Interview with Dr. David Menton

[Dr. David Menton received a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota (1960-62). He served as associate professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000) and was then appointed as associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000). This year Dr. Menton produced a new DVD series titled The Evolution of Darwin: His Science. We asked Dr. Menton to spend some time with us and share his thoughts on Darwinian evolution given the 150th anniversary of Origin of Species.]

BH: You own a unique copy of an early edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. What does the introduction to that edition reveal?

DM: In the 6th edition of Origin of Species they invited W.R. Thompson to write the introduction. Thompson was one of Canada’s leading biologists. W.R. Thompson warned the publisher that you probably don’t want me to write this introduction because it will not be a hymn to Darwin. They thought, this sounds interesting, so they encouraged him to go ahead and write it. In that introduction he said, “A long enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculations.” That, to me was the biggest hit we took from the whole Darwinian mentality….Darwin speculated without limit. And it’s this limitless speculation that I think W. R. Thompson is talking about. Thompson went on to say, “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel, and the shifty devious histrionic statements of Thomas Huxley.” It’s obvious when one reads Darwin’s writings that his boo
k is little more than story telling.

BH: Having studied Darwin’s book, what problems come to mind to you in regards to his work?

DML One of the major problems is with the title of his book. Most evolutionists will contend that Darwin never dealt with that particular issue—the origin of species. He took a lot of antidotal evidences, things he saw, and merely assumed that they would somehow, in the course of time, be explained by variation and natural selection. But he didn’t really account for it….Also, Darwin could see variation in animals. Now remember this was not speculation or theory, this was his firsthand observation. He saw tremendous variability. And because he knew nothing about genetics, he thought that this variation that he could observe was without limit. So ultimately his observations lead him to the wrong conclusion that variation could change things from say birds to a different type of bird, and then even a different animal altogether.

BH: When you hear individuals celebrating the anniversary of Darwin’s birth or the anniversary of his book Origin of Species what goes through your mind as a scientist and a man who taught medical students for years?

DM: As you know, this is the Year of Darwin. Some evolutionists have said that we’re beating a dead horse—that they have moved on. But in actual fact, things haven’t changed greatly from Darwin’s view of variation, which he couldn’t account for. Why there would be variation. Darwin had no understanding of genetics. Gregory Mendel was a contemporary of Charles Darwin and we should be celebrating Gregory Mendel’s contribution to biology. They were huge compared to Charles Darwin. There is simply no comparison. Can you even imagine modern biology without Mendelian Genetics? But it is quite easy to imagine biology without Darwinian evolution. Indeed, I didn’t use it in my career. It contributed nothing to my understanding of biological systems. It contributed nothing to the lectures I gave to medical students over thirty-four years covering perhaps every organ in the body during that time. It rarely contributed to lectures given by my colleagues to medical students. And it certainly didn’t contribute to my published research.

BH: You have a new DVD titled the Evolution of Darwin. Share some of the icons you dismiss in your presentation.

DM: What I’ve been doing lately in a new talk is going through Darwin’s Origin of Species with his tree of life—which he showed and has become an icon. For instance, if you go to London and visit the Darwin exhibit at the Natural History Museum, they prominently show a page from Darwin’s notebook written in 1837 showing this tree. He did this after returning from a voyage on the Beagle. He was only 28 years old at the time. He showed this misshapen tree with branches going here and there and terminating. He had branches labeled with A, B, C, and D, all coming from a number 1 at the bottom. He had no indication of what that first life form was. He never even attempted to try and understand what it was other than to say that maybe it occurred in some warm little pond. At the top of the tree he wrote, “I think” indicating this was merely a guess.
This was what he proposed. The interesting thing was that his ideas were not widely accepted among the scientific community of his day. They were more readily accepted by laymen. Many scientists of his day wanted to believe what Darwin was speculating about. I think specifically of men like Thomas Huxley, who was a great champion of Darwin even as he did not believe what Darwin said. He couldn’t account for the origin of species. He wasn’t convinced that variation and natural selection could explain it all. But Thomas Huxley, being an atheist, found the materialist explanation very attractive. Never mind that Darwin’s mechanism didn’t actually work in his view. Still, he championed it because it was going in the right direction—getting away from divine intervention. Certainly Darwin moved things away from divine intervention.

