Here's a message I gave a few years ago around July 4, Independence Day:
(This
message was preceded by a children’s sermon on the Emperor’s New Clothes –
which is included below and which you really ought to read to get the full
import of the message).
The Emperor's New Clothes
by Hans Christian Andersen
Once upon a time there lived a vain
emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes. He changed
clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.
Word of the Emperor's refined
habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the
Emperor's vanity decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves at
the gates of the palace with a scheme in mind.
"We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we
have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that
it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too
stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality."
The chief of the guards heard the
scoundrel's strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain
notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the
incredible news. The Emperor's curiosity got the better of him and he decided
to see the two scoundrels.
"Besides being invisible, your
Highness, this cloth will be woven in colors and patterns created especially
for you." The emperor gave the two men a bag of gold coins in exchange for
their promise to begin working on the fabric immediately.
"Just tell us what you need to
get started and we'll give it to you." The two scoundrels asked for a
loom, silk, gold thread and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor
thought he had spent his money quite well; in addition to getting a new
extraordinary suit, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and
incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who
was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.
"Go and see how the work is proceeding," the
Emperor told him, "and come back to let me know."
The prime minister was welcomed by
the two scoundrels.
"We're almost finished, but we
need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the
softness!" The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that
was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.
"I can't see anything,"
he thought. "If I see nothing, that means I'm stupid! Or, worse,
incompetent!" If the prime minister admitted that he didn't see anything,
he would be discharged from his office.
"What a marvelous fabric, he
said then. "I'll certainly tell the Emperor." The two scoundrels
rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was
requested to finish the work.
Finally, the Emperor received the
announcement that the two tailors had come to take all the measurements needed
to sew his new suit.
"Come in," the Emperor
ordered. Even as they bowed, the two scoundrels pretended to be holding a large
roll of fabric.
"Here it is your Highness, the
result of our labor," the scoundrels said. "We have worked night and
day but, at last, the most beautiful fabric in the world is ready for you. Look
at the colors and feel how fine it is." Of course the Emperor did not see
any colors and could not feel any cloth between his fingers. He panicked and
felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat
down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the
fabric, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent.
And the Emperor didn't know that everybody else around him thought and did the
very same thing.
The farce continued as the two scoundrels had foreseen it.
Once they had taken the measurements, the two began cutting the air with
scissors while sewing with their needles an invisible cloth.
"Your Highness, you'll have to
take off your clothes to try on your new ones." The two scoundrels draped
the new clothes on him and then held up a mirror. The Emperor was embarrassed
but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.
"Yes, this is a beautiful suit
and it looks very good on me," the Emperor said trying to look
comfortable. "You've done a fine job."
"Your Majesty," the prime
minister said, "we have a request for you. The people have found out about
this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new
suit." The Emperor was doubtful about showing himself naked to the people,
but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except
the ignorant and the incompetent.
"All right," he said.
"I will grant the people this privilege." He summoned his carriage
and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very
front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in
the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving
to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone
wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the
Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.
Everyone said, loud enough for the
others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're
beautiful!"
"What a marvelous train!"
"And the colors! The colors of
that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life."
They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the
clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and
incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.
A child, however, who had no
important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up
to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked,"
he said.
"Fool!" his father
reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his
child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the
bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor
is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the
people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue
the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was
either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while
behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.
On
Wednesday of this week we’ll celebrate the 4th of July, Independence
Day. Percentage wise few Americans will pause to consider just what
Independence Day means – to most of us it is a time for cookouts, picnics,
sports, games, fun and…of course…fireworks.
Few
Americans will stop and consider that the fireworks of 1776 were muskets,
rifles, cannon and swords. Few will stop and consider that husbands and
Dads…and in some cases women and children, were dying in a war, a revolution.
Few of us
will think about the fact that at the time of Lexington and Concord, in April
1775 when the first shots were fired in the Revolution, that we had no army, no
navy, no standing army…we just had husbands, Dads, farmers and merchants and
blacksmiths and carpenters and other tradesmen…few of us will think about the
fact that one day in April 1775 they were going to work…and the next they were
going to war.
Fewer
still, this July 4th, will consider the fundamental belief in God
that most of these men and women had – both the men and women who fought for
the Revolution and those who fought against it. For while it is true that some
were Deists, that is they believed in s Supreme Being but didn’t think He was
personally interested in the affairs of men, and that while others were
Theists, which means they also believed in a God but didn’t believe in
Christianity (I’m being simplistic in my descriptions), and that others were
Christians of different persuasions…that the clear consensus was that there was
a God who had written His laws into the hearts and consciences of women and men
and girls and boys –
There is
yet at least one more thing that few people will consider this July 4th,
and that is that in 1776 we declared our independence from Great Britain –
while in 2007 we are a nation that has declared its independence from God.
