The internet is abuzz with the fallout from Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. I have not read the book, and I will not likely have the time to read it in the near future, but Bell gave an interview that can be found here:

<http://www.livestream.com/lovewins/video?clipId=pla_9997e760-b88d-4294-91a8-142e5ed1c619>.

This interview outlines what I understand to be the book’s basic philosophy. I must say at the onset that I don’t believe he is saying anything that hasn’t been said before, and because of that fact, I don’t expect the attention that this work is receiving now to last for a long time. However, the worldview that Bell is presenting is an expression of post-modern thought that is important for today’s Christian to understand thoroughly. Many Christians will respond by calling Bell a heretic, (which in the concrete traditional sense is probably true, but in common use it just means that one is having a negative emotional reaction to what is being said) but the question that is important, (and will remain after the book has made its way to the discount store shelves) is why? Why is Bell wrong? What ideas are at play here that we can challenge in a reasonable manner? The following are a few of my own observations based upon the interview that Bell gave.

First, as I’ve already said, Rob Bell’s worldview is drenched, dripping, and in fact reeks of postmodernism. Without an understanding of this fact, it is very difficult to understand what he is doing. Because of the postmodern view of language as lacking any inherent meaning, it is easy to stumble into a rhetorical minefield of assumed definitions and redefinition when talking to a person who is influenced by postmodern ideas. Clearly, definitions of words have always been tricky, and most people have experienced the misunderstandings that can happen if two people in a conversation are unwittingly using two different definitions of the same word. However, in the postmodern world, there are people who are masters of exploiting the meaning of terms. For example, in the previously mentioned interview, the question is raised, “Is there a real Hell?” Bell answers “yes.” (Collective sigh of relief that he has not forsaken the orthodox view) Then, however, he continues to describe Hell as the bad experiences that humans face in life, which is a statement that he does not in fact believe in Hell. Additionally, though most people understand the difficulty of some meaning being “lost in translation,” postmodernists tend to almost completely deemphasize the author’s intent when interpreting language. This allows a person to completely reinvent crucial Scriptural concepts. Hell becomes our collective bad experiences on earth, redemption becomes man understanding what it means to be authentically human, the broad path that leads to destruction becomes the tendency of man to be noncommittal to relationships, and God’s justice is his final act of telling people that they can’t do naughty things anymore – the list goes on. A postmodernist can use the same terms, speaking and sounding just like a traditional evangelical believer, and in fact be saying things that are completely at odds with Scripture.

Secondly, postmodern thought deemphasizes the importance of truth. (Actually, that’s being nice. Most postmodernists deny any such thing as objective truth) Since there is no truth, there really is no falsehood, only different ways of saying the same things. Christians are not then to proclaim “truth” as much as “have conversations.” In his interview Bell makes the statement that every voice is important. The problem is that some voices are in fact blathering incoherent foolishness. We cannot assume that the fact that everyone has a voice implies that every voice is valid. Truth is the only coherent value by which to judge any claim about reality, and therefore sometimes it is necessary (with a humble attitude) to identify those claims which “just aren’t so.”

So, why are people like Bell so popular, and how do we answer them? First, I think that part of the reason that his message resounds with so many people is that it does in fact touch upon some problems that have plagued the evangelical church in the United States. This physical world does matter in ways of which we often have not thought. Though it is wrong to imply that the main idea behind Jesus’ coming to earth was humanitarian relief, the church has an often neglected its mission to “care for the orphans and widows.” Man is created in God’s image, and there is an inherent value in ministering to that image. This value is present, I believe, even when our message falls upon deaf ears, though it is our desire that everyone understand the Gospel and believe. The conversational aspect of postmodernism also touches on a mistake that many have made in their presentation of the Gospel. All too often, we throw “canned answers” out rather than answering the genuine specific questions that people do have. We should listen so that when we do speak we are talking to the person, and not our preconception of what the person means to say. In this way, we can present Biblical truth in way that is personally meaningful to an unbeliever. Finally, I think it is of the utmost importance for Christians to examine their terminology. We need to habitually practice scrutinizing terms like salvation, grace, faith, heaven, hell, hope, love, sin, etc., to know what they mean in light of Scripture. If we put in the effort and train ourselves to think in those terms, when a person comes along like Rob Bell, we can ask intelligent questions to draw out hidden assumptions and definitions, and we can make a strong stand against falsehood which leads so many astray.