BH: Darwin placed a number 1 at the bottom of his evolutionary tree of life. But a survey of his work reveals he had no clue what that number represented.

DM: It’s interesting in talking about that very first origin of life, which Darwin couldn’t account for, in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871 (after The Origin of Species had been published) he noted, “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life. One might as well think of the origin of matter.” Darwin had no idea of that initial origin. It’s interesting that today many evolutionists say the origin of life isn’t even related.

BH: I’ve experienced that personally on several different occasions during my Question & Answer sessions, where evolutionists or atheists try to defend the idea that evolution is not concerned with the origin of matter. They recognize that their theory can’t explain the very existence of matter, and so they try to remove it from the equation.

DM: And yet, their theory does deal with this. After all, they prescribe to the Big Bang, a theory that tries to teach how everything came from nothing. For instance, I was involved in a dispute when I was still in St. Louis with a local school board over the teaching of evolution in a particular community’s high school and what the book said. I happened to comment in passing on how there is no information regarding the origin of life. The biology teacher at this particular high school stood up and said: “This is just a typical tactic from a creationist. They bring up a straw man on the origin of life. We don’t even deal with the origin of life in our biology class at the high school.” That really went over effectively with the audience—as they thought this was really a non-issue. A few days later one of the parents with a student in the class sent me a big fat manila envelope. When I opened it up there was the entire chapter xeroxed from their book regarding the origin of life. This parent wanted me to see that this teacher had been lying through his teeth. It was one of the largest chapters in the biology book that he was using in his class.

BH: Are modern-day scientists any closer to knowing what Darwin’s “number 1” represented?

DM: You know, today if I were to search around and see what the scientific community thinks about the origin of life I don’t think I could do any better than going to someone like Dr. Paul Davies who is at Arizona State University, head of the department of Astrobiology…. Paul Davies, writing in New Scientist, vol 163, p. 2204, September 1999, said, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software. And where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from. Nobody knows.” So we can actually join Charles Darwin today at where he was at the bottom of his evolutionary tree of life with a number 1 that was circled—but no knowledge of what that 1 represented.

