Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Thinking Like a Christian: An Introduction

This Sunday, November 14, I will be beginning a series of lessons from the book Thinking Like a Christian by David Noebel. Each week I hope to add to this blog a summary of the lesson for those who are unable to attend Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina, to hear it in person. The topic is of primary importance to Christians. The series will recess in January and, God-willing, be resumed later in 2012.

The introductory lesson discusses the importance of the topic. The textbook defines "worldview" as any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man's relationship to God and the world (p. 6). Furthermore, every worldview has an answer to the three most basic questions:
Where did we come from?
What's wrong with the world?
What is the solution to man's basic problems?
The worldview promoted by the book (and by me, of course) is biblical Christianity: The worldview that comes directly from the Word of God. It answers all three questions clearly, and does so in a way that offers hope and eternal security to every man and woman.

Everyone has a worldview. Most can't explain their own worldview clearly or concisely, but everyone has one. Many Christians today are not taught, and frequently do not even consider, the importance of thinking biblically...which is probably why most Christians are not functioning as salt and light, and most are having little influence on the world around them—some, sad to say, have little influence even among their own families and friends. Most Christians today are more impacted by the world's worldviews than by the Bible's. If we are to reach the world for Christ, this must change.

The textbook divides a biblical worldview into ten categories, around which the text and the lessons are organized:
Theology
Philosophy
Biology
Psychology
Ethics
Sociology
Law
Politics
Economics
History
We will forego any discussion of whether a more suitable organization exists, except to say that many of the topics do overlap in our world, and all are important for the Christian to understand and discern. I think this organization works well.

Each of these ten categories is addressed in the Bible. Each has ramifications in our own lives, and demands that we understand how to biblically interact with it. Each impacts the others, and each demands some basic assumptions about the nature of reality—the reality of the creation in which God has placed us. We will see in subsequent lessons that each of them is dealt with even in the earliest chapters of Genesis and throughout the Bible; furthermore, Christ is manifested in His Word as having significance in each area.

Once upon a time, America, for the most part, had a biblical worldview. That is clearly not the case today. Every topic in the list above, in our country today, is dominated or under attack from perspectives which eminate from non-biblical worldviews. We Christians lament this. But we shouldn't just whine and lament: We need to educate ourselves, our fellow Christians, and the world about what the Bible says on these things! Sure, the world needs Christ, and we need to share the Gospel with everyone, as Scripture clearly teaches. But we also need to be making clear what the Bible says about the other aspects of life; the Holy Spirit can use this kind of teaching, too, to impress upon the hearts of the unsaved the truth of His Word and the need of His salvation. Think of it as teaching the "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

1 Peter 3:15 says that we must "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Understanding and having a Christian worldview will help you to do that. Remember, too: There is no difference between the sacred and the secular in the Christian's life; all of life is sacred to the Christian.

The other worldviews do not provide satisfaction. Colossians 2:4-8 reminds each of us that the "wisdom of this world" will "spoil" you—literally, it will carry you away captive! Only in Christ and His Word can mankind find joy and happiness, as well as a rational, adequate, and consistent explanation of reality. It doesn't require a Ph.D., nor immense intelligence. Even a child can understand the teachings of the Bible.

Learn the biblical worldview. Live it. Share it with others.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

More From irs.gov....

You know you're in big trouble when the IRS makes an example of you on its website. Here we learn of someone who got into a mess of his own making:

WASHINGTON — Massachusetts Tax Attorney Kevin Kilduff was barred from practicing before the Internal Revenue Service for 48 months for failing to file one federal tax return and for filing another five returns late.

“Professionals who demonstrate a lack of respect for our tax system by failing to meet their own tax filing obligations should not expect to retain the privilege to practice before the IRS,” said Karen L. Hawkins, Director of the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The OPR had originally sought the 48-month suspension, alleging Kilduff’s conduct was willful and disreputable. OPR enforces standards of conduct under Treasury Circular 230, which governs enrolled agents, attorneys and certified public accountants. Kilduff formerly worked for the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) subsequently set the penalty at a 24-month suspension. Kilduff appealed the ALJ decision to the Secretary of the Treasury’s Appellate Authority, which in fact ultimately imposed the harsher 48-month suspension.

