Something I'm looking forward to

This coming spring I’ll be teaching a class out at Palomar that is my favorite—English 245 (Survey of Biblical Literature). There are so many reasons I look forward to starting the class.


For one thing, I want to combat biblical illiteracy. People used to know the Bible even they didn’t believe in its theological message. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King were able to make biblical references and expected their audiences to pick up on them. Not any more—many know nothing about its stories.


Secondly, I hope to change attitudes and stereotypes about the Bible. Some believe it is totally grim, full of dire warnings and stern moralizing. They don’t know the Bible has all emotions, including humor. There are genuinely funny parts, and I always stress those so students can appreciate the variety of emotions in the Bible.


In addition, I want to challenge people to think about the big issues of life. We look at Genesis 1, for example, and I read aloud the first four words: “In the beginning God.” I ask them to consider the importance of those words in building a worldview. If people accept or reject those four words, it will make a huge difference in how they see the world and their place in it. Either we are the product of an intelligence, or we are the result of blind chance. Either way will impact the way we choose to live.


Finally, I hope for change in people’s lives. A few years a go I had a students who was a tough guy (I thought). He later told me his life had crashed and burned. He said the Bible spoke to him in a powerful way, and since then he has become a serious Christian with a new outlook on life. A story like that is so encouraging to hear. It’s certainly not the instructor that created that change. The Bible has the power to change lives even after two thousand years.


I’m working on a website that will include much on my course—audio lectures people can listen to or download and articles relating to the Bible. Once it’s up and functioning, I’ll let you know.

The death of self-reliance

Did you hear about a recent comment by Barack Obama during a speech? It reveals so much about his mentality regarding American values and the role of government from his perspective. ABC News reported the following: "At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America." I was amazed.

Obama has issued a dire warning. He is the only thing standing between us and having to rely on ourselves! This country has stood for many things, but one ideal has certainly been self-reliance. And now we are told this is a nightmare scenario.

Obama added more later in the speech to drive the point home. "The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, 'you are on your own. If you get sick, you're on your own. If you can't afford college, you're on your own. If you don't like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you're on your own. That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in."

What are we to make of this? Our President explicitly rejects the American ideal of self-reliance that has been so important throughout our history. He sees dependence on government not as an evil, if sometimes a necessary one, but as a goal to be pursued. The rest of the country is made up of childish, naive, lost souls in need of Obama and the Democrats to guide and protect them through the use of a huge central government.

I can still remember Bill Clinton and a question he got at a town meeting as he ran for re-election. A young man in the audience plaintively told the President that "we are your children" and asked what Clinton could do to protect him from all the abuses of life. Wow . . . a product of our school system . . . This guy saw government as the only way to help him survive the difficulties ahead. He sounded like a five-year old afraid of the dark.

This is not the America we all cherish. We need to grow up and tackle life head-on. The song of the liberals is one that sounds nice and rocks us to sleep, but there's a steep price to be paid. We give up our independence and our adulthood if we follow that siren's song.

So how much like the rest of us is the Occupy Wall Street crowd?

Douglas Schoen, a pollster for Bill Clinton when he was President, has conducted a survey of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The results are interesting for those of us suspicious when we are told these protestors are just like the rest of us--common souls just tired of being ignored by the petty politics of today.

Schoen, who wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal, believes President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election. We are told by Obama's crowd that these protestors are just like us. For example, last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

But Schoen says this picture of the Wall Street crowd isn't true. According to him, the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

Schoen's polling firm interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. His findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion. So what did he discover? These people are far-leftists, not common folk like we are told repeatedly. His research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Instead, it is made up of an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda. The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed.

Here's the scary part to me. What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas. Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. Wow . . .

So they are not like the vast majority of Americans. Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why Schoen believes the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party. Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Schoen says the Democrats are doing the wrong thing here. Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases. They need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. Will they do this? I don't think they will. That makes the 2012 election year more important than ever--the sides will be clear--small government versus a utopian remaking of America.

Green industries and the government--a sad case

I'm sure you've heard of the disaster at Solyndra, where our "wise" government leaders loaned tons of money to a green company. Despite dreams of instant benefits, the government was surprised to see Solyndra go down the drain. But that's not the only rat hole that the government's money has been poured into.

Consider Ener1 Inc., a lithium-ion battery maker also promoted by the White House. According to The Wall Street Journal, President Obama gave the company's subsidiary, EnerDel, a shout out in August 2009, in a speech in which he announced $2.4 billion in grants "to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks powered by the next generation of battery technologies."

EnerDel snagged a $118 million grant to produce batteries, and Vice President Joe Biden toured one of its two Indianapolis-area factories as recently as January, citing it as proof that government isn't "just creating new jobs—but sparking whole new industries." Uh-huh . . . And we know that Joe Biden always has his facts right.
Ener1 was founded in 2002, went public in 2008 and has never turned a profit. Catch that? Never turned a profit. In August, it restated its earnings for fiscal 2010 at a $165 million loss—nearly $100 million more than previously reported. On September 27 it ousted its CEO, and its share price yesterday was 27 cents—a 95% decline from its 52-week high of $5.95 in January. Gee, that sounds promising, right? I'd invest in that hot stock. Nasdaq is threatening to delist the stock, and Ener1 disclosed in a mid-August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is "in the process of determining whether the company has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations." Hmm . . . ominous words.

