Memorial Day
Tom’s father had died a couple of years earlier in an accident, leaving a wife and four children. It was the middle of the depression and times were tough. Tom, being the oldest, worked while finishing High School, to help make ends meet. After he graduated, he joined the military, and after training was sent to Nicholas Army Air Field in the Philippines. There he did what most military people do: perform their normal jobs while periodically being interrupted by various drills.
Tom could see the approaching storm that would become WWII and mentioned this in his letters home. He wrote of how they had received a shipment of fighters, but that they were in crates and needed to be assembled. They were still assembling them when the war started on December 7,1941. The Japanese invaded the Philippines the next day. Tom and the rest of the troops, along with their Filipino allies, fought valiantly. With their base destroyed they, retreated to Bataan.
Roosevelt promised reinforcements, so they struggled to hold out till they arrived. In March Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to leave and go to Australia. Tom and the rest of those left behind continued to fight on, till they could be reinforced. But in the end, there was no way to win. The promised reinforcements were never sent; food and ammunition ran out; and the Japanese force was too strong. Yet still they fought to hold out. Then their positions were overrun, and on April 10, 1942, exhausted, starving, wounded and sick (most had malaria and/or dysentery), they surrendered.
But as horrible as their ordeal had been, the worst was yet to come. The Japanese commander had ordered provisions be set aside for the expected 25,000 prisoners. But he was unaware that the real number of captured Americans and Filipinos was more than 75,000. Nor was he aware of just how bad their condition was. They had held out as long as possible and so when they did surrender they were in very bad shape. In short, the provisions he ordered to be set aside were nowhere near what was needed, and the Japanese army command structure did not allow for questioning orders, even to correct mistakes in information.
To make matters worse the Japanese viewed surrender, whatever the circumstances, as a dishonor. Thus it did not matter how valiantly they fought, how long they had held out, or how low they had been on food and ammunition, they had surrendered and did not deserve to be treated honorably. Since there were not enough trucks to transport all the them, what came to be called the Bataan Death March began.
Tom was not one of the lucky few whose guards, realizing how inhumane the situation was, just let their captives go. Even though he was sick, he was forced to march the 30 miles in the blazing hot sun to the rail center. Most had no food or water for the march. There was no stopping, and many were beaten. Many just died on the road; others were shot if they did not keep up. If Tom was fortunate, he would have still had shoes. Many didn’t and their feet burned as they walked on the hot asphalt as it baked under the sun.
At the rail head in San Fernando Tom and other prisoners were pushed into rail cars. Because of the large numbers of prisoners, they were packed in as tightly as possible and in the hot sun, the metal walls of the cars burned unprotected skin. Many lost consciousness from the sweltering heat of the boxcars. Others suffocated in the cramped space. Yet they were packed in so tightly, the unconscious and the dead remained standing until the cars were unloaded at Capas.
Tom survived the trip to Capas. From there Tom was once again forced to march the last eight miles to Camp O’Donnell. Suffering from sickness, starvation, and exhaustion, Tom only lasted five days in Camp O’Donnell, dying on May 18th, 1942. He was 22 years old. Later Private Thomas A. Hushbeck would be posthumously awarded a Purple Heart.
When people ask me what Memorial Day means to me, I think of my Uncle Tom, even though he died thirteen years before I was born. For me it is his holiday, but not his alone. There were the eight who died on Lexington Green in that first engagement of the Revolutionary war, and all the others who came after them to secure our independence, along with those who gave their lives in the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, The Vietnam War, Gulf War I and now the war on Terrorism in Iraq, and which continues in Afghanistan, and that is just to name the major conflicts.
Whenever there was a need, Americans like my uncle Tom have step forward, knowing what may happen. Like my Uncle Tom, many have paid the ultimate price so that we can live in freedom. Many may consider “Freedom is not Free” a cliché, just another slogan for a bumper sticker, but the cost of our freedom was paid by my Uncle Tom, and all the others who have in the past, or will in the future give their lives in defense of this country. It is for them that we fly the flag on this day. It is because of them we can enjoy the time off and relax on this day. They have given all that they had, and suffered in ways we can never imagine so that we might live in freedom. So while I enjoy the day, I will remember them. For they deserved to be honored and remembered.