Not too very long ago, I found one of those emails in my inbox. You guessed it, big bold letters and lots of exclamation points head a message which seeks to enlighten all of Christendom to some moral outrage or attack on Christian liberties. Of course, at the end is the obligatory message jumping off the screen in bold underlined caps framed with another generous helping of exclamation points. If you are not a coward you will forward this message to everyone in your inbox, and if you don't, God will judge you accordingly. As I hit the delete button, I look outside to see if there are thunderclouds nearby...

This particular email was detailing one Madelyn Murray O'Hair's attempt to ban Christian radio broadcasts. Wait a second... A few minutes with Google and sure enough: This is the same old myth that has been circulating since before I was born. I think I remember my dad talking about chain letters (remember those?) with the same story, and the same threat of doom for those who failed to pass on the message. This myth falsely connects O'Hair to a failed petition to the FCC in 1975! What's more, sadly, she was murdered in 1995.

So, here's the twenty dollar question. Why is this myth still circulating? How in the world did it make the jump to electronic communication? Why can't we just leave poor Mrs. O'Hair to face her Maker? These sort of emails come to my inbox from intelligent and educated people, yet they continue to circulate. I suspect that many of us just are too busy to take a couple of minutes to fact check before we hit the forward button, but what does this cost us?

Many Christians seem to have a blind spot when it comes to certain things that support our conclusions regarding the world. I remember years ago when a tract circulated among churches telling how the Russians had installed speakers into a deep hole in the earth and could hear the sounds of tormented souls wailing in Hell. It didn't take me long even as a child to see the problems with that scenario. I could go on. Do I even need to mention backmasking? These sort of things continue to plague Evangelical Christianity when we should all know better. Can we expect the unsaved world to believe that Jesus died, and rose from the dead, when we saddle ourselves with numerous fanciful conspiracy theories?

I'm not saying that there are not true accounts of attacks on Christianity, or even things going on behind closed doors that would shock all of us. We are indeed engaged in a spiritual battle with Satan and the powers of darkness, and that should not be ignored. However, if we do not exercise discretion, when we do have important information to relay, no one will take us seriously.

I propose this: Christians need to be more skeptical. Not in the sense of the philosophical skepticism that doubts everything - what I am talking about is the smell test. If something seems fishy, its time to do a little research. That is the wonder of modern technology. Five minutes on Google can often supply basic info on many scams and myths that are circulating. At the very least, we should never forward something with questionable veracity. I also propose that we refrain from propagating stories that are unverifiable. For example, if I believe that a member of the President's cabinet is a Satan worshiper, but I don't have hard evidence to support this fact, there is nothing to gain from spreading my theory. If I do, once it is obvious that I am unable to prove anything, people will just write me, and my faith, off as foolish (even if my belief happens to be true). There are more than enough public actions of the President that I can challenge morally - I don't need a conspiracy theory.

Fellow Christians, I entreat you to be wise and to avoid giving Satan occasion to discredit Christianity, the Cross, and the Gospel. Our message is too important, and there is too much at stake for us to be marginalized by falsehood.

Have you ever heard of King James Only churches? These are Christian denominations which teach that the only valid version of the Bible for the English-speaking world is the King James Version (KJV). Those that hold this belief are certainly in the minority of Evangelical Christianity, however there seems to be at least one of the KJV-only churches in many areas. Some claim that the KJV is simply better than other translations, and others believe that there was a special revelation when the KJV was translated. Enough people are familiar with these claims that I thought it would be beneficial to write out some of my own objections to KJV-only beliefs. I realize that many of those that hold these beliefs are my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I believe that KJV-only teaching is harmful to the cause of Christ because it is based on a number of falsehoods.

1. Often it is claimed that the NIV and other modern versions have purposefully omitted portions of Scripture; however, these "omissions" are based upon the source material, not merely the preference of the translators. For example, the New Testament translation of the NIV comes from an edition of the Greek New Testament which scholars have painstakingly poured over, applying verifiable methods to determine