[Dr. David Menton received a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota (1960-62). He served as associate professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000) and was then appointed as associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000). This year Dr. Menton produced a new DVD series titled The Evolution of Darwin: His Science. We asked Dr. Menton to spend some time with us and share his thoughts on Darwinian evolution given the 150th anniversary of Origin of Species.]
BH: You own a unique copy of an early edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. What does the introduction to that edition reveal?
DM: In the 6th edition of Origin of Species they invited W.R. Thompson to write the introduction. Thompson was one of Canada’s leading biologists. W.R. Thompson warned the publisher that you probably don’t want me to write this introduction because it will not be a hymn to Darwin. They thought, this sounds interesting, so they encouraged him to go ahead and write it. In that introduction he said, “A long enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin of Species was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculations.” That, to me was the biggest hit we took from the whole Darwinian mentality….Darwin speculated without limit. And it’s this limitless speculation that I think W. R. Thompson is talking about. Thompson went on to say, “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel, and the shifty devious histrionic statements of Thomas Huxley.” It’s obvious when one reads Darwin’s writings that his book is little more than story telling.
BH: Having studied Darwin’s book, what problems come to mind to you in regards to his work?
DML One of the major problems is with the title of his book. Most evolutionists will contend that Darwin never dealt with that particular issue—the origin of species. He took a lot of antidotal evidences, things he saw, and merely assumed that they would somehow, in the course of time, be explained by variation and natural selection. But he didn’t really account for it….Also, Darwin could see variation in animals. Now remember this was not speculation or theory, this was his firsthand observation. He saw tremendous variability. And because he knew nothing about genetics, he thought that this variation that he could observe was without limit. So ultimately his observations lead him to the wrong conclusion that variation could change things from say birds to a different type of bird, and then even a different animal altogether.
BH: When you hear individuals celebrating the anniversary of Darwin’s birth or the anniversary of his book Origin of Species what goes through your mind as a scientist and a man who taught medical students for years?
DM: As you know, this is the Year of Darwin. Some evolutionists have said that we’re beating a dead horse—that they have moved on. But in actual fact, things haven’t changed greatly from Darwin’s view of variation, which he couldn’t account for. Why there would be variation. Darwin had no understanding of genetics. Gregory Mendel was a contemporary of Charles Darwin and we should be celebrating Gregory Mendel’s contribution to biology. They were huge compared to Charles Darwin. There is simply no comparison. Can you even imagine modern biology without Mendelian Genetics? But it is quite easy to imagine biology without Darwinian evolution. Indeed, I didn’t use it in my career. It contributed nothing to my understanding of biological systems. It contributed nothing to the lectures I gave to medical students over thirty-four years covering perhaps every organ in the body during that time. It rarely contributed to lectures given by my colleagues to medical students. And it certainly didn’t contribute to my published research.
BH: You have a new DVD titled the Evolution of Darwin. Share some of the icons you dismiss in your presentation.
DM: What I’ve been doing lately in a new talk is going through Darwin’s Origin of Species with his tree of life—which he showed and has become an icon. For instance, if you go to London and visit the Darwin exhibit at the Natural History Museum, they prominently show a page from Darwin’s notebook written in 1837 showing this tree. He did this after returning from a voyage on the Beagle. He was only 28 years old at the time. He showed this misshapen tree with branches going here and there and terminating. He had branches labeled with A, B, C, and D, all coming from a number 1 at the bottom. He had no indication of what that first life form was. He never even attempted to try and understand what it was other than to say that maybe it occurred in some warm little pond. At the top of the tree he wrote, “I think” indicating this was merely a guess.
This was what he proposed. The interesting thing was that his ideas were not widely accepted among the scientific community of his day. They were more readily accepted by laymen. Many scientists of his day wanted to believe what Darwin was speculating about. I think specifically of men like Thomas Huxley, who was a great champion of Darwin even as he did not believe what Darwin said. He couldn’t account for the origin of species. He wasn’t convinced that variation and natural selection could explain it all. But Thomas Huxley, being an atheist, found the materialist explanation very attractive. Never mind that Darwin’s mechanism didn’t actually work in his view. Still, he championed it because it was going in the right direction—getting away from divine intervention. Certainly Darwin moved things away from divine intervention.
BH: Darwin placed a number 1 at the bottom of his evolutionary tree of life. But a survey of his work reveals he had no clue what that number represented.
DM: It’s interesting in talking about that very first origin of life, which Darwin couldn’t account for, in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871 (after The Origin of Species had been published) he noted, “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life. One might as well think of the origin of matter.” Darwin had no idea of that initial origin. It’s interesting that today many evolutionists say the origin of life isn’t even related.
BH: I’ve experienced that personally on several different occasions during my Question & Answer sessions, where evolutionists or atheists try to defend the idea that evolution is not concerned with the origin of matter. They recognize that their theory can’t explain the very existence of matter, and so they try to remove it from the equation.
DM: And yet, their theory does deal with this. After all, they prescribe to the Big Bang, a theory that tries to teach how everything came from nothing. For instance, I was involved in a dispute when I was still in St. Louis with a local school board over the teaching of evolution in a particular community’s high school and what the book said. I happened to comment in passing on how there is no information regarding the origin of life. The biology teacher at this particular high school stood up and said: “This is just a typical tactic from a creationist. They bring up a straw man on the origin of life. We don’t even deal with the origin of life in our biology class at the high school.” That really went over effectively with the audience—as they thought this was really a non-issue. A few days later one of the parents with a student in the class sent me a big fat manila envelope. When I opened it up there was the entire chapter xeroxed from their book regarding the origin of life. This parent wanted me to see that this teacher had been lying through his teeth. It was one of the largest chapters in the biology book that he was using in his class.
BH: Are modern-day scientists any closer to knowing what Darwin’s “number 1” represented?
DM: You know, today if I were to search around and see what the scientific community thinks about the origin of life I don’t think I could do any better than going to someone like Dr. Paul Davies who is at Arizona State University, head of the department of Astrobiology…. Paul Davies, writing in New Scientist, vol 163, p. 2204, September 1999, said, “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software. And where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from. Nobody knows.” So we can actually join Charles Darwin today at where he was at the bottom of his evolutionary tree of life with a number 1 that was circled—but no knowledge of what that 1 represented.
Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Interview with Dr. David Menton

What could the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) mean to your family?