Giving Up on Apologetics?
Given that I am a Christian Apologist, a friend of mine was interested in my reaction to T E Hanna’s recent post on 3 Reasons Why I Gave Up Christian Apologetics. As the author of two books that would clearly fall into this category (Evidence for the Bible / Christianity and Secularism), and one who has a master’s degree in Christian Apologetics, and has been doing this for several decades, I do consider myself an Christian apologist. So at the risk of being argumentative, I thought I would respond.
First, there is a lot that I would agree with in his post. I would certainly agree that apologetics can be misused, i.e., done incorrectly or for the wrong reasons and that his 3 reasons would all fall into that category. I would only point out that the same could be said about most things. Just think what damage a Pastor can do if they are not working as a true servant of God. In fact, just reading the last sentence may have brought to mind some examples. But that would hardly be a reason to give up on the role of pastor, rather it would be a call to do it correctly. The same can be said about apologetics.
Hanna claims “I have yet to meet anyone that has come to know Christ as the result of an intense debate.” In my several decades as an apologist, neither have I. In fact, I have consistently taught in my ministry that the role of apologetics is not to argue people into the kingdom of heaven. The reason is simple, it cannot be done, and if this is why someone does apologetics, they are wasting their time.
Of course this raises the question of why do apologetics? A simple one is that we are commanded to do so in passages like 1 Peter 3:15-16,
Instead, exalt the Messiah as Lord in your lives. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you to explain the hope you have. But do this gently and respectfully, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak evil of your good conduct in the Messiah will be ashamed of slandering you.
The apologetics that Hanna is critical of is an apologetics that stops at verse 15, but for me verse 16 is just as important.
But there are practical reasons as well. True, no one is or can be argued into the kingdom, but they can be helped to the foot of the cross. One of the ways I teach this is with the metaphor of a wall. We all like to build walls to keep God at a safe distance. Christians build these wall was well, but our focus here is the non-believer who builds walls of excuses as to why they can ignore God. It is the role of apologetics to remove those walls block by block till there is nothing standing between the believer and the cross. At that point the role of apologetics in evangelism ends.
So while no one is argued into the kingdom, some have been brought to the foot of the cross, and thus apologetics did play an important role in their conversion. I know this to be the case, for I was one of them. I was an atheist who had a long list of reasons why I could safely ignore God. But one by one over several years, Christians answered these objections.
True, not everyone has such questions or objections, and thus for them discussions on the reliability of the Bible, etc., would be irrelevant at best, possibly even counter-productive. This is why I stress that the first and most important step in apologetics is to listen. Find out what it is that is keeping them from the cross.
Now to be clear, I do not expect, or even believe, that everyone would be a trained apologist, ready with all the answers at their fingertips. For me the best answer is often, “that is a good question, and I don’t know. Let me find out and get back to you.” I like this answer for many reasons. 1) You don’t need to have all the answers, only a resource where you can get them. If you do not know of one, then I recommend that you start with your Pastor. Bottom line, it is a one size fits all answer. 2) It opens up a dialogue and builds a relationship. I encourage people to be a safe place where those with questions can get answers, a person someone can ask a question of without getting a full come to Jesus sermon. Perhaps it is because of my conversion experience, but I see conversion as more of a process then an event, one that can take a long time, and one in which while there are many stages, there is no set order. Everyone is different and this is why listening and building a relationship is so key to apologetics.
I do want to say something in favor of intense debates. I have been in many. But intense does not mean disrespectful. In fact I came to the attention of my editor many years ago because he noticed me in an online forum engaging some pretty intensive debates, but remaining respectful, even when my opponents were not. At times I would wonder myself, what is the point? These people never seem to change, and at times the argument would just seem to be going in circles.
Two things would keep me going. 1) When I was on the other side, I never told the Christians I was debating that they were right. But afterword, I would reflect on what they said and I now believe the Holy Spirit would use those arguments to work on my heart. 2) When I was really discouraged, inevitably I would get an email from someone I had never heard of, expressing thanks for what I was doing and letting me know how my responses had bless them, and helped them. This is a second dimension of apologetics, strengthening believers. It is important to note that a lie unanswered will be taken as the truth. Currently the lies about God, the Bible and Christianity are rampant and are overwhelming what little apologetics is out there.