Being a
pastor in 1776 would not have been easy for a number of reasons, not the least
of which was which side – if any – of the Revolution to support and how to
support it. You see, the Revolution wasn’t just an us versus them war, it was
an us versus us war, a civil war between American colonists – and what a number
of pastors were concerned about was rebellion against established government
and where that rebellion would lead.
Were some
of those pastors here today, perhaps they would tell us that our rebellion
against Great Britain
ultimately led to our rebellion against God. It is a question that few will
ponder this July 4th.
It is a
bit ironic that I’m saying these things in a school named for pastor Peter
Muhlenberg. I wonder what he would say this morning?
The
philosophical and religious basis for the Revolution was that our Creator had
written His laws on our hearts and minds and that He had established universal
laws in both humanity and nature. If we, as a matter of law and policy and
education and, yes, even religion, have repudiated the idea of a Creator – then
we have also repudiated the moral basis for our declaration of independence of
July 4, 1776 and we are now a people without a moral direction or a moral
national purpose – we are a people of anarchy…which indeed we are.
And
because we are a people of moral anarchy, we are a people of spiritual anarchy…
and that is why when we, as a people, are confronted with the claim of Jesus
Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we think that that can’t
possibly be – for after all, there is no absolute truth…it is a matter of every
woman for herself and every man for himself…
How did
we get here? How did our Revolution reach the place where it has declared its
independence from God and has set itself on the throne of the universe?
If I pick
up popular Christian books, or read popular Christian emails I’ll often read
about putting prayer back in schools or the Bible back in schools…and I’ll read
emails with pithy poems about being able to bring condoms to school but not a
Bible, about the good old days when chewing gum was what the teachers worried
about, not whether a child was carrying a gun.
But you
see, one of my problems with that line of thinking is that if I assume that
Christians occasionally read their Bibles and that they occasionally pray – I
am faced with the fact that Christians…as a whole…live their lives the same way
their neighbors do who make no profession of Jesus Christ…and that most
Christians no longer believe in absolute truth according to study after
study…so the Bible and prayer does not seem to have helped us very much.
I do not believe that teaching right
from wrong is the answer, nor do I believe that reintroducing the Bible and
prayer in school is the answer. I
suppose I’ll repeat that in case you think you didn’t hear me correctly, I do
not believe that teaching right from wrong is the answer, nor do I believe that
reintroducing the Bible and prayer in school is the answer.
How did we arrive where we are as a
society? Is it because we removed prayer
from school? Is it because bringing a
Bible to school is now a risky undertaking in many school systems?
If I have a life threatening
disease, and associated with that disease are severe headaches, nausea, and
sleeplessness, is it sufficient for the headaches to be treated, the nausea to
be remedied, and a sedative given for the sleeplessness…without also dealing
with the disease that is causing the symptoms?
If the disease itself is not treated, if the root of the problem is not
dealt with, I may die free of pain…but…I will still die.
Consider a blind man staying in an
unfamiliar house. He is by himself, his
host is gone for the day. He walks into
the living room and knocks a lamp over, a few more steps and he tumbles over an
overstuffed chair, two more steps and he screams in pain as he gashes his shin
on the coffee table.
And so our society walks through
life and we tumble over children having children, we smack into the breakdown
of the family, and we gash our collective shin against school shootings…and we
scream in pain and indignation…and curse the furniture which we do not
see. For we are like the blind man in
that we bump against things and things bump against us and we do not see our
surroundings.
We cry out to have someone medicate
the pain, for if we must die then let us die free of pain. The issue is not curing the disease, the
issue is relieving the pain. And so the pain
is relieved through materialism, through sexual, drug, alcohol and work
addictions...through blaming others…and through the two truly great and
constant values of our society…personal peace and affluence. Leave me alone to live as I want to live and
to accumulate what I want…and as long as you do that I will acquiesce in society’s
program. As long as I can be left alone
I’ll mortgage my children and grandchildren, I’ll mortgage the future.
How did we get where we are today?
From roughly the 1400’s through the
late 1700’s Western civilization experienced an explosion of thinking,
scientific discovery, and spiritual renewal.
