One of my favorite economics journalists is Robert Samuelson. Early this week he wrote about the crisis in Greece as the first of many days of reckoning for all the welfare states of the world. Samuelson included the U.S. on the list of nations facing a serious debt crisis as a result of unfunded entitlements. He sees the problem as primarily an issue of demographics; too much being promised to an aging population or to public service employees or to some other needy group than can be paid for by a shrinking body of tax payers. Our problem is that this shrinking source of revenue means we are financing these entitlements through debt, and it is the debt that will bring us to the day of reckoning. We may claim that we are only taxing the "rich" but this strategy guarantees either that we will have less "rich" to tax (either through tax havens or through reduced activity) or a reduction in GDP growth and overall prosperity as taxes pay for entitlements rather than remaining in the economy for investment and growth.
What has made the problem virtually unsolveable is the fact that the dependency created by the entitlements makes it impossible to ever reduce much less eliminate them. Once a group within society is granted an entitlement, that group becomes a powerful constituency that prevents any reduction. The senior citizen lobby is a perfect example, making social security a "third rail."
It is this constituency/dependency problem that should make us very cautious about expanding entitlements. As we watch the chaos in Greece (and coming soon to California and New York), it should cause us to think twice about moving 1/6th of our economy on the path toward becoming an entitlement. We can argue all we like about the merits of comprehensive health care coverage, but if we don't think carefully about how this will contribute to both our entitlement obligations and long term debt we are fools of the first order.
It is because of this stark reality that the American people should have paid close attention to the statements of Rep. Paul Ryan at the health care summit on Thursday. He was the voice both of economic reason and long term realism in pointing out not only how expensive the bill will actually be, but also how much it will contribute to the deficit. And the problem isn't just an additional entitlement, it is how it will exacerbate the problem with the already bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid.
The one ray of hope in the economic crisis in Greece, California, and New York is that it will force the American people to demand of their politicians the kind of difficult choices required for entitlement reform and debt reduction. I actually think we are closer than we were even a year ago to having a serious discussion about long term debt. If we do have this discussion, we can thank two groups: the Tea Partiers and the Greek rioters.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Thinking Long Term
Having just finished reading Justice Robert Bork's critque of modern culture, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, I was reminded of the long term danger we face as a nation. We are literally heading toward a moral and spiritual black hole.
While we still use the term "truth," we, for all intents and purposes, have rejected its actual existence. If "truth" is relative or culturally constructed then we can claim that all sorts of things are true when they aren't and conversely claim that historically accepted truths are actually false. In either case, declaring the false true or denying historic truths, we are left with nothing that is authentically true. We have rejected what our forefathers knew to be true to replace it with the byproducts of unproven ideologies. It really is no wonder that ours is an age of growing dysfunction or that so many young people define themselves by their maladies.
Here's the problem. Truth matters, we deny it or delude ourselves about it to our peril. It matters because there are real consequences connected to our behaviors whether permitted or forbidden. We have already proven that being raised in a single family home is the largest factor behind juvenile crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and failure in school. In other words, we reject the traditional view of marriage at great risk to children and society not to mention the adults in the relationships.
We could multiply this instance by the many other assumptions in play today about men, women, morality, religion, or economics that are based upon a rejection of tradition and the acceptance of some form of modern ideology. We will pay a very high price for this exercise in social experimentation.
My fear is localized on our college campuses. So many of the departments and courses in our colleges and universities are driven by ideology and the assumptions of postmodern thought. Twenty years from now, we will see the consequences of this anti-education that has passed for education, and bemoan our foolishness. We actually are already seeing some of the early consequences of the emphasis on feminist ideology with the reduction in male graduation rates and reduced number of males entering college. This is not just an abstract sociological statistic, it will have terrible repurcusions for a society with a large number of dysfunctional men.
It is our universities that produce our public school teachers, and thus it dramatically impacts K-12 education in America. When you couple the influence of the schools with the influence of popular culture (movies, music, video games, etc.) you have a dangerous mix moving us away from the values and traditions of our forefathers and into the uncharted territory of ideologically driven assumptions. We will not like the place this journey takes us.