Kilduff’s suspension is for a minimum of 48 months. OPR has sole discretion regarding his reinstatement to practice before the IRS. At the very least, Kilduff must file all federal returns and pay all taxes he is responsible for, or enter an acceptable installment agreement or offer in compromise. [Emphasis mine]

So let's sum up what not to do:
  • Fail to file your own tax return and/or pay your taxes for several years, when you are supposedly helping other people do just that.
  • Work for the legal arm of the IRS and then cross it.
  • Appeal a 24-month suspension when you have been that foolish already.
Yes, I do work for H&R Block during this time of year. I don't read this stuff strictly for amusement. :-)

Monday, February 1, 2010

States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

FOXNews.com - States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

This is a most interesting article. Here is the key element of it:

Lawmakers in 34 states now have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face reelection.
So here's the key issue: Can the states actually do this? Is it constitutional?

I would argue wholeheartedly that these state decisions are indeed constitutional, on the following logic:
  • Federal mandates related to mandatory heathcare are unquestionably unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority under the Constitution whatsoever to dictate what healthcare its citizens must have. [Note: Had the abominable healthcare legislation actually become law with Obama's signature, a blizzard of lawsuits would have been filed, gumming it up for years. Thankfully, it hasn't come to that. Yet.]
  • The various state measures, regardless of the specific legal manner that they are passed [ballot referendum, legislative vote, etc.], are merely codifying a freedom that Americans have enjoyed since 1776: The freedom to make our own decisions about legal activities.
Some are already saying that since federal law essentially "trumps" state law, that the courts will not allow state actions to take precedence. A "Constitution" in our country is the supreme law of the land. The federal constitution has nothing to do with heathcare provision; if a state constitution does (and in this story, it makes healthcare mandates unconstitutional), then why should it not be the supreme law of the state?

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Why I Will Not Open a Business Venture in Kalamazoo

From the Kalamazoo Gazette:

KALAMAZOO — Kalamazoo city voters decisively adopted an ordinance Tuesday that extends anti-discrimination protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

The ordinance passed 7,671 to 4,731, making Kalamazoo the 16th city in Michigan to adopt such a gay-rights ordinance that grants the protections in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.
As a Christian, I cannot give my approval in any way to that which God labels as sin. The ordinance that passed last evening would make it illegal for me to do any of several things, including:
  • Not hiring a homosexual for a job involving contact with children
  • Keeping a cross-dressing man from using the ladies' restroom in my business
  • Renting a home or apartment to a pair of homosexuals
My conscience and my common sense would require me to do what the ordinance does not allow. Although I have no business, rental property, or any such thing in Kalamazoo—and never have—I have decided that I never will...unless this ordinance is removed.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Can I Have Chuck Schumer's Pay?

I find it deeply troubling that Congress is seriously discussing what amounts to the illegal confiscation of legally-obtained compensation of AIG employees.

The fact that the compensation is undeserved is beside the point—it was agreed upon in a legal fashion.

The fact that the public is outraged is also beside the point—the contracts were signed, to my knowledge, following our laws.

The Democrats in Congress, though foolish, are not so bluntly stupid as to merely declare the contracts invalid; they know they can't do that. The courts would surely rule (if perhaps on appeal) in favor of the recipients of the money. They also realize, though will not admit, that they passed legislation that allowed this money to go to these employees.

Furthermore, the AIG recipients are smart enough to realize that the Democrats are grandstanding; after some months go by, and some meddlesome lawsuits, they will almost certainly get to keep the money, as they would have kept it in 2008, 2007, or 1975. They are also probably smart enough to realize that this won't happen again, and will find new employment—rendering the idea of "retention bonuses" laughable.

So where does Chuck Schumer come in? Consider this quote from yesterday:

"If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it.

"So let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses be warned. If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."

Did you catch that? We will take this money back. Take. As in, Steal. Confiscate. And why should it be taken from them? Because, in short, they did a lousy job at their workplace yet get compensated far above their value.

So in a similar vein, can I have Sen. Schumer's pay? After all, he does a horrid job and has a popularity level only slightly above smallpox. His pay comes straight from my tax dollars, and I am outraged that he does such a lousy job at his workplace and is compensated very well anyway. He and his kind, more than anyone (including AIG), are running this country into the ground. And this country is a lot more important than AIG is.

Can I take his paycheck, please, and return it to the Treasury?

