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?

            In Colossians 3:16, the apostle Paul wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” In short, Paul is teaching us to allow the word of God to find a home in our heart. This is accomplished by reading the Bible with a heart desirous of learning the will of God (cf. 1Timothy 4:13; 1 Samuel 3:9). It is further enhanced by intense study and scrutiny of the sacred Scriptures (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). Reading and studying the Bible will then cause the serious student to meditate or ponder the riches of God’s Word (cf. Psalm 1:2). Finally, we must take the important lessons and principles gleaned from the laboratory of our private study to the hallways of life.

            As Christians, our ultimate goal is to be practitioners of the Word of God. James said, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22). How then can we take our faith and apply it to the various fields of life? In essence, how can we make application of the Bible to daily living? Think about it this way, the Bible is our spiritual compass navigating us through the turbulent seas of life to our desired destination of Heaven (cf. Psalm 119:105). Therefore, if we will only follow the biblical map, our lives will be far richer and happier. We will have “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). Take the home, for example,  which is currently a mess in our modern society. If we would view marriage as a permanent commitment and realize that God’s intent is one man and one woman for life, we would save ourselves a lot of hurt and heartache (cf. Matthew 19:3-9). Countless members of the Lord’s Church have experienced the trauma and devastation divorce leaves in its infamous wake because they failed to take to heart the words of Jesus, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Marriage must be entered with the mindset that we are in it for the long haul, come what may.

            Think also of the happiness that would permeate our homes if we as husbands truly loved our wives as Christ loved the Church “and gave Himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25). How heavenly our homes would be if we as husbands fulfilled our God-given responsibilities as the head and spiritual leader of the home (cf. Joshua 24:15; Ephesians 5:23-24; 6:4). What a different environment the home would be in our society if women took to heart the words of Paul when he exhorted “the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5).

            Another area where our profession of faith should be practiced is on the job. Employers have a responsibility to treat their employees with respect and fairness. Christian employers should also remember, “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18). It is a travesty that some CEOs and members of upper management enjoy lavish lifestyles and are consumed with greed while those in the trenches are told the company cannot afford to give them even a cost of living raise (cf. James 5:1-6). While Paul addressed the relationship between a master and a slave in his inspired letter to the Colossians, the principle applies to the employer and employee relationship. He charged, “Masters, give your servants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1).

            Christian employees have a responsibility to give a “day’s work for a day’s wage.” Remember, whether we are an employer or employee, we are ultimately “servants of Christ” (Ephesians 6:6). It goes without saying that Christian employees should not steal and pilfer company products or office goods. Every Christian employee should strive to maintain a high level of integrity and honesty in the workplace. There is no place for lying to get a “piece of business” or “close a deal.” Neither should God’s people have the reputation as the company “gossiper” or “backstabber” in an effort to climb the corporate ladder.

            As Christians, our faith must also be practiced in the communities where we live. Are we polite, kind, and courteous at the drug store or grocery? The Bible says, “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one” (Colossians 4:5-6).

            On the ball field, whether playing or cheering in the stands, we must strive to exemplify the virtues of New Testament Christianity. There is no place for cursing the umpire or referee because of a supposed “missed call.” Remember we belong to the Lord and are to “follow in His steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

            Young people are not exempt from putting faith into action. The apostle Paul taught, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example of the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). There are numerous challenges facing youth today, but they can be a shining light for good among their peers and family members (cf. Matthew 5:13-16). Our young people must be on guard against music that minimizes the value and sanctity of human life. Furthermore, they must reject music that glorifies violence, promotes sexual promiscuity, and denigrates respect for authority. The same could also be said for programming that airs on television or at the movie theater. Solomon charged, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). He also warned, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).

            The beauty of putting our faith into action is reflected in the words of assurance given by John at the close of Revelation, “Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city” (22:14).

Eyewitnesses to the account are becoming rarer with each passing day. The year was 1925—and it would become a courtroom scene that would not be surpassed until sixty-nine years later, with O.J. Simpson as the central figure. The state of Tennessee had just passed the Butler Act, which would make it a crime to teach anything except the Genesis account of creation in regards to the theory of origins. True to their reputation, the ACLU vehemently opposed the Butler Act. In fact, they decided to make a bold challenge to this law. They paid for advertisements in Tennessee newspapers soliciting a teacher who would admit to violating the Butler Act. For this admission, they offered the best legal counsel and were then positioned to fight the constitutionality of the Butler Act.

Wayne House wrote a Regent University Law Review titled “Darwinism and the Law: Can Non-naturalistic Scientific Theories Survive Constitutional Challenge?” He also penned the chapter, “Darwinism and the Law” for the book Intelligent Design 101. We turned to him for insight and information regarding the legality of teaching Intelligent Design. With his permission, we are reprinting some of his law review on “Darwinism and the Law.”