While we still use the term "truth," we, for all intents and purposes, have rejected its actual existence. If "truth" is relative or culturally constructed then we can claim that all sorts of things are true when they aren't and conversely claim that historically accepted truths are actually false. In either case, declaring the false true or denying historic truths, we are left with nothing that is authentically true. We have rejected what our forefathers knew to be true to replace it with the byproducts of unproven ideologies. It really is no wonder that ours is an age of growing dysfunction or that so many young people define themselves by their maladies.
Here's the problem. Truth matters, we deny it or delude ourselves about it to our peril. It matters because there are real consequences connected to our behaviors whether permitted or forbidden. We have already proven that being raised in a single family home is the largest factor behind juvenile crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and failure in school. In other words, we reject the traditional view of marriage at great risk to children and society not to mention the adults in the relationships.
We could multiply this instance by the many other assumptions in play today about men, women, morality, religion, or economics that are based upon a rejection of tradition and the acceptance of some form of modern ideology. We will pay a very high price for this exercise in social experimentation.
My fear is localized on our college campuses. So many of the departments and courses in our colleges and universities are driven by ideology and the assumptions of postmodern thought. Twenty years from now, we will see the consequences of this anti-education that has passed for education, and bemoan our foolishness. We actually are already seeing some of the early consequences of the emphasis on feminist ideology with the reduction in male graduation rates and reduced number of males entering college. This is not just an abstract sociological statistic, it will have terrible repurcusions for a society with a large number of dysfunctional men.
It is our universities that produce our public school teachers, and thus it dramatically impacts K-12 education in America. When you couple the influence of the schools with the influence of popular culture (movies, music, video games, etc.) you have a dangerous mix moving us away from the values and traditions of our forefathers and into the uncharted territory of ideologically driven assumptions. We will not like the place this journey takes us.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Our Generational Problem
Some years ago I spent a day at a family gathering of a large Roman Catholic family. The parents appeared to be practicing their faith. Their adult children, however, were involved in practices and lifestyles that contradicted their parent's values. Two were living with a boy friend or girl friend without being married, one of the women had an abortion, and none were following their parent's faith. As I reflected on this I marveled at the fact that the values of these parents had not been transmitted to their children. Why?
All I could come up with were speculations and suppositions. After all, I only had a superficial knowledge of that family, but it was a marked contrast with my parent's generation, whose personal values (and life choices) had been profoundly shaped by their parent's values. My mother raised her children based on what she learned from her parents and grandparents. My Dad's work ethic and commitment to personal integrity were instilled by his parents and his aunts and uncles. And both of their religious beliefs had been influenced by their parents. So why was the transmission of values from parents to children missing in the present generation when it had been accomplished in the previous generation?
In trying to answer that question, I set out some possibilities based on observations of modern culture. First, parents are no longer the primary shapers of their children's character. With both parents having to work to make ends meet, children spending many more hours per week with peers than with parents, and with the powerful influence of music, television, and the internet (not to mention video games), it is no wonder that parents have less influence in their chidren's lives.
Second, since the 1960's we have engaged in the wholesale rejection of traditional values; the values of those parents. In particular, many of the elements of the youth culture go out of their way to mock and ridicule the values of their parent's generation. Movies, lyrics, television, and advertising contain large amounts of sexual inuendo, gratuitous violence, and boorish behavior. The internet has only increased this process of degeneration, with shock videos, access to pornography, and lots of anti-religion, anti-traditional values sites. For too many kids today, their parents don't stand a chance against the influence of their peers.
What can we say in the face of this discouraging picture? Are there any contrary voices speaking into our children's lives? The public schools try, but are no match for the peer pressure students face every day. Athletics certainly develop character, but only a relatively small percentage of young people are involved. Yet, while athletics teach personal discipline and teamwork, it doesn't touch many of the important issues of personal morality.
Far and away the greatest ally parents have is the church. Youth groups, summer camps, and missions trips are some of the powerful tools available to shape young lives. We need to continue to support and pray for our youth pastors and the various youth ministries in and outside of our churches. Many of these ministries not only help the children (and families) of their church, they end up touching the lives of non-believing neighbors. Many stories are told of a young person invited to a youth group who becomes a Christian and is instrumental in enabling his or her entire family finding the Lord.
In this dark age, we really are the light of the world. So let that light shine.
