inner morality tells them to do. Atheistic morality therefore becomes a standard of convenience, of self-preservation and cannot be deemed an absolute.

Although people, including Christians, are inconsistent in applying their value system to life, a world and life view is based on ethics and morals. If morals are relative, then behavior corresponds. Doing that which is right in one’s own eye is quite dangerous, for it is the way of death (Prov. 14:12), not only for the individual, but also for society. Something bigger than the individual has to exist in order to bring order to chaos and judgment to evil. Atheistic thought cannot provide the answer, for there are no absolutes upon which to build consistency and order. Only God who is absolute can provide absolutes—a reality unacceptable to atheists but the hope of all Christians.

The Story of Valentine's Day

Numerous early Christian martyrs were named Valentine, one being Saint Valentine of Rome who was a priest martyred about AD 269 and buried on the Via Flaminia, the Roman road that led to and from Rome over the Apennine Mountains. His relics are said to be at the Church of Saint Praxed in Rome and also at Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin, Ireland—the result of a gift by Pope Gregory XVI.

One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men — his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.

According to one legend, Valentine actually sent the first 'valentine' greeting himself. While in prison, it is believed that Valentine fell in love with a young girl — who may have been his jailor's daughter — who visited him during his confinement. He had healed her of her blindness. Before his death, it is alleged that he wrote her a letter, which he signed 'From your Valentine,' an expression that is still in use today. Although the truth behind the Valentine legend is murky, the stories certainly emphasize his appeal as a sympathetic, heroic, and, most importantly, romantic figure. It's no surprise that by the Middle Ages, Valentine was one of the most popular saints in England and France.

While some believe that Valentine's Day is celebrated in the middle of February to commemorate the anniversary of Valentine's death or burial — which probably occurred around 270 A.D — others claim that the Christian church may have decided to celebrate Valentine's feast day in the middle of February in an effort to 'Christianize' celebrations of the pagan Lupercalia festival. In ancient Rome, February was the official beginning of spring and was considered a time for purification. Houses were ritually cleansed by sweeping them clean, and then salt and a type of wheat called spelt were sprinkled throughout the interior. Lupercalia, which began at the ides of February (i.e. February 15) was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus, the Roman god of agriculture, as well as to the Roman founders Romulus and Remus. To begin the festival, members of the Luperci, an order of Roman priests, would gather at the sacred cave where the infants Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were believed to have been cared for by a she-wolf or lupa. The priests would then sacrifice a goat, for fertility, and a dog, for purification.

Boys then sliced the goat's hide into strips, dipped them in the sacrificial blood and took to the streets, gently slapping both women and fields of crops with goat hide strips. Far from being fearful, Roman women welcomed being touched with the hides because it was believed the strips would make them more fertile in the coming year. Later in the day, according to legend, all the young women in the city would place their names in a big urn. The city's bachelors would then each choose a name out of the urn and become paired for the year with his chosen woman. These matches often ended in marriage. The Roman 'lottery' system for romantic pairing was deemed un-Christian and outlawed by the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Gelasius declared February 14 as St. Valentine's Day around 498 A.D as a feast day in order to superimpose Christianity on a pagan holiday.

Valentine may have been a symbol of love, but no truer love can be found than in the person of Jesus Christ who gave his life for his bride, the Church. This is why he gave his disciples and by extension us a commandment of love.


“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” John 15:12-17