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Another Great Blog Posting

Today I encountered the Back to the Constitution blog, with this great article. I will copy the first part of it here:

As I was reading through parts of the Old Testament, and in particular some of the laws God gave Israel, it made me think that God’s laws are a reflection of God’s morality. God’s law reflect who God is. God’s laws told Israel to treat people honestly, to be responsible for your actions and make restitution if you caused harm or injury to another person or their property. God’s law says to honor your parents and the elderly, to honor your spouse, and to honor the sanctity of life. God’s law does not go contrary to God’s person - He is holy, just and righteous and so is His law.

When we look at the laws that men have established we must understand the same concept is in place.
To read the rest, click here.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

One Last Facebook Note

This will be the last blog posting that I automatically send as a Note to Facebook. Why, you ask? In case you haven't heard, Facebook recently and quietly changed its terms of service that essentially say that they can do anything they want with anything I (or you) post on my (or your) Facebook page. Forever.

I'll probably be deleting some of my photos, too...although they are probably already captured somewhere permanently in the Facebook storage servers.

Privacy concerns are already a major internet issue, but it galls me that they would be so bold as to come out (OK, sneak out) and basically claim the ability to use everything I've put there in perpetuity. For the record, this is the key quote from the Terms of Service (see also related article):

The Terms of Service grants the company "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or ... (ii) enable a user to Post."

Which, if I understand this correctly, means that they can do whatever they wish with my blog postings...until now. I may occasionally alert my Facebook readers—whoever they are—that there is something notable at my blog...but I will be highly cautious about posting the full content. I will also be highly cautious about photos I post, or other personal nature I share.

It also galls me that I was not more alert to this in the past. Grrr....

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Modesty Takes a Small Step Forward!

According to this foxnews.com article, the small Caribbean island nation of Grenada has "recently began enforcing an indecent exposure law banning bathing suits away from the beach, as well as saggy pants that reveal the underwear." The law allows for fines of up to $270 or six months in jail; some locals have been fined (and aren't happy about it). Some cruise ship tourists have been instructed to return to the ship to get something with which to cover themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice if all local jurisdictions had some basic modesty laws like this, so that we weren't forced to look at half-naked people?

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Thinking Like a Christian, Week 7B: Law

This is a continuation of the entry from last week (7A). Most people probably have little idea just how enjoyable it is to teach a class like this, or how rewarding—spiritually and intellectually—it is to study material of this kind. A reminder: This series of lessons comes from David Noebel's excellent book Thinking Like a Christian.

What is the Basis for Law?

This lesson is intended to focus on the laws which man, through governments, makes.
"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws." William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, late 1760's
Human laws should first be founded on the "law of nature," sometimes called "natural law." This term refers to law as revealed through general revelation. We have discussed before that man has a conscience within him, and therefore is given by God an inherent sense of right and wrong. He has a fundamental knowledge—even with his fallen human nature—that transcendent laws exist, and yet he still chooses to disobey...which also explains why God can hold all people accountable for their sinful actions.

Special revelation, the Bible, reveals the framework and details of God's law, along with many specific examples. Together with general revelation, God has provided man with enough information for man to implement a legal system which does not depend on sinful men's "wisdom." In fact, man can establish a relatively just system of laws IF he uses general and special revelation to do so.

How then should government "make" laws? A key point to remember is this: The purpose of earthly government is not so much to create laws (for God has done this) as it is to secure laws—applying God's laws to various general and specific situations, and to impartially enforce such laws as are written. Government should concern itself with encouraging people to obey God's will and laws, and with punishing lawbreakers; because wrongdoers should be punished, while those who abide by the laws should be protected. The main focus should be on a system of law that maintains order and liberty, by promoting justice as much as man can make it possible.

Furthermore, the Bible gives guidance as to how a government should operate. God's ideal legal system would be both orderly and equitable, with justice being meted out impartially (see Ex. 23:6-9; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16-17, 19:15-21; Isa. 10:1-2). People would be held responsible for their actions, and the guilty would be punished. God's order would be restored where and when possible. Governments at all levels and in all countries today would do well to operate by these principles.

Courts have a role in government as well—but it is certainly not a legislative role! It is not the responsibility of courts to create laws, because they are institutions of justice, not legislative bodies. Our U.S. Constitution makes this clear. Courts must apply the laws, to see that justice is served. No one should be hastily condemned, and errors in the dispensing of justice must be minimized.