All I could come up with were speculations and suppositions. After all, I only had a superficial knowledge of that family, but it was a marked contrast with my parent's generation, whose personal values (and life choices) had been profoundly shaped by their parent's values. My mother raised her children based on what she learned from her parents and grandparents. My Dad's work ethic and commitment to personal integrity were instilled by his parents and his aunts and uncles. And both of their religious beliefs had been influenced by their parents. So why was the transmission of values from parents to children missing in the present generation when it had been accomplished in the previous generation?
In trying to answer that question, I set out some possibilities based on observations of modern culture. First, parents are no longer the primary shapers of their children's character. With both parents having to work to make ends meet, children spending many more hours per week with peers than with parents, and with the powerful influence of music, television, and the internet (not to mention video games), it is no wonder that parents have less influence in their chidren's lives.
Second, since the 1960's we have engaged in the wholesale rejection of traditional values; the values of those parents. In particular, many of the elements of the youth culture go out of their way to mock and ridicule the values of their parent's generation. Movies, lyrics, television, and advertising contain large amounts of sexual inuendo, gratuitous violence, and boorish behavior. The internet has only increased this process of degeneration, with shock videos, access to pornography, and lots of anti-religion, anti-traditional values sites. For too many kids today, their parents don't stand a chance against the influence of their peers.
What can we say in the face of this discouraging picture? Are there any contrary voices speaking into our children's lives? The public schools try, but are no match for the peer pressure students face every day. Athletics certainly develop character, but only a relatively small percentage of young people are involved. Yet, while athletics teach personal discipline and teamwork, it doesn't touch many of the important issues of personal morality.
Far and away the greatest ally parents have is the church. Youth groups, summer camps, and missions trips are some of the powerful tools available to shape young lives. We need to continue to support and pray for our youth pastors and the various youth ministries in and outside of our churches. Many of these ministries not only help the children (and families) of their church, they end up touching the lives of non-believing neighbors. Many stories are told of a young person invited to a youth group who becomes a Christian and is instrumental in enabling his or her entire family finding the Lord.
In this dark age, we really are the light of the world. So let that light shine.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Postmodern Climate Change
The present controversy surrounding the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia causes me to wonder about the present status of academia. I can say without hesitation that the liberal arts departments of our universities have been taken over by postmodern philosophy. Postmodernism is built upon a radical view of relativism that not only denies absolute truth, but takes the cynical view that "truth" is determined by the people in power as a means of re-inforcing their power. The postmodern technique of "deconstructing" truth is the process of disclosing the winners and losers in the culture. For example, the postmodern view is that Western culture is the product of white heterosexual males who have, by their beliefs and values, marginalized non-whites, females, and non-heterosexuals. Since in the postmodern view truth is all about power, e.g. the winners write history, then it is appropriate for the marginalized to seek political power in order to advance their agenda. Political correctness in our colleges and universities is not about "truth" it is rather the pursuit of justice for an oppressed class.
As a result our universities are filled with courses and departments oriented toward these marginalized groups, whether it be feminist studies, African-American studies, or GBLT studies. The consequence of postmodern thought is that these departments "advocate" for their group, and if truth is relative they feel justified in taking a political rather than an objectively neutral approach to their subject. Because of this lack of objectivity and outright advocacy, postmodernism has dramatically changed the environment of post-secondary education in America.
There are two academic disciplines that must never be subjected to postmodern thought: law and science. These two areas of thought and life are too important to the health and future of our society to be subjected to the radical relativism and political correctness of postmodernism. Sadly, both seem to be effected. In law, we saw "empathy" become the test for a proper leagal decision. Empathy, which implies a postmodern view of class or race, undermines the objectivity of the law and leaves us with a politcally correct leagal system. Now, in this global warming scandal, we see scientists playing fast and loose with data in an attempt to attain a politically correct goal. The approach of these scientists appears to be to defend a pre-ordained conclusion and the political approaches to solving the "problem." My fear is that with environmentalism being a cause celeb for the intellectuals of the West, scientists have allowed their commitment to the scientific method to be subverted by their politics. I hope I am wrong, but I also fear that I am not.