The Scopes trial was probably the beginning of public awareness of evolution in the United States. Scientists of the early twentieth century had already largely accepted evolution, as had many Christian church leaders and theologians. The Scopes trial came in the midst of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, which threatened to engulf all of religious America and was seen as the heart and soul of the church.
The Scopes trial was initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (hereinafter ACLU) in a newspaper ad to test a Tennessee law, which forbade the teaching of the idea that human beings evolved from lower forms of life in the state's public schools, because the idea contradicted the Biblical account of creation. The ACLU hired the famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow to defend teacher John Scopes. Scopes, a substitute science teacher, agreed to confess to having violated the Tennessee anti-evolution law, teaching evolution from the popular biology book A Civic Biology, although post-trial evidence indicated that he had not done so.

The trial started July 10, 1925, in Rhea county, at the courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee. During the trial many began to view it as science versus the Bible. Clarence Darrow strolled to the platform and began calling experts in the field of science to the stand. One by one Darrow asked them, “Isn’t it true that everyone accepts the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?” They all held that “yes,” evolution was a scientific fact. After watching this parade of witnesses, the judge put a halt to it.. Without missing a beat, Darrow turned and said, “Your honor I would like to call to the stand Mr. William Jennings Bryan.” As the prosecutor, Mr. Bryan found himself on the hot seat. Suddenly, the trial had nothing to do with Scopes. It was all about pushing the pendulum of origins theories from the Bible all the way over to the other side—organic evolution. House continues:

The second event that renewed interest in evolution was the 100^th anniversary, in 1959, of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. This occasion awakened the scientific establishment, engendering a greater push to present evolution in the classrooms of America. This was particularly so with the Biological Science Curriculum Study, which had as its basis the theory of evolution, as well as the National Association of Biology Teachers, which had been in the forefront of promoting evolution.

On April 30, 1973, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill which avoided the prohibition policy that it was reviewed in Scopes and simply made illegal any textbook which presented the evolution of man and the world as scientific fact and did not state that evolution is a theory. Moreover, if evolution was presented in any textbook, alternate theories, including the Genesis account in the Bible, must be presented. A third requirement was that if the Bible is used a reference work in these classes, it would not be required to include the disclaimer as required in the science textbooks.

Almost as soon as the bill passed the legislature, law professor Frederic S. LeClercq began working with the assistance of the National Association of Biology Teachers against what might be rightly considered the first balanced treatment law. After a series of legal maneuverings, the case came before the Sixth Circuit, which declared the law "patently unconstitutional." For the first time in the creation-evolution controversy, a court used the three-prong test of Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine whether the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In order to pass constitutional muster, "(f)irst, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion."'

In the early 1980s a number of states passed what has become known as the Balanced Treatment Act. This came about due to a concerted effort on the part of persons within the creationist movement who desired to pass legislation that would insure that creationism would be taught alongside evolution in the public schools of those states. The issue of whether alternate paradigms of origins may be offered within the public schools has continued to be a cultural and educational controversy since the initial Scopes trial of 1925. In the first half of the twentieth century, repeated efforts were made by citizens to introduce legislation blocking the introduction of the teaching of evolution in public classroom. During much of the latter half of the twentieth century, equally strong efforts were made to prohibit the teaching of scientific evidence for a creationist paradigm of origins. The latter group has contested creationism primarily through the court system.

For creationism to have any hope of success it will need to minimize its goals and focus its efforts. Unlike previous attempts in the first half of the twentieth century to dislodge evolution by legal fiat, or in the latter half of the last century to remove it legally by identifying it with its religious presuppositions, creationists must allow the theory to die from lack of intellectual oxygen, or collapse in confrontation with the intellectual battles of the intelligent design movement in the public square. Scientists increasingly have difficulty in sustaining the many inconsistencies and lack of evidence for the general theory of evolution. Creationists should concentrate efforts on the more fundamental question of origins, particularly the matter of intelligent design versus random chance for the beginning of the universe. Any reference to a young Earth, flood geology, fixation of species, or the like, immediately sends signals of Biblical creationism, while discussion of such mathematical and scientific views of probability or information theory removes the discussion from the traditional mode. Perception is nine-tenths of the problem. Intelligent design theory, then, does not bring the same concerns as traditional creationism, and because of this may not receive some of the emotional and grassroots support that carried along previous attempts, but it is likely, due to its method of argument, its lack of obvious allusion to fundamentalism and Christian theology, and its seemingly less grandiose proposals, that it may fare better in the courts and in the classrooms. Such a scenario, balancing design and chance rationales for the origins of the universe and life, should be proposed to school boards,

The United States Supreme Court in the Edwards case did not hold that the teaching of creation is religious in contravention to the Establishment Clause. The Court only ruled that a law, such as the Louisiana Act, must have a demonstrably, though not exclusively, secular purpose, and consequently primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion (emp. added). For legislators or teachers who are truly not seeking to get the "Bible back into school," but simply want fair representation of all competing scientific theories to be presented to students, intelligent design offers a real possibility to achieve that goal.