The Governmental Potter

“Children are the world’s most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.” John F. Kennedy penned these words of truth, and they serve as a vivid reminder of the importance of our children. Paul, through inspiration, admonished the fathers in Ephesus bring their children “up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4). The Bible is replete with both commands and examples of the parental responsibility of rearing children to fear God and keep His commandments. Indeed, children are unmolded clay that will forge future governments, businesses, and the church. However, if many politicians have their way, the molding process for those children is about to be transformed and placed squarely into the hands of the government.

A piece of legislation is quietly resurfacing in the United States that Christians need to familiarize themselves with. All countries except two (the United States and Somalia) have adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As such, America is under heavy pressure to adopt this treaty and join the other nations that have signed on. While this basics of this treaty sound appealing—protecting children from various types of abuse and neglect—the truth reveals that veiled under legal jargon is the undoing of the American family home. This treaty places strips away parents’ rights and elevates children’s rights, allowing the United Nations to dictate how American children are brought up.

A quick history lesson

From the beginning of our country’s inception there has never been a question as to parents possessing the right to raise their children. Parental rights were so fundamental and basic that not much thought was ever given to laws declaring the parents’ rights. Even though parental rights are not specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution or the amendments, there have been several court opinions that make it clear that the state does not control the upbringing of children. For instance, eighty years ago the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). More recently the Court upheld this line of reasoning with the declaration that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established It was unspoken that parental rights were a part of the fundamental foundation of our nation’s heritage.

Change is in the wind

Those rights are in real danger of being completely stripped away. Because of the UNCRC status as a “treaty,” the U.S. Constitution mandates that it is supreme to any state laws regarding children and parents. Thus this treaty would supersede any state law. And sadly, this treaty has the support of many Washington politicians.  For instance, President Obama supports the UNCRC, as does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In fact, Clinton has been promoting this treaty for over twenty years. One of the most liberal senators in office, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress. So exactly what changes do these politicians want to bring to the American family? Carefully consider what the UNCRC proposes:

  • Good parents would no longer be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children. Instead, the government would have the authority to overrule all parents on any decision concerning the child if the government believed it could make a better decision.
  • Parents could no longer spank their children—even in the home.
  • Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Christian schools that refuse to teach “alternative worldviews” and teach that Christianity is the only true religion “fly in the face of article 29” of the treaty.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the UNCRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
  • A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs because it states the nation cannot spend more on defense than on children’s welfare.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

(Adapted from “20 Things You Need to Know About the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” )

An Experiment Gone Bad

Several years ago, Washington State tried to adopt an UNCRC-type policy for their state. The result was a legal nightmare for both parents and children. As evidence, consider the following two cases that occurred as a result of the law as reported by Michael Farris on www.parentalrights.org:

Case #1 A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

Case #2 In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was “conflict between parent and child.” Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

In an interview years later, Shelia stated that what the court should have done was rebuke her and send her back to her parents. By breaching the door open into our homes, the courts have allowed more and more judges to deny the role of parents, opting instead for governmental intervention for the family. If the UNCRC passed it would give Congress the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. The family home would become a ward of the federal government. It would also set precedent and become the largest shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

“What Can We Do About it?”

One of the questions I’m asked most frequently by Christians is this: “What can we do about it?” That’s a valid question, and one that needs to be addressed whenever problems are presented. The three things I would strongly urge Christians to consider are: (1) contact your state representatives and let them know you don’t want them supporting this treaty; (2) visit www.parentalrights.org and read the information they have on creating an amendment to protect children by empowering parents through the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (While I’m not one who favors adding lots of amendments to our Constitution, I think this one is now necessary); and (3) help get the word out. Isn’t it time Christians stand up and protect our most valuable resource?

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What could the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) mean to your family?

What’s that On Your Shelf?