Ener1 attributed its financial restatement to the bankruptcy earlier this year of Norwegian electric car maker Think, in which Ener1 had invested, and with which it had signed a contract to supply batteries. Think had a long history of financial troubles and was hardly a safe investment. So not only does the government have bad powers of predicting economic success, so does the company in which it invests.

Then again, Ener1 had to rely almost exclusively on Think after it lost its bid to supply batteries to Fisker Automotive, a battery-powered car maker which received a $529 million U.S. taxpayer-backed federal loan guarantee in 2010. Fisker chose to buy its batteries from a company called A123 Systems, itself the recipient of a $249 million U.S. Department of Energy grant (announced at the same time as Ener1's grant). Do you see a pattern here? Loads of government money is flowing into these programs.

But here's the catch. It's hard to sell electric car batteries when the market for electric cars is so small. The Wall Street Journal claims electric cars are expected to make up less than 1% of car sales by 2018, but that hasn't stopped the feds from financing a glut of battery makers. Some 48 different battery technology and electric vehicle projects received federal money as part of the Administration's August 2009 announcement, including such corporate giants as Johnson Controls and General Motors.

Current estimates are that by 2015 there will be more than double the supply of lithium-ion batteries compared to the number of electric vehicles. This government-juiced industry is headed for a shakeout, taking taxpayer dollars with it. This, of course, makes no sense, but that's the government for you.

This is a sad illustration of something important. We should leave commercial financing decisions to private investors and bankers who are likely to take more care with their own money.

Occupy Wall Street and the lie that powers it

Are you as dumbfounded as I am at the incredible lack of knowledge of Occupy Wall Street people?? Here's a reminder of what I mean.

They have bought into the same false story about the causes of the financial crisis. According to this story, the financial crisis and the following deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. Now, of course, having bought into this fairy tale, the people are angry at Wall Street and bankers rather than at the government.

Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis. Here's the history behind it, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. Once again, the heart triumphed over the head. A noble sentiment--to help the poor get better housing. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

When more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were dealing with people in shaky financial shape, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards. You can tell where this was going to end up.

Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process by the government. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served. The government's heavy hand was at work.

Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments. Wow, a disaster in the making.

Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from--our own government, not private banking or Wall Street.

The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis when it got involved, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.

The fairy story that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media (are any of you surprised by that?)—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This tale led to the current situation-- the occupation of Wall Street. Now Obama and his ilk cheer on these protestors in the hopes the American people can be duped once again to blame the wrong source of their problems.

John Wooden and character

John Wooden, coach of the UCLA Bruins basketball team, was probably the greatest coach who ever lived. I was thinking about him the other day when I came across an article about his father and the importance of character.

He said that ever since he was very young his father would say to him, "Be more concerned with your character than your reputation." His dad went on to explain that your character is what you really are. Your reputation is merely how you are perceived by others.

We can live for years behind the façade, with no one suspecting who we really are. We can pretend to have integrity while living a lie. But this façade will eventually crumble. And if our true character is exposed in the form of sexual immorality, ethical corruption, dishonesty, substance abuse or moral cowardice, it can cost us a lot.

Wooden's father wrote out a creed for him to follow, and he carried this with him for years. Eventually the paper began to crumble, so Wooden made copies for himself and others. This became what he called the Seven-Point Creed. Here it is:

*Be true to yourself.
*Make each day your masterpiece.
*Help others.
*Drink deeply from good books, especially the Bible.
*Make friendship a fine art.
*Build a shelter against a rainy day.
*Pray for guidance and give thanks for your blessings every day.

There's obviously nothing new or startling in that list. But think how much better our lives would be if we tried to accomplish these things. I realize it's not time for a New Year's resolution, but any day is the right time to live a richer life.

Quick answers to difficult questions

Sometimes when we talk with others about Christianity, we don't have a lot of time to develop our answers. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, has two quick answers to two difficult questions.

The one issue that usually gets brought up as an attack on Christianity is the problem of evil. If there is a good God, why is there evil? Greg suggests an initial question – "So you believe in objective evil then?" If the challenger doesn't, the problem goes away. If there's no objective evil, there is no problem of evil. That should take care of relativists who raise this issue.

Then there's his follow-up question – "What do you mean by evil?" Normally, people will give all sorts of examples of evil, like murder, torture, child abuse. Greg says we should ask them instead to tell us what it is that makes those things objectively evil in the first place. This can lead to a discussion, when there's more time, about transcendent moral law and the need for a transcendent moral law maker. In other words, God must exist before you can even raise the objection about evil. If there's no God, there are simply your preferences.

The second issue raised against Christianity involves Jesus being the only way. Greg has a pretty sharp answer for that issue: "Well, that's what Jesus thought. Do you think he had any insight into spiritual things?" The advantage now is with you because the critic must take on Jesus. Good luck.