I should have thought that requiring the truth to be taught on any subject displayed its own secular warrant, one at the heart of the scientific method itself. Put another way, I am surprised to learn that a state cannot forbid the teaching of half-truths in its public schools, whatever its motive for doing so. Today we strike down a statute balanced and fair on its face because of our perception of the reason why it got the votes to pass: one to prevent the closing of children's minds to religious doctrine by misrepresenting it as in conflict with established scientific laws. After today, it does not suffice to teach the truth; one must also teach it with the approved motive. It may be that the Constitution forbids a state to require the teaching of lies in the classrooms of its public schools; perhaps among its emanations or penumbras there can be found means to invalidate such a law, say, as one mandating that students be taught that the Earth is flat or that chattel slavery never existed in this country. It comes as news to me, however, that the Constitution forbids a state to require the teaching of truth--any truth, for any purpose, and whatever the effect of teaching it may be. Because this is the holding that we endorse today, I decline to join in that endorsement and respectfully dissent.

 Give Pats on the Back and on the Backside

Teach your Faith and then Allow Them to Claim their Own

There comes a big challenge with parents teaching their faith to their children. We as parents want to make sure our children learn the Truth. At the same time, they must develop their own faith and come to their own knowledge of the Truth. However, it all begins with parents laying a solid foundation and giving them evidences for their beliefs. In the book, The Gospel according to Generation X, a survey was taken years ago of 4,000 adolescents across the United States who were from the Church. They were given this statement, “Tell us who has most caused you to let God be important in your life.” The survey showed that 69% of teens say that one or both of their parents are the primary influencers of their faith! Youth ministers came in second at a mere 11%. It is no secret why God placed children into our hands. You will make the biggest difference, whether for good or bad. Another survey recorded in this book showed some amazing statistics. It showed that the teens of parents who are “satisfied with their marriages” are 15 times more likely to take God seriously! If we constantly argue and belittle our spouses, we are painting a dim picture of love. 1 John tells us that “God is love.” The most prevalent and close-up view of love that our children see is in our marriages. When they watch Mom and Dad converse and interact day in and day out, they see how love must be. With divorce and dysfunctional families becoming more prevalent, is it any wonder why our children are so confused about how to love? And if they are confused about love, you can bet they are confused about the God Who is love. Just as important as our example of faith are the opportunities to simply talk about our faith. The true essence of how we should do this is described by God in Deuteronomy 6, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on your doorposts of your house and on your gates.” In other words, our Christianity must be a lifestyle. Details of our faith must easily roll off our tongues in conversations. Our faith cannot be viewed as a light switch that is turned on and off. When we see a homeless man, it is an opportunity to explain about giving. When we see a rainbow, it is an opportunity to talk about the promises of God. When we have a death in the family, it is an opportunity to talk about the hope we have after we die. Parents must use every opportunity to talk about God and their faith in Him. Your children will imitate you. The less you talk about God and spiritual matters, the less they will. But, if you cannot help but express your faith, you can almost be assured they will do the same. Most importantly, we must allow our children time to grasp their own ideas, and even challenge some of their beliefs. Patiently answer any questions, and direct them to Scripture. Remember, as difficult as it is, their faith must be developed on their time and their terms. Pray daily that we are the godly parents we need to be to ensure our children claim their own faith and find an eternal home in Heaven.      

 More than twenty years ago, Allan Bloom observed in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, that “there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative…. The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated” (25).

            Bloom was not merely speaking about whether one can know any absolute truths (epistemological relativism) but also whether there are any absolute moral truths (moral relativism). Moral relativism argues that there is no absolute and no objective right and wrong. Relativists believe moral rules are merely personal preferences and arise as a result of one’s cultural, ethnic, or sexual orientation.

            Moral relativism has become the norm on television, in academia, and among politicians. For instance, how long has it been since anyone has spoken out on television against two unmarried people sleeping with each other? How long has it been since state universities spoke out against same-sex relationships? They wouldn’t dare today. How about those politicians who say they are personally against abortion but support the mother’s right to choose? Isn’t this morally confusing to say “I think it’s wrong for me to take the life of an innocent unborn; but I won’t oppose your taking an innocent life”? When such doublespeak becomes the accepted norm, our younger generations fall into confused amorality.