Deuteronomy 17:2-6 presents an excellent example of how a court should work, particularly in the judgment of capital cases. The crime must "be told thee" (a formal accusation), "and thou hast heard of it" (a legal trial). Then they are to "inquire diligently, and behold to be true" (satisfactory proof), "and the thing certain" (beyond a reasonable doubt). Notice that the American legal system, with all its flaws, still maintains these elements—and that is why I think it is still the most respected legal system in all the world.

Two other notes about courts: Even if courts err, all justice will eventually be served, either here on earth, or at the final judgment day. And when it comes to justice, restitution to the offended person is perfectly appropriate (see Ex. 22:1-15; Lev. 6:4-5, 24:18-22).

Now let us take a look at our own country. Please take a moment to read these two excerpts from the Declaration of Independence (these are portions of the second, and the last, paragraphs):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;…. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Notice the facts about rights which this profoundly important document contains.
  • It is self-evident that the Creator (whom all the Founders would have acknowledged as the Jehovah of the Bible) gave men certain rights, which other men cannot take from them.
  • These rights include "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Note: A study of the Founders would easily demonstrate that by "Happiness" they did NOT mean the wanton pursuit of sinful pleasures or the selfish ability to do "whatever one wants."
  • Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights—this is the purpose of government!
  • Governments derive their "just powers" from the consent of the governed...which should make every American glad that we, unlike many peoples, have the ability to impact our government by the votes we cast.
  • The signers of the Declaration appealed "to the Supreme Judge [Jehovah, again] of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." Take a moment to look up rectitude in the dictionary if you are not familiar with its definition.
  • Their purposes were placed in "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," another reference to God.
In summary, the Declaration of Independence, while declaring the colonies to no longer be subject to the British, looked to God as the Giver of rights and to government as the institution to secure those rights to the citizens, while making government the servant of the people. This should make you proud to be an American!!

Even Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence and among the least religious of the Founding Fathers, said in his Notes on the State of Virginia,
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"
The Preamble to the United States Constitution (1787), the document which established the very basis of our government says,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Read that again if necessary; it outlines the general purposes of the document and of the government to be established—in essence, it lays out the "rights" which the government is going to secure for its people. True, subsequent amendments (beginning with the Bill of Rights) specified other rights which the government is obliged to protect. The point is this: The purpose of American government can be summed up as procuring and protecting the God-given rights of the citizens. Praise God for America!

One other question to address: Can Morality be legislated? The answer: YES, and, furthermore, it is. Things like theft, murder, abuse, perjury, etc. are immoral violations of God's law, clearly condemned in Scripture, and appropriately legislated as illegal. However, not all sins, can be (or should be, or need to be) legislated and punished according to specific laws. Herein lies the debates.

A goal should be to formulate "a legal system that legislates morality only to the extent that order is maintained and human rights are protected" (Thinking Like a Christian, p. 115). A government that attempted to legislate and punish all sins would be frightfully bloated in size. Also, Law, alone, cannot cause people to always act morally. This is one of the overarching lessons of the Old Testament. No man is capable of living a life that is completely lawful in God's sight (Luke 10:29, 18:18-21)—another of the great overarching lessons of the Bible.

All mankind will someday ultimately give account for following God's laws. On that thought, a final quote:

“Thus, a Christian system of law, while stabilizing society and promoting justice (by protecting the weak and innocent, and by punishing the guilty), also leads individuals to the knowledge that they are fallen creatures desperately in need of a Savior. Much as general revelation points to natural law, earthly legal systems help the nonbeliever recognize the corrupt nature of every person and seek the reasons behind this corruption and the remedy for it. God in His wisdom uses law not only to ensure justice, but also to demonstrate that, in our fallen state, it would be folly to demand our just deserts.”

David Noebel, Thinking Like a Christian, p. 116

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Thinking Like a Christian, Week 7A: Law

What is the Basis for Law?

Law comes from God alone. God is the only legislator, or lawgiver, in the universe. The Christian's concept of law should be the fruit of the realization that all law, whether natural or biblical, originates in the character of eternal God.

God has provided laws, and a means of discovering His laws, to mankind. Therefore, law is grounded on a very firm foundation and is not subject to change. Laws are needed because men are sinners, in rebellion against God; earthly laws are intended to curb that rebellion.