The weather was hot, but the tennis match was just what he needed. Out on the court, Daniel was able to pound away some of the nagging stress of life, and simply focus on exercising, competing, and having fun with Tyler, his friend and brother in Christ. It was Tyler’s turn to provide the snacks and drinks, so they left the park and headed to his house. Tyler was a deacon at their congregation, and Daniel often looked up to him for his wisdom and godly example. In fact, Tyler was chiefly responsible for getting Daniel to go on his first mission trip overseas. He was a person that many in the congregation loved and respected.

When they walked into Tyler’s home, Daniel immediately began to admire the family portraits that graced the walls of Tyler’s home. As they walked into the kitchen, Tyler opened the refrigerator and asked Daniel, “What will it be?” Staring back at him from the soft glow of the refrigerator light were three brands of soft drinks, a couple of sports drinks, four bottles of water, and two different types of beer. Daniel quickly chose a sports drink, but his head was still reeling from the sight of the beer bottles.

As he took a seat on the sofa, his impression of Tyler continued to spiral down. He began to see things that he had previously overlooked. A quick glance at Tyler’s DVD collection revealed that he had no problem at all watching R and NC-17-rated movies that contained immoral behavior laced with hundreds of curse words. The magazines and books that adorned his shelves were questionable at best. As he panned around the room, he noticed the pictures he formerly admired also contained images of Tyler’s daughters in bikinis at public beaches, and dressed up for prom night. In a span of three minutes, all of the positive influence Tyler had ever had on Daniel was lost.

Like it or not, we are all on a “dual” sliding scale when it comes to influence. One slide varies according to the influence we have on others around us (e.g., Tyler), that can affect them for good or bad. The other sliding bar represents the influence the world has on us, that can affect our own spiritual lives for good or bad. As Christians, we must strive to minimize the world’s influence, all the while influencing others for good.

Our Influence On Others

I have listened, on several occasions, as Christians have used mental and spiritual gymnastics to try and justify or legitimize certain questionable behaviors. The foundation of their arguments is always the same: “The Bible doesn’t say we can’t.” And with this simple wave of their cerebral magic wands, they embrace behaviors such as social drinking. While they don’t feel their behaviors violate Scripture, they have forgotten the impact of their influence on others.

Before we get mired down in a debate on what behaviors and activities are “acceptable” or “allowed,” there is a trump card that resolves the issues—our Christian influence on those around us. Since we do not live in a vacuum or alone on an island, our actions and choices influence someone, even if it is just a cashier at the local grocery store. That cashier has a soul, and will one day stand at the judgment seat of God. As followers of Christ, what influence do we each have on that person?

No matter what behaviors one condemns or condones, he cannot separate himself from his influence. Our actions and influence are married together. We are called to be lights to the world (Matthew 5:13-16), following Christ’s example (1 Peter 2:21-22). As we examine our hearts, we need to ask: What is more important, justifying a questionable behavior or remaining a light to the world and guarding our influence on others?

Have you ever stopped to consider how your daily actions impact the lives of others? Even mundane things like running errands. Are we conducting ourselves in such a way that we become a stumbling block for others? Some of the chief complaints against Christianity are hypocrisy and poor attitudes. While I don’t believe anyone should allow others to affect their own relationship with God (or use the excuse of hypocrisy as a crutch), I do recognize the behavior of others can, and does, have an impact. Paul wrote, “So then, each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way” (Romans 14:12-13, emp. added).

Our influence is not just limited to certain actions; it is also linked to our attitudes and dispositions. I have been in Atlanta’s airport and watched individuals wearing “mission” t-shirts, on their way to teach Bible in third world countries, scream and yell at airline workers when flights were delayed. I have been in worship services where frown-wearing Christians looked as though it truly pained them to be in attendance. Or how about when depressed–looking Christians sing “…When we all get to heaven. What a day of rejoicing that will be.”

How powerful and important is our own personal influence? Consider Peter’s admonition to women whose husbands are not Christians. “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives” (1 Peter 3:1, emp. added). Is our conduct winning souls for Christ, or are we simply blending into the world—appearing as worldly individuals, like we were before we were baptized?

When we put on Christ in baptism, we need to remember that we put away the old man (Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:9-11). We are no longer living for self, but rather for Him. We are no longer running with the same crowd. Peter reminded those who had left their former ways: “For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you” (1 Peter 4:3-4 emp. added).