This explosion was birthed out of a Christian mind-set, a Christian
consensus, a consensus which stated that there is an infinite – personal God
Who is the Creator of the universe, who has fixed, immutable, moral and
physical laws and to Whom mankind is accountable. When I use the term “infinite – personal God”
I mean a God who is infinite, and therefore He is Other than we are, He
transcends His creation…but He is also personal, in that He can be known by
each of us individually. As the song
verse goes, “He’s big enough to fill a mighty universe, but small enough to
live within my heart.” Yet the universe
is not God nor is God the universe, that is pantheism and that is not true, God
transcends His creation, He is Other than all the creation.
Most of the great scientists and
inventors of these centuries were Christians, and the ones who weren’t
nevertheless worked from a Christian consensus.
Because the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton believed that God was Creator, they
believed that His creation would operate according to principles and laws that
they could observe and demonstrate. They
did not believe that the universe is a random happening.
Toward the end of this period of
1400 – 1800 a movement gained momentum and acceptance which we call “The
Enlightenment.” While this movement had
many forms, and while some of the thinkers associated with it believed in God,
and some were indeed Christians, it eventually took a form which placed man at
the center of the universe and which held that reason alone was sufficient with
which to live life. While this was
perhaps not the birth of Humanism, it was the amalgamation of humanistic
thought into a distinct movement with overt antagonism toward Christianity and
God.
Perhaps this was best illustrated
when during the French Revolution with its bloody guillotine, the goddess of
Reason was enthroned in a ceremony in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
So Western Civilization began
separating itself from God and placing itself at the center of the
universe. However, even in this initial
process the thinkers of the Enlightenment, by and large, still believed that
they were on a search for truth, they still sought to demonstrate that there
was such a thing as absolute truth. They
believed that the integration of all knowledge would lead to truth…whatever
truth might be.
The very word “university” has to do
with the intellectual integration of truth into a coherent system of thought
and life. They thought there was a way
to understand the universe.
But as the French Revolution
revealed, as did the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and as our society now
demonstrates, when man places himself as the final arbiter of right and wrong
there is no possible absolute right and wrong. I’ll repeat that: When man
places himself as the final arbiter – or judge - of right and wrong there is no
possible absolute right and wrong…everything becomes utilitarian…that
is…everything is judged by its sociological, economic, or political value and
there is nothing, there is no truth, which transcends those utilitarian
needs. And so in our society the values
of personal peace and affluence are now what arbitrate, what direct, our lives. What decision will give me the greatest
personal peace and affluence? The answer
to that question is the path that we take.
This departure from a Christian
consensus in which we have an infinite – personal God, and this shift into
Secular Humanism, has led to the devaluing of the human being, to the point
where we now view ourselves as simply biological – chemical mechanisms. Our departure into Humanism has led us to
inhumanity.
“Secular
humanism is the belief that man lives in a closed universe. There is no God who
is transcendent above and beyond created reality [that is reality created by
man]. The secular humanist presupposes that the Christian God does not and
cannot exist—that everything which does exist is merely the product of matter plus time plus chance. The secular humanist
presupposes that the only thing which can exist and have importance to mankind
is that which is open to empirical verification and observation by man.
Therefore, the Christian God and biblical Christianity are ruled out of bounds
from the start by the so-called objective materialistic scientist, even
before the investigation of reality begins. The essence of secular humanism
is that man is the measure of all things. Man, not God, is the determiner of
reality, meaning and ethics.”
Man has become a machine in our
political, economic, scientific, medical and educational thought. And because man has become a machine then all
that matters is cause and effect, there is no significance, no love and no
meaning.
Much of our educational system and
thinking is based on the type of behaviorism of which B.F. Skinner has long
been a leading proponent, Skinner writes, “All that people need is conditioning
by society…to man as man we say good riddance.”
I recall watching a clip on CNN of
an elementary school class taking Character Education, the children had their
hands over their hearts as if doing our traditional pledge of allegiance, but
they had new words which included, “I pledge to believe in myself.”
Dr. Thomas Lickona defines Character
Education as the “deliberate effort to develop virtues that are good for the
individual and good for society.” As so
what we have is Sociological Law, that is law based on either a 51% majority or
based on the decisions of a ruling elite.
Sociological Law is a law that is based on whatever is good for society
at the moment.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., an often
quoted former Supreme Court justice wrote, “The ultimate question is what do
the dominant forces of the community want, and do they want it hard enough to
disregard whatever inhibitions stand in the way.” I’ll repeat that, “The
ultimate question is what do the dominant forces of the community want, and do
they want it hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions stand in the way.”
Here is another quote, “The law of
nature must take its course in the survival of the fittest.” Now I wonder who wrote that? Heinrich Himmler, one of Adolph Hitler’s
henchmen. Well, I guess that’s what
happens when people practice what they’re taught…when they’re taught that we
are simply biological – chemical machines and that there is no infinite –
personal God.