God established human government and the rule of law primarily to keep in check man's sinful nature and passions (See Genesis 9; week 7B will have much more to say about human governments and laws). When God's laws are obeyed, people and societies do well. We should be grateful that divine law gives a standard by which the laws of human societies can be evaluated. Furthermore, it is appropriate for Christians to attempt to restore God's order for laws in this world (more on this both in week 7B and week 8).

Human rights are based on the biblical teaching that man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Human government was established in order that human life, rights, and dignity would be protected (Genesis 9:6). Christian law, therefore, supports specific, absolute human rights. No other worldview grants people such guaranteed, specific rights.

But mankind not only has rights—it also has duties. Christians need to believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of rights, since it is the only revelation of God's truth. The right to life is perhaps the most foundational of these rights. Every human life is meaningful and valuable. Our rights beget our duties—our legal responsibilities to obey God's laws. Failure to obey God's laws will result in our rights being taken away (a simple example is when a person is jailed for crimes: He no longer has the same rights as other citizens). Our rights also have specified limits; it is not proper for a person to claim "I've got my rights!" and then behave in any manner he pleases. Ultimately, our duty can be summed up as this: To obey governmental authority, except when it requires disobedience to God, since we must always obey God (see 1 Peter 2:13-16, Acts 4:5-20, 5:26-29).

There is a belief called "legal positivism" which postulates that law is made by man, is "flexible", and can change with changes in time, circumstances, ruling groups, etc. It is how most modern nations and the UN are ruled. (A wise man once commented that if man is an accident of evolution, are not his made-up laws, too?) In such a system, laws will be arbitrary, and the concept of an all-powerful state gains traction. Why? Because there is no absolute standard of law; there is nothing to which laws can be compared or evaluated. No one can really even explain why laws must exist, or why man cannot create a just system of laws on his own.

Man, due to his sinful nature, wants to substitute his own law for God's law. What are some of the ramifications of this? Any system that denies God as Law-giver is doomed to fail, since it does not acknowledge the truth regarding man's creation by God nor the fallen nature of man. Societies that ignore God's laws will be out of touch with reality. Arbitrary laws will be promoted, and subjects will lose respect for the legal system. Furthermore, an arbitrary attitude will likely extend to other areas of society, particularly ethics.

If law is not considered sacred, it will not be considered binding. Laws will be constantly changing to "better suit" the selfish interests of whichever groups have the power to craft them. And no surprise: If God does not exist, isn't anything permissible? We must remember that a society which consciously turns away from divine law will suffer the consequences. Read your Bible; look at how many nations were punished for violations of God's laws—immorality and lewdness, violence, idolatry, oppression of other nations, etc.

A quote to leave you with:
"It is in everybody's best interest to ground a society's legal system in divine law. Indeed, it is doubly in the best interest of all people because obedience to divine law is the only true freedom—all disobedience results in personal and/or political enslavement." David Noebel, Thinking Like a Christian, p. 111.
This post will be continued next week.

Friday, July 27, 2007

How Many Problems Can You Spot in This News Story?

If you would like to read the original story from foxnews.com, click here; but I have copied the text to the blog. There are several problems with the people involved—how many can you spot? And do we continue to wonder why medical costs skyrocket these days?

OLYMPIA, Wash. — An oral surgeon who temporarily implanted fake boar tusks in his assistant's mouth as a practical joke and got sued for it has gotten the state's high court to back up his gag.

Dr. Robert Woo of Auburn had put in the phony tusks while the woman was under anesthesia for a different procedure. He took them out before she awoke, but he first shot photos that eventually made it around the office.

The employee, Tina Alberts, felt so humiliated when she saw the pictures that she quit and sued her boss.

Woo's insurance company, Fireman's Fund, refused to cover the claim, saying the practical joke was intentional and not a normal business activity his insurance policy covered, so Woo settled out of court. He agreed to pay Alberts $250,000, then he sued his insurers.

A King County Superior Court jury sided with Woo, ordering Fireman's Fund to pay him $750,000, plus the out-of-court settlement. The insurance company won the next round, with the state Court of Appeals saying the prank had nothing to do with Woo's practice of dentistry. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court restored Woo's award.