Never forget that long after you take your last breath, your influence will live on.  The influence Tyler had in Daniel’s life took a major negative turn—one that would not soon be forgotten. In Revelation 14:13 we learn that our works follow us after death. In Hebrews 11:4 we learn that Abel “being dead still speaks.” His influence, and the influences of other godly individuals like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and others have been recorded in that great “Hall of Faith” listed in Hebrews 11. How will your influence affect others after you are gone?

Others Influence on Us

Volumes have been written on the dangers of influence from society, as our nation continues its downward slide toward hedonism and immorality. Just a few months ago, we featured an issue of Think on “Influences of the Media,” pointing out some of the dangers for which young and old alike must be on the lookout. Even though forms of media and trends have changed, the Truth found in God’s Word has not.  In 1 John 2:15-16 we read, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world”

We also must look at the influence of the individuals with whom we, and our children, associate. How much time do you spend getting to know your children’s friends? Sadly, it is often only after-the-fact that parents recognize that their children’s journey towards apostasy began when they were hanging around certain wayward individuals. Paul’s words to Christians in Corinth still ring true, “Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33). I suspect every congregation holds some gray-headed parents who wish they had given more heed to this verse when their own children were young. Do you really know your children’s friends?

Parents, teachers, preachers, and elders also need to give strong consideration to the amount and the content of what young and old alike are consuming from the media. Do we give thought to the lyrics of the songs to which our children are listening? When is the last time you changed the television channel because the show your children or grandchildren were watching was not one of which God would approve? Or what about the Web pages that are viewed at your home or office? In commenting on the profuse influence of humanism within our society, Tim LeHaye observed in his book, The Battle for the Mind, “Our present society is in a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Americans love degeneracy, but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the influence of the church” (1980, p. 189). Could this not also be said for the influence of atheism, materialism, liberalism, evolution, and hedonism?

What about your own influence? What can you personally do to ensure that your influence doesn’t negatively impact others? When you go to the voting booth, how will your influence affect our nation? Is your influence shaped and molded by the world, or are you doing all you can to shape and mold the world for Him?

The weather was hot, but the tennis match was just what he needed. Out on the court, Daniel was able to pound away some of the nagging stress of life, and simply focus on exercising, competing, and having fun with Tyler, his friend and brother in Christ. It was Tyler’s turn to provide the snacks and drinks, so they left the park and headed to his house. Tyler was a deacon at their congregation, and Daniel often looked up to him for his wisdom and godly example. In fact, Tyler was chiefly responsible for getting Daniel to go on his first mission trip overseas. He was a person that many in the congregation loved and respected.

When they walked into Tyler’s home, Daniel immediately began to admire the family portraits that graced the walls of Tyler’s home. As they walked into the kitchen, Tyler opened the refrigerator and asked Daniel, “What will it be?” Staring back at him from the soft glow of the refrigerator light were three brands of soft drinks, a couple of sports drinks, four bottles of water, and two different types of beer. Daniel quickly chose a sports drink, but his head was still reeling from the sight of the beer bottles.

As he took a seat on the sofa, his impression of Tyler continued to spiral down. He began to see things that he had previously overlooked. A quick glance at Tyler’s DVD collection revealed that he had no problem at all watching R and NC-17-rated movies that contained immoral behavior laced with hundreds of curse words. The magazines and books that adorned his shelves were questionable at best. As he panned around the room, he noticed the pictures he formerly admired also contained images of Tyler’s daughters in bikinis at public beaches, and dressed up for prom night. In a span of three minutes, all of the positive influence Tyler had ever had on Daniel was lost.

Like it or not, we are all on a “dual” sliding scale when it comes to influence. One slide varies according to the influence we have on others around us (e.g., Tyler), that can affect them for good or bad. The other sliding bar represents the influence the world has on us, that can affect our own spiritual lives for good or bad. As Christians, we must strive to minimize the world’s influence, all the while influencing others for good.