While I could write a lot more on this, this has already gotten longer than I intended, so let me just close by saying that as a Christian apologist I do not judge what I do by how many debates I win or souls I save, because the first doesn’t matter and I can’t do the latter in any event. My goal is to be a faithful servant, and I will leave the results to God.
Same sex Marriage and the Rule of Law
Bob Cornwall recently posted on his blog about some of the legal issues surrounding the same sex marriage debate. He writes “There are important legal issues at stake here” and this is very true. However when he starts his blog with the claim that “Across the nation gay marriage bans are falling under the weight of the Rule of Law” he could not be more wrong. The laws on marriage are not being stuck down because of the Rule of Law, but rather the rule of courts
There are many aspects to the Rule of Law, but two that are key to this debate are 1) that laws are clear and written, 2) that no one is above the law. Court decisions such as the one Cornwall writes about in Michigan violate both of these. Since they are actually overturning clear and written laws, the only appeal can be to the Constitution, which Cornwall acknowledges.
But here there is a problem. There is nothing in the Constitution about homosexuality, or marriage. Cornwall attempts to get around this by writing, “Thus, it was ultimately the Constitution that proved to overturn earlier voter supported bans on interracial marriage. While some opponents of gay marriage, do not want to equate the two, on Constitutional grounds they are the same.” This is just factually wrong.
In addition to the 14th and 15th amendments, bans on interracial marriage were correctly struck down because there is no legitimate difference between people of differing skin color. Now it was a popular view on the left from the late 1960s into the 1990s that there were no legitimate differences between men and women. But except for a few holdouts this has largely been abandoned because numerous scientific studies have shown that men and women are significantly different, not only in obvious things like outward appearance but in the way they think and react to the world around them. Shocking as it may seem to some, men and women are different.
The bottom line here is that while no legitimate distinction can be drawn on skin color, real distinctions do exist when it comes to male and female. Now society can, and I believe should, have a debate about these differences when it comes to social constructs such as the family, particularly when they are too be enshrined into our laws, but it is simply factually false to pretend they do not exist.
I happen to believe that these differences are not only significant, but complementary, such that the best environment in which to raise children is a stable two parent home with a man and a woman, what traditionally has been called marriage. This was the idea behind the establishment of marriage laws in the first place, and it remains the fundamental reason I support laws on traditional marriage, something I have been concerned about even before there was a same-sex marriage debate, and thus is a concern that exists independent of it.
This is the reason I oppose same-sex marriage, not out of any hostility to same-sex couples, but because to expand marriage laws designed to provide the best environment to raise children, is to weaken it. Cornwall claims that it does not, but it is just fundamental that the more a word can mean, the less significance it has.
For example, I would like to help children with autism, so say I had the money to set up a foundation to support these kids. If the definition of the kids this foundation supports is later expanded to include all kids with special needs, this must by definition weaken the support given to kids with autism. If it is expanded again to include all kids, this would weaken it even further and in fact would undermine the reason for the foundation.
Marriage was written into law to strengthen it by giving it preferential treatment. It was society’s way of saying this is the best way to raise children. The more situations “Marriage” is expanded to cover, by definition, the less significant traditional marriage will have. Thus to expand the definition of marriage is to weaken it as a concept. Something that can mean anything, ultimately means nothing.
Cornwall writes the common argument that, “My marriage to Cheryl will not be affected in any way by recognizing the marriages of my gay and lesbian friends.” I have no doubt about this. Neither will it affect my marriage to my wife. But while true, it is completely irrelevant to this debate. Quite frankly, they could abolish marriage laws altogether and it would have no effect on my marriage, and I suspect on Cornwall’s.
This is because when we speak of marriage there are really two types. One is the commitment we make to our spouses before God. This is the true marriage and is independent of what the government does or does not do. But then there is the legal construct called marriage, which is the focus of the current debate over its definition.
While such redefinitions may be irrelevant to individual marriages, the same cannot be said about society as a whole. A society that says a family headed by a man and a woman is the best way to raise children will be a different society than one does not. While people may have differing opinions as to the degree, significance, and desirability of this difference, it is irrational to claim it will have no effect. After all, if it had no effect at all, then there would be no reason to change the law in the first place.