This paragraph is my own suggestion about this second issue. When people complain about Jesus being the only way, they usually follow it up with a criticism of Christianity as being narrow-minded or intolerant. Of course, we simply need to point out that these people are just as narrow-minded since they believe they are right just as much as we believe we are right. They seem to be just as intolerant about our views as they say we are about theirs.

Now, there are obviously ways to get deeper into these issues. But these responses can keep us from being inarticulate or defensive. Try them out sometime.

The case for miracles

I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek has an important chapter dealing with the possibility of miracles. Since I will be speaking on this in a week, I wanted to write about miracles to make sure I understood their main points.

I think I'll start my presentation with a question: have you or someone you know experienced a miracle? It might be a healing or an answer to prayer. J. P. Moreland, a noted Christian philosopher, says he is always surprised when he asks this question of groups he is speaking to. A large number of people always raise their hands. We in the West are cold, rational people that really don't believe in miracles. But they seem to be happening around us.

Can we justify belief in miracles? That's what the authors of the book tackle. They start with a definition. A miracle is a special act of God that interrupts normal events. It's done to authenticate some message from God.

They use a simple illustration to explain how miracles add to our worldview. They tell of one speaker who brought in two boxes for his audience – one was closed, and one was open at one end. The speaker held up the closed box and said atheists believe the physical universe is closed, like the box. But he said he believed there was a God outside the box capable of reaching into it and performing what we call miracles.

The authors indicate there is a key element here. If we admit there is a God, then miracles are possible. It's always been funny to me that people do believe in God, but they have difficulty with miraculous events associated with Jesus, such as walking on water or changing water to wine. Once you have settled the idea that there is a God, then all possibilities are open since he created the entire universe out of nothing. He can certainly do other, more minor miracles.

Geisler and Turek tackle two well-known objections to miracles. The first one was by Spinoza, who said natural laws are immutable. But the authors point out the creation of the universe seems to throw that objection out the window. They say laws describe, not prescribe what will happen.

The second objection was by David Hume. He argued that natural law is a description of a regular occurrence, while a miracle is a rare occurrence. He then says the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare. Next, he says, a wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence, and, therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles. That may sound like a good argument, but they point out the problem with "the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare." Think of all the things that have happened which are rare but we have better reasons to believe in them – the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the start of new life forms, the entire history of the world. These are all rare events, yet we believe in them. The issue is not the rarity of an event; it's whether we have good evidence for it. They accuse Hume of circular reasoning – he says only believable events are regular, and since a miracle is not regular, it fails to meet this criteria.

The authors end the chapter by discussing why there are no biblical miracles happening today. They mention that most miracles in the Bible actually occurred only during three periods of history – in the time of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. They believe that since there is no new revelation coming from God today that needs confirmation, there are fewer miracles. But I suggest that there are miracles, at least on the smaller scale involving individuals. We'll see what reaction I get when I ask the class next week whether they have experienced miracles.

The existence of a universal moral law

The next section of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is important but not necessarily easy to grasp. The authors Norm Geisler and Frank Turek deal with the argument for God from morality. It can be summed up this way: every law has a lawgiver; there is a moral law; therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.

Of course, the key portion of that argument is the existence of a moral law. The authors start out by saying our Founding Fathers thought there was such a law. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "nature's law" is "self-evident." They claim Jefferson meant you don't use reason to discover it; you just know it. All people are impressed with the fundamental sense of right and wrong. For example, everyone knows that love is superior to hate and courage is better than cowardice.

They point out that this does not mean that every moral issue has easily recognizable answers or that some people don't deny that absolute morality exists. There are difficult problems in morality. In addition, they understand that people suppress and deny the moral law every day. But they say there are basic principles of right and wrong that everyone knows, whether they will admit them or not.

The authors claim there are eight reasons why the moral law exists. First, the moral law is undeniable logically. A person may say "there are no absolute values," but this person who denies all values actually values his right to deny them. In addition, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons. So, even those who deny all values nevertheless value their right to make that denial. That's inconsistent.

Secondly, we know there is a moral law by our reactions. The authors included a great story to prove their point. A professor at a major university in Indiana gave one of his relativistic students who did not believe in absolute moral values a lesson in this point. The professor, who was teaching a class in ethics, assigned a term paper to the students. One student, an atheist, wrote eloquently on the topic of moral relativism, arguing that all morals are relative and there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness. It was actually a good paper with good documentation. The professor read the paper and wrote on the front cover, "This is a good paper, but I'm going to give it an F because you put it in a blue folder." The student, of course, was enraged and said that it wasn't fair to give him a bad grade because of the folder. The professor acted puzzled, saying the student didn't believe in moral values, so why was he talking about something being fair. The light bulb went on the student's head. He realized that he really did believe in moral absolutes. The authors say that a good way to get moral relativists to admit that there are absolute morals is to treat them unfairly. Their reactions will reveal the moral law written on their hearts and minds.

There are more arguments for the existence of moral laws, but I will save those for future blog.