Our Influence On Others

I have listened, on several occasions, as Christians have used mental and spiritual gymnastics to try and justify or legitimize certain questionable behaviors. The foundation of their arguments is always the same: “The Bible doesn’t say we can’t.” And with this simple wave of their cerebral magic wands, they embrace behaviors such as social drinking. While they don’t feel their behaviors violate Scripture, they have forgotten the impact of their influence on others.

Before we get mired down in a debate on what behaviors and activities are “acceptable” or “allowed,” there is a trump card that resolves the issues—our Christian influence on those around us. Since we do not live in a vacuum or alone on an island, our actions and choices influence someone, even if it is just a cashier at the local grocery store. That cashier has a soul, and will one day stand at the judgment seat of God. As followers of Christ, what influence do we each have on that person?

No matter what behaviors one condemns or condones, he cannot separate himself from his influence. Our actions and influence are married together. We are called to be lights to the world (Matthew 5:13-16), following Christ’s example (1 Peter 2:21-22). As we examine our hearts, we need to ask: What is more important, justifying a questionable behavior or remaining a light to the world and guarding our influence on others?

Have you ever stopped to consider how your daily actions impact the lives of others? Even mundane things like running errands. Are we conducting ourselves in such a way that we become a stumbling block for others? Some of the chief complaints against Christianity are hypocrisy and poor attitudes. While I don’t believe anyone should allow others to affect their own relationship with God (or use the excuse of hypocrisy as a crutch), I do recognize the behavior of others can, and does, have an impact. Paul wrote, “So then, each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way” (Romans 14:12-13, emp. added).

Our influence is not just limited to certain actions; it is also linked to our attitudes and dispositions. I have been in Atlanta’s airport and watched individuals wearing “mission” t-shirts, on their way to teach Bible in third world countries, scream and yell at airline workers when flights were delayed. I have been in worship services where frown-wearing Christians looked as though it truly pained them to be in attendance. Or how about when depressed–looking Christians sing “…When we all get to heaven. What a day of rejoicing that will be.”

How powerful and important is our own personal influence? Consider Peter’s admonition to women whose husbands are not Christians. “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives” (1 Peter 3:1, emp. added). Is our conduct winning souls for Christ, or are we simply blending into the world—appearing as worldly individuals, like we were before we were baptized?

When we put on Christ in baptism, we need to remember that we put away the old man (Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:9-11). We are no longer living for self, but rather for Him. We are no longer running with the same crowd. Peter reminded those who had left their former ways: “For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you” (1 Peter 4:3-4 emp. added).

Never forget that long after you take your last breath, your influence will live on. The influence Tyler had in Daniel’s life took a major negative turn—one that would not soon be forgotten. In Revelation 14:13 we learn that our works follow us after death. In Hebrews 11:4 we learn that Abel “being dead still speaks.” His influence, and the influences of other godly individuals like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, and others have been recorded in that great “Hall of Faith” listed in Hebrews 11. How will your influence affect others after you are gone?

Others Influence on Us

Volumes have been written on the dangers of influence from society, as our nation continues its downward slide toward hedonism and immorality. Just a few months ago, we featured an issue of Think on “Influences of the Media,” pointing out some of the dangers for which young and old alike must be on the lookout. Even though forms of media and trends have changed, the Truth found in God’s Word has not. In 1 John 2:15-16 we read, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world”

We also must look at the influence of the individuals with whom we, and our children, associate. How much time do you spend getting to know your children’s friends? Sadly, it is often only after-the-fact that parents recognize that their children’s journey towards apostasy began when they were hanging around certain wayward individuals. Paul’s words to Christians in Corinth still ring true, “Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33). I suspect every congregation holds some gray-headed parents who wish they had given more heed to this verse when their own children were young. Do you really know your children’s friends?

Parents, teachers, preachers, and elders also need to give strong consideration to the amount and the content of what young and old alike are consuming from the media. Do we give thought to the lyrics of the songs to which our children are listening? When is the last time you changed the television channel because the show your children or grandchildren were watching was not one of which God would approve? Or what about the Web pages that are viewed at your home or office? In commenting on the profuse influence of humanism within our society, Tim LeHaye observed in his book, The Battle for the Mind, “Our present society is in a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Americans love degeneracy, but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the influence of the church” (1980, p. 189). Could this not also be said for the influence of atheism, materialism, liberalism, evolution, and hedonism?