Legal marriage is a social construct established for particular civic goals. There is nothing that says marriage need be sanctioned by the state and for most of human history it was not. Some argue that it was a mistake for government to get involved in marriage in the first place. Others argue that we should keep the traditional definition, still others argue that the definition should be expanded to include same-sex couples, while still others would expand it to include any combination, which is effectively the same as the first position.
For the courts to step into the middle of this debate and impose a particular view as a matter of allegedly Constitutional law is simply absurd. For a judge to strike down traditional laws on marriage, they really have only two options. 1) They can rule that there is no difference between men and women. 2) They can just impose their own views on the law. As we saw above while the first option was a popular view a few decades ago, this view is no longer scientifically tenable, and thus I would argue the first option is really indistinguishable from the second.
In any event it should be clear that Judges are not tossing out laws on traditional marriage because of any clearly established legal principles. If they were we would not have had to wait for over 200 years for the courts to have discovered these principles buried in the Constitutions.
Those who like what the courts have done, often speak of a living Constitution, a Constitution that grows and evolves with our understanding. While this may sound good to some, it is not the Rule of Law. Again the Rule of Law implies clear established laws where no one is above the law. How can the law be clearly established if we do not know what it is until a court tells us? Rather than being the Rule of Law, this destroys the concept.
Since someone would have to tell us when the law evolves, the judge then assumes the role of legislator, one who determines what the law will be, rather than a judge who must decide how to apply it is a given situation. These are fundamentally different roles. It makes the judge, particularly on the Supreme Court, more a king than a judge, for as the ones who will determine the law, they are by definition above it.
So supporters of same-sex marriage may celebrate these legal victories as an advancement of their side, but they are a defeat for both the Rule of Law and the democratic process. It is important to remember that kings change, and so do judges. Giving this power to Judges is dangerous as they cannot always be counted on to rule in your favor, and the ruling of a judge is much harder to change.
Finally, with the Rule of Law dying, so too are its protections. Thus it is really no surprise that the more extreme of those demanding “tolerance” for their points of view, will permit no disagreement with theirs, as some high profile people have recently found out when they lost their jobs because they expressed, or had expressed in the past, disagreement. Others have been hauled before the government and fined for not falling into line with the new enlightenment. Some get off lightly as they are merely packed off to be reeducated in the new enlightenment, a clear warning to others not to disagree, even in a tweet.
If you agree with the new enlightenment these can all be signs of progress, but if you hold a contrary view this is much closer to a soft totalitarianism than anything resembling the Rule of Law, much less a democratic system. It is just one of a number of reasons that a recent Rasmussen Poll showed that 37% of people now fear their government, and 54% see it as a threat to liberty. A government in which this many people are living in fear of it may be many things, but it is not a democratic government and it is hardly under the Rule of Law.
Hebrews 6:17-7:10
A verse by verse study of the book of Hebrews.
IV The Great Work of Jesus (5:11-10:39)
A Preliminary Exhortation (5:11 6:20)
1 You are still infants (5:11-14)
2 Go on to Maturity (6:1-3)
3 Impossible to renew (6:4-6)
4 Analogy – Good and bad land (6:7-8)
5 Confidence in past work (6:9-12)
6 God is trustworthy (6:13-19a)
7 Link (6:19b-20)
B A Better Priesthood (7:1-28)
1 Melchizedek – background (7:1-3)
2 Melchizedek – greater than Levi (7:4-10)
3 Another Priest is needed (7:11-14)
https://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm
https://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm
httpv://youtu.be/xvzCVu7hHns
Hebrews 6:10-16
A verse by verse study of the book of Hebrews.
IV The Great Work of Jesus (5:11-10:39)
A Preliminary Exhortation (5:11 6:20)
1 You are still infants (5:11-14)
2 Go on to Maturity (6:1-3)
3 Impossible to renew (6:4-6)
4 Analogy – Good and bad land (6:7-8)
5 Confidence in past work (6:9-12)
6 God is trustworthy (6:13-19a)
7 Link (6:19b-20)
https://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm
https://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm
httpv://youtu.be/YC6Uf8DwMbg