            In the 1960’s, Joseph Fletcher argued that it was sometimes right to do wrong. Philosophers like John Warwick Montgomery and pulpits around the nation condemned his “situation ethics”; but the notion of situational morality did not die. Fletcher believed love, or the “agape ethic,” was superior to the “law ethic,” so that things done out of love fulfilled God’s ethic even if they violated God’s law. This notion of love as a justification for our behaviors has rapidly spread throughout American society.

To many, same-sex love overrules God’s edicts condemning homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott argued in their book, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, that the New Testament passages dealing with homosexuality did not argue against a committed, loving relationship.  They said,

The Bible clearly condemns certain kinds of homosexual practice (. . . gang rape, idolatry, and lustful promiscuity).  However, it appears to be silent on certain other aspects of homosexuality--both the ‘homosexual orientation’ and ‘a committed love-relationship’ analogous to heterosexual monogamy (226).

This assertion is fantasy. The Scriptures speak to all homosexual behavior; whether with love or without, homosexual behavior is still condemned in Scripture.

            For moral relativists, abortion is preferable to raising an unwanted child. They believe it is better to end a child’s life than to have him grow up unloved or disadvantaged. Of course, they rarely consider how they may feel about that unwanted child in later days. Pro-choice people rarely speak of the long-term emotional trauma many mothers of aborted babies face.

            God, however, hates the taking of an innocent life (Prov. 6:16-19); and that is what abortion is. Abortion never shows love to the unborn child. It is almost as if no one considers that an unwanted child could become wanted or that adoption to a loving family is a possibility.

            It never occurred to those who followed Fletcher’s thinking that law was a means to define love. They continually characterized law as a lower ethic, cold, mean-spirited, intolerant, exclusive, and judgmental. They ignored the goodness and protective nature of the law.

            Paul argued that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). The law was designed to protect the innocent from the evil and ungodly sinners. Moses said, “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day” (Deut. 6:24 ESV).

            Any husband knows that he must learn how to love his wife. He may have the deepest of affections in his heart for her; but unless he is sensitive to what she requires, his affection will, nevertheless, appear brutish and cruel. Knowing another person’s will teaches us how to please and love that person. One loves his neighbor by fulfilling the law; “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:8-10). The separation of an “agape ethic” from a “law ethic” is myth.

            The law teaches one how to love God and one’s neighbor. Jesus said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words” (John 14:23-24).

            Moral relativists often think they are taking the higher moral ground by not judging or excluding anyone. They speak in relative terms but practice judging and excluding in absolute terms. Their claim does not match their practice. While they practice inclusiveness with the immoral person, they slander and exclude anyone who disagrees with their inclusiveness.

            Moral relativists often claim that the belief in absolute moral truth is mean-spirited, intolerant, exclusivist, and judgmental. Obviously, an objective view of morality will hold some things to be wrong; but the relativist contradicts himself because he also holds some things to be wrong. He believes that anyone who says there is objective moral truth is wrong. This conclusion makes the relativist judgmental and, possibly, intolerant. If the relativist believes the absolutist to be wrong, he is just as exclusive as anyone else.

            Robert Williams displays the irreverent mindset of the moral relativist when he argues:

The point is not really whether or not some passage in the Bible condemns homosexual acts; the point is that you cannot allow your moral and ethical decisions to be determined by the literature of a people whose culture and history are so far removed from your own.  You must dare to be iconoclastic enough to say, “So what if the Bible does say it?  Who cares?” (Just As I Am 128).

Williams does not realize that he is imposing his irreverent and amoral views on those who disagree with him. He further ignores the dominating influence of the literature of the Bible in America from its inception.

            The Bible is unlike any other book. It shows its timeless transcendence of culture and geography. By God’s design, it appeals and applies to every culture in every nation in every century. Jesus sent his apostles out with the gospel to all nations for all time (Mt. 28:19-20). Jesus tasted death for all people (Heb. 2:9). Jesus is indeed Lord of all flesh (Jn. 17:3). The God of heaven commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31).

            The moral relativists may argue that moral norms arise from culture and ethnic origin, but all men find their origin in God. Differences in culture and norms do not make the Lord any less the Lord of all. Nor does the relativists’ claim make the Bible any less binding upon all people in all places for all time. Jesus’ words will not pass away (Mt. 24:35), and the faith was once for all time delivered to the saints (Jude 3). God’s morality does not change, nor can any person or group of people change it. God’s morality found in his Word is settled in heaven (Ps. 119:89). It is not going anywhere. On the last day it will judge us (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:11-15). For this reason, we must pay even more attention to what we have heard from God (Heb. 2:1).