What about your own influence? What can you personally do to ensure that your influence doesn’t negatively impact others? When you go to the voting booth, how will your influence affect our nation? Is your influence shaped and molded by the world, or are you doing all you can to shape and mold the world for Him?

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What’s that On Your Shelf?

An Example of Courage in Standing for the Right

The Palm Beach Post reported that the winner of the December five-kilometer race was Sonja Firend-Uhl, “who was six months pregnant with her unborn child.” This prompted a letter to the editor, which is, in part, reproduced below.

“The paper often refers to the unborn as if they were live people. Speaking biologically or physiologically, they are not live humans. We hope they will be born and born alive, but that’s in the future. For now, it is a fetus and two are fetuses. This usage ought not to discomfit those whose religion believes something else; I think even Catholics/Orthodox Jews would not deny the use of  ‘fetus.’

“I am not trying to start a religious contretemps but there are two sides to that issue also. Calling a fetus a girl is offensive to many people. Science will inform us that a female fetus is just that, a fetus. It becomes a girl only at birth.

“Can we please try to get a better grip on this slippery slope and be more watchful how we use these words? In some cases, perhaps we don’t have to go there. The woman was pregnant and she ran a race. Do we need to know any more details?”  Signed/Naomi Baxter

What’s a Christian to do when they read such foolishness? Look at the response of one reader in Sunday’s paper who objected and then gave the following reasons.

“Several years ago, I was pregnant with an ‘unborn boy’ for eight months, when he died. He is buried in Hillcrest Cemetery with the marker, ‘Baby Boy Haines,’ and I still grieve for him.

“Even though he did not live until he was born, I find it repulsive to refer to him as just a fetus. He lived inside me and was a living being for eight months. Yes, I am a Christian, I believe in God, and I believe the Bible is God’s word to guide us. In Luke the second chapter, Elizabeth was six months pregnant with John the Baptist, and in verse 41 it says that the ‘baby’ (not fetus) leaped in her womb. This is only one example among many that states this.

“The letter-writer says that your paper often refers to the unborn as if they were live people. I believe they are. She says calling a fetus a girl is offensive to many people. It is offensive to me, and I suppose many others, to call my baby a fetus. He was my son. And if the Bible calls it a baby, who are we to disagree with God?” Signed/June (Haines) Pack. Thank you, June, for silencing such drivel!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on An Example of Courage in Standing for the Right

Bride and Groom Seperation of March 1

They were so much in love on their wedding day. There was no question about how much he loved her, and she vowed her unending love to him. It was one of those perfect days which no one could ever forget. But so much has happened and now it looks like there may be a separation in the next few days.

They had so much in common in the beginning. They shared the same goals and they rejoiced as they saw their dreams become a reality. They worked side by side and accomplished so much. It just doesn’t seem to be that way anymore.

The reality is that the fault lies entirely with the bride. In most relationships there are problems and the blame can be shared, but such is not true in this situation. She changed and he has made every effort to help, but it is all to no avail. It’s not that he would not restore the relationship—he still longs for that which once existed—but she simply is not willing.

She has other interests. She had time for him in the past, but now spends less and less time with him. Those things they once did together are now a thing of the past. She’s just too occupied for him.

There was one week each year they spent together that brought them so much joy. It was the highlight of the year for both of them. They made plans and committed to each other to make that week the most special time in their relationship. They made time for each other and nothing was more important than this week together. It was the time for the achievement of their greatest goal and brought them their greatest joy.

It doesn’t have be this way. If the bride would only remember the vow she made (he has never forgotten his, and determine she would change, it would be just like it used to be. No held grudges, no bad memories, just that perfect relationship they once shared. However, it is up to her. She holds the future in her hands.

That special week begins on March 1, and it will be immediately obvious where her love, devotion and commitment are. If you want to know what is so important about the week beginning on March 1, just check the front page of this bulletin. If you want to know the identity of the bride, just look in the mirror. It is not a great mystery, but “I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32). Let’s work to make that week as special to us as it is to Him. Let’s share His dream with Him! The future is in our hands!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bride and Groom Seperation of March 1