As a result our universities are filled with courses and departments oriented toward these marginalized groups, whether it be feminist studies, African-American studies, or GBLT studies. The consequence of postmodern thought is that these departments "advocate" for their group, and if truth is relative they feel justified in taking a political rather than an objectively neutral approach to their subject. Because of this lack of objectivity and outright advocacy, postmodernism has dramatically changed the environment of post-secondary education in America.
There are two academic disciplines that must never be subjected to postmodern thought: law and science. These two areas of thought and life are too important to the health and future of our society to be subjected to the radical relativism and political correctness of postmodernism. Sadly, both seem to be effected. In law, we saw "empathy" become the test for a proper leagal decision. Empathy, which implies a postmodern view of class or race, undermines the objectivity of the law and leaves us with a politcally correct leagal system. Now, in this global warming scandal, we see scientists playing fast and loose with data in an attempt to attain a politically correct goal. The approach of these scientists appears to be to defend a pre-ordained conclusion and the political approaches to solving the "problem." My fear is that with environmentalism being a cause celeb for the intellectuals of the West, scientists have allowed their commitment to the scientific method to be subverted by their politics. I hope I am wrong, but I also fear that I am not.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Is the Battle Actually Between Science & Religion?
I am working my way through the companion book to the PBS special, "A Glorious Accident." In the documentary, several important intellectuals discuss the development of human consciousness and the mind/brain question. The title of the program comes from a quote by Stephen J. Gould who describes the development of consciousness as, "a glorious accident." Dr. Gould was reflecting a shift in the way that evolution was conceived by many of today's scientists. Previous generations of evolutionists believed natural selection drove the increase of complexity in the progress of organic life from simple organisms to human beings. It was the observed complexity of the biological world that needed a serious explanation, and evolution provided a naturalistic explanation. The idea that evolution was a progressive force was central to the doctrine. Dr. Gould, in rejecting the inevitability of progress, is embarking on a major departure from this view. Logic told him the development of human consciousness was a stroke of pure luck. He said, "No species now alive is predictable, and any species that exists does so by the merest good fortune of tens of thousands of antecedent events that went one way and not the other" (A Glorious Accident, p. 92).
It is not that Dr. Gould was rejecting evolution or natural selection, rather he was affirming that nothing in evolution was predictable or inevitable. It was all just one great big accident. (Actually it was trillions of accidents, many of which would require several integrated steps and parts. It boggles the mind to think that "luck" could have operated so many times in nature.) Dr. Gould was part of an attempt to redefine evolution in the light of several serious problems such as the scarcity of transition forms, the proven stability of species, and the lack of experiemental evidence for gradualism. The new explanation was called "punctuated equilibrium." It attempted to say that species are normally resistant to genetic change until subject of dramatic stress. For example, it was a gigantic meteor strike that changed the earth atmosphere, caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and produced dramatic evloutionary change in the birds and mammals. In explaining his theory, Dr. Gould said that evolution was not a straight line gradually inclined upward, but rather a line shaped like a set of stair steps.
These questions are not as much scientific as they are logical since the lack of direct scientific evidence has led to the need for a reformulation of the theory grounded in the use of logic to find a more reasonable explanation. It seems to me that this is the crux of the entire controversy. Since there is no direct evidence of evolution, either by being able to re-create it in the laboratory, of by direct observation of evolution in nature. The questions are not really matters of "science" but of logic. So the matter revolves around which of all the explanations for life on earth makes the most sense. When one thinks of the astounding complexity of life, from spiders weaving webs, to bats flying by sonar, not to mention all that is involved in digesting ice cream, the most logically satisfying answer is the Grand Designer God whose handiwork is seen in all that He has made.
It is not that Dr. Gould was rejecting evolution or natural selection, rather he was affirming that nothing in evolution was predictable or inevitable. It was all just one great big accident. (Actually it was trillions of accidents, many of which would require several integrated steps and parts. It boggles the mind to think that "luck" could have operated so many times in nature.) Dr. Gould was part of an attempt to redefine evolution in the light of several serious problems such as the scarcity of transition forms, the proven stability of species, and the lack of experiemental evidence for gradualism. The new explanation was called "punctuated equilibrium." It attempted to say that species are normally resistant to genetic change until subject of dramatic stress. For example, it was a gigantic meteor strike that changed the earth atmosphere, caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and produced dramatic evloutionary change in the birds and mammals. In explaining his theory, Dr. Gould said that evolution was not a straight line gradually inclined upward, but rather a line shaped like a set of stair steps.