In a sprightly 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Woo's practical joke was an integral, if odd, part of the assistant's dental surgery and "conceivably" should trigger the professional liability coverage of his policy.

Dissenting Justice James Johnson said the prank wasn't a dental procedure at all and only "rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely."

The back story, the court wrote, is that Alberts' family raises potbellied pigs and that she frequently talked about them at the office where she worked for five years.

Woo said his jests about the pigs were part of "a friendly working environment" that he tried to foster.

The oral surgery on Alberts was intended to replace two of her teeth with implants, which Woo did. First, though, he installed temporary bridges that he had shaped to look like boar tusks, and while Alberts was still under anesthesia, he took photos, some with her eyes propped open. Before she woke up, he removed the "tusks" and put in the proper replacement teeth.

Woo says he didn't personally show her the pictures but staffers gave her copies at a birthday party.

Woo's lawyer, Richard Kilpatrick, described the surgeon as a kindhearted, fun-loving man who was chagrined that an office prank turned out so badly. He was delighted with the high court's decision, Kilpatrick said.

Attorneys for the insurance company did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Thinking Like a Christian: An Introduction

As I mentioned in my previous post, next Sunday I will be beginning a summer-long series of lessons from the book Thinking Like a Christian by David Noebel. Each week I hope to add to this blog a summary of the lesson for those who are unable to attend Faith Baptist Church in Mattawan, Michigan, to hear it in person. The topic is of primary importance to Christians.

The introductory lesson discusses the importance of the topic. The textbook defines "worldview" as any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man's relationship to God and the world (p. 6). Furthermore, every worldview has an answer to the three most basic questions:

  1. Where did we come from?
  2. What's wrong with the world?
  3. What is the solution to man's basic problems?
The worldview promoted by the book (and by me, of course) is biblical Christianity: The worldview that comes directly from the Word of God. It answers all three questions clearly, and does so in a way that offers hope and eternal security to every man and woman.

Everyone has a worldview. Most can't explain their own worldview clearly or concisely, but everyone has one. Many Christians today are not taught, and frequently do not even consider, the importance of thinking biblically...which is probably why most Christians are not functioning as salt and light, and most are having little influence on the world around them—some, sad to say, have little influence even among their own families and friends. Most Christians today are more impacted by the world's worldviews than by the Bible's. If we are to reach the world for Christ, this must change.

The textbook divides a biblical worldview into ten categories, around which the text and the lessons are organized:
  • Theology
  • Philosophy
  • Biology
  • Psychology
  • Ethics
  • Sociology
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • History
We will forego any discussion of whether a more suitable organization exists, except to say that many of the topics do overlap in our world, and all are important for the Christian to understand and discern. I think this organization works well.

Each of these ten categories is addressed in the Bible. Each has ramifications in our own lives, and demands that we understand how to biblically interact with it. Each impacts the others, and each demands some basic assumptions about the nature of reality—the reality of the creation in which God has placed us. We will see in subsequent lessons that each of them is dealt with even in the earliest chapters of Genesis and throughout the Bible; furthermore, Christ is manifested in His Word as having significance in each area.

Once upon a time, America, for the most part, had a biblical worldview. That is clearly not the case today. Every topic in the list above, in our country today, is dominated or under attack from perspectives which eminate from non-biblical worldviews. We Christians lament this. But we shouldn't just whine and lament: We need to educate ourselves, our fellow Christians, and the world about what the Bible says on these things! Sure, the world needs Christ, and we need to share the Gospel with everyone, as Scripture clearly teaches. But we also need to be making clear what the Bible says about the other aspects of life; the Holy Spirit can use this kind of teaching, too, to impress upon the hearts of the unsaved the truth of His Word and the need of His salvation. Think of it as teaching the "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

1 Peter 3:15 says that we must "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Understanding and having a Christian worldview will help you to do that. Remember, too: There is no difference between the sacred and the secular in the Christian's life; all of life is sacred to the Christian.

The other worldviews do not provide satisfaction. Colossians 2:4-8 reminds each of us that the "wisdom of this world" will "spoil" you—literally, it will carry you away captive! Only in Christ and His Word can mankind find joy and happiness, as well as a rational, adequate, and consistent explanation of reality. It doesn't require a Ph.D., nor immense intelligence. Even a child can understand the teachings of the Bible.

Learn the biblical worldview. Live it. Share it with others.