Man, beginning with himself cannot
generate any real values or dignity to man.
As Francis Schaeffer has pointed
out, “If there is no absolute by which to judge society, then society is
absolute.” Schaeffer goes on to point
out than when there was a Christian consensus, and society was wrong, the
individual could stand up and say, “You’re wrong,” based on the absolute truth
of God’s Word. That is no longer the
case in a society which is its own final arbiter and judge.
Learning
right from wrong makes no sense if the right and wrong are not grounded in
something bigger than itself, in something bigger than society. Otherwise the right and wrong is transient,
it is relative. Now if we are willing for
it to be transient, then we must be willing to accept the consequences. What we have is majority rule and majority
rule can be merciless.
As
Schaeffer writes, “If you begin with that which is finite no matter how far you
project it you will never come to the absolute.”
“The
Enlightenment [thinkers]…took it as axiomatic that there was only one possible
answer to any question. From this it
followed that the world could be controlled and rationally ordered if we could
only picture and represent it rightly.”
David Harvey quoted in Veith page 42
But the
Enlightenment has now fallen apart and we have chaos, or what is properly call
“Postmodernism.” This is a term that
few, if any of us, are familiar with, but it is the philosophy which drives our
universities, educational theory, political thought, much of what passes for
science, the world of art, entertainment and music…it affects virtually
everything we touch. It is a worldview
which essentially says that it is impossible to have a unified coherent system
of thought or truth.
We now
live in a society in which “everyone creates his or her own meaning, [and
therefore] every meaning is equally valid…The content of one’s meaning makes no
difference…Everyone inhabits his or her own private reality….Moral values, like
other kinds of meaning, are created by the self. Veith page 38
“British
historian Sir Arnold Toynbee studied the rise and fall of 21 civilizations,
from ancient Rome to Imperial China, from Babylon to the Aztecs,
and he found that societies in disintegration suffer a kind of “schism of the
soul.” They are seldom simply overrun by
some other civilization. Rather they
commit a kind of cultural suicide. Among
the characteristics Toynbee identified include:
A sense of abandon, this is a state of mind that accepts moral and ethical
lawlessness as a substitute for creativeness.
People stop believing in morality and yield to their impulses.
They succumb to truancy. That is escapism,
seeking to avoid their problems by retreating into their own worlds of
distraction and entertainment. [More and more we live in a society of virtual
reality].
There is a sense of drift, in which people yield to a
meaningless determinism, as if their efforts do not matter and as if they have
no control over their lives.
There is a sense of guilt, a self – loathing that comes from
their moral abandon.
There
is a promiscuity which Toynbee means
not so much in the sexual sense, but as the indiscriminate acceptance of
anything and everything…an uncritical tolerance. Toynbee describes this promiscuity as “an act
of self –surrender to the melting pot…in Religion in Literature and Language
and Art as well as…Manners and Customs,” the triumph of a mass mind.” “ Veith pages 44 – 45
Bringing the Bible and prayer back
into schools without the context of an infinite – personal God is giving an
aspirin to a patient with cancer.
Teaching right from wrong in a Humanistic context is like sailing a ship
without navigational charts or a rudder, because whatever we’re teaching today
will change its meaning tomorrow.
The
secular humanist, if honest and consistent, would simply assert that “in the
end we’re all dead”; the injustice and evils of life are never resolved.
Hitler, Stalin and Mother Teresa all turn to dust. The universe expands to an
icy death. In such a system your life and supposed good deeds have no real
meaning or lasting significance at all. [At least the apostle Paul was
straightforward enough to make the honest observation] “If the dead do not
rise, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!’” (1 Cor. 15:32)
If you are a parent and you want to
help your children, I’ll even say, protect your children, then begin to
understand the world we live in, understand that virtually everything we touch,
whether it be political thought, education, much of what passes for objective
science, art and literature, history, virtually the entire entertainment
industry…that it is not value neutral by
any stretch of the imagination, but that it is all undergirded by a
philosophy that would have us live in a closed –system…and understand what the
logical outworkings of that closed system are…spiritual and moral anarchy.
If you are a student, ask
yourself…do I really want to live without God?
What is the message behind this music video? What is the message behind this movie? What are the underlying assumptions on which
this textbook or article is based? What
is the real message I’m hearing, reading or watching?
Will we, will you, will I…devote our
lives to Jesus Christ…not as some super-servant with a great big smiling face
giving us cotton candy whenever we want it…but will we call Him Lord and Master
above and beyond the anarchy of society…and yes…above the anarchy of our own
lives?
Do we have the courage to say, “The
Emperor has no clothes”?
No comments:
Post a Comment