These questions are not as much scientific as they are logical since the lack of direct scientific evidence has led to the need for a reformulation of the theory grounded in the use of logic to find a more reasonable explanation. It seems to me that this is the crux of the entire controversy. Since there is no direct evidence of evolution, either by being able to re-create it in the laboratory, of by direct observation of evolution in nature. The questions are not really matters of "science" but of logic. So the matter revolves around which of all the explanations for life on earth makes the most sense. When one thinks of the astounding complexity of life, from spiders weaving webs, to bats flying by sonar, not to mention all that is involved in digesting ice cream, the most logically satisfying answer is the Grand Designer God whose handiwork is seen in all that He has made.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
God Consciousness
I was recently struck by Paul's statement in Acts 17 that, "in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) Even those of us who believe in Jesus tend to see ourselves as self-possessed individuals living an independent existence in this physical world. We may have a relationship with God, but we believe there is a separation between us. God is in some distant realm we call, "Heaven," while we inhabit a physical body and face a series of daily choices in this material world. God may visit us and help us from time to time, but as far as our perceptions of things go, we're on our own. This becomes a source of anxiety for some of us, because we believe we will be required to face God one day and give an accounting of both our deeds and mis-deeds. This, it seems to me, heightens the appeal of doctrines that assure the security of the believer. The problem with the perception and the remedy is that they lead Christians to live what an earlier generation called, "defeated lives." In other words, this belief that we are on our own and that God is out there somewhere evaluating our lives does not prevent moral compromise, it too often enables it. So, when we find our temper get the best of us, when we lie or cheat, we chalk it up to, "nobody's perfect," and "I'm not perfect, I'm just forgiven." Both of these things are true for Christians, by the way, but they are not the ideal. They are not what God really had in mind in sending His Son to rescue us from sin.
When Jesus told Nicodemus, "You must be born again," He was referring to the need to be born of the Spirit. We believe, as a theological doctrine, that Christians are born of the Spirit and thus have the Spirit of God, "living in their hearts." We agree with Paul's statement in I Corinthians, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit." The problem is that while we believe this in the abstract, we don't believe it on the level of our daily choices and reality. I assume, actually, that this is exactly why Paul gave this reminder to the Corinthians. They were engaging in immoral behavior and he had to bring them up short by pointing out the indwelling presence of Spirit in their lives.
The Kingdom of God operates on the principle of faith. If we believe, we receive. Part of the reason God is not as real to us as we would like Him to be, is that we don't really believe that He is with us. I would encourage us to spend some time reading and meditating on John 14:15-21. It explains to us how we truly live and move and have our being in God. He is our life, as we abide in Him by faith, our life will be filled with the fruit of His grace, love, and presence. Remember faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, we must cultivate our sense of the presence of God through prayer, worship, and pondering the incredible truths of the word. May we all realize the absolute validity of Paul's declaration, "In Him we live and move and have our being."
When Jesus told Nicodemus, "You must be born again," He was referring to the need to be born of the Spirit. We believe, as a theological doctrine, that Christians are born of the Spirit and thus have the Spirit of God, "living in their hearts." We agree with Paul's statement in I Corinthians, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit." The problem is that while we believe this in the abstract, we don't believe it on the level of our daily choices and reality. I assume, actually, that this is exactly why Paul gave this reminder to the Corinthians. They were engaging in immoral behavior and he had to bring them up short by pointing out the indwelling presence of Spirit in their lives.
The Kingdom of God operates on the principle of faith. If we believe, we receive. Part of the reason God is not as real to us as we would like Him to be, is that we don't really believe that He is with us. I would encourage us to spend some time reading and meditating on John 14:15-21. It explains to us how we truly live and move and have our being in God. He is our life, as we abide in Him by faith, our life will be filled with the fruit of His grace, love, and presence. Remember faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, we must cultivate our sense of the presence of God through prayer, worship, and pondering the incredible truths of the word. May we all realize the absolute validity of Paul's declaration, "In Him we live and move and have our being."
Sunday, September 6, 2009
A Changed World?
With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, we were given another snap shot of the liberal agenda for America (and, we might add, Western civilization). Several commentators eulogized Senator Kennedy by saying he was working toward, "a new world," or a "new era." Without exaggerating the implications of these terms, liberalism in the modern West is built upon two assumptions: the benefit of progress and the pursuit of the ideal. Every liberal from the beginning of the Enlightenment has sought to create a "new" world.
Central to the Enlightenment worldview is/was belief in the inevitability of progress. Human history came to be interpreted as the story of human progress, whether in science, medicine, social policy, or education. At the horizon of the story stood a set of Utopian aims: the eradication of deadly diseases, the elimination of abject poverty, the end of war, ethnic equality, gender equality, and universal education. This is only a partial list of the grand goals of Western liberalism, but it reveals the two assumptions of progress and idealism.
No one would question these noble goals, the problem arises when we talk about execution. The Enlightenment takes credit for creating the modern world, but, in fact, it hasn't. The end of feudalism and the emergence of representative democracies are a product of the reformation, not the enlightenment. The Magna Carta, William of Orange and the ascent of British Parliament, and the founding of the American colonies were expressions of reformed theology being worked out in the larger society. In contrast, the enlightenment produced the French Revolution with its subsequent reign of terror and the attempt by Napoleon to create a global empire. In terms of its political impact, the Enlightenment inspired Utopian socialism and the great Marxist experiment in world communism. Max Weber, the famous sociologist, wrote a famous discussion of the origin of Western capitalism. He saw its connections to Protestantism and its subsequent work ethic. I would argue that it also flows out of the emphasis on individual liberty and the rights of man that arose because of the influence of Protestant theology during this period of history. Adam Smith may not have quoted Bible verses, but his understanding of the importance of private property and economic freedom come right out the works of Luther and Calvin. In other words, our freedoms come, not from the writings of Rousseau or Voltaire, but from the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible that lies at the foundation of the Reformation.
How ironic that the great promise of a changed world came not from "modern" thought but from the much older "Good Book." The truths of the Gospel have the power to change lives, this has been shown to be true from the time of the Apostles all the way to our own day. The reason that this Gospel created a new world in the eighteenth century is because so many of the people of that day had been personally transformed by its message. So too in our day, God wants to make your world "new," and He will if you will put your trust in Him.
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV)
Central to the Enlightenment worldview is/was belief in the inevitability of progress. Human history came to be interpreted as the story of human progress, whether in science, medicine, social policy, or education. At the horizon of the story stood a set of Utopian aims: the eradication of deadly diseases, the elimination of abject poverty, the end of war, ethnic equality, gender equality, and universal education. This is only a partial list of the grand goals of Western liberalism, but it reveals the two assumptions of progress and idealism.
No one would question these noble goals, the problem arises when we talk about execution. The Enlightenment takes credit for creating the modern world, but, in fact, it hasn't. The end of feudalism and the emergence of representative democracies are a product of the reformation, not the enlightenment. The Magna Carta, William of Orange and the ascent of British Parliament, and the founding of the American colonies were expressions of reformed theology being worked out in the larger society. In contrast, the enlightenment produced the French Revolution with its subsequent reign of terror and the attempt by Napoleon to create a global empire. In terms of its political impact, the Enlightenment inspired Utopian socialism and the great Marxist experiment in world communism. Max Weber, the famous sociologist, wrote a famous discussion of the origin of Western capitalism. He saw its connections to Protestantism and its subsequent work ethic. I would argue that it also flows out of the emphasis on individual liberty and the rights of man that arose because of the influence of Protestant theology during this period of history. Adam Smith may not have quoted Bible verses, but his understanding of the importance of private property and economic freedom come right out the works of Luther and Calvin. In other words, our freedoms come, not from the writings of Rousseau or Voltaire, but from the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible that lies at the foundation of the Reformation.
How ironic that the great promise of a changed world came not from "modern" thought but from the much older "Good Book." The truths of the Gospel have the power to change lives, this has been shown to be true from the time of the Apostles all the way to our own day. The reason that this Gospel created a new world in the eighteenth century is because so many of the people of that day had been personally transformed by its message. So too in our day, God wants to make your world "new," and He will if you will put your trust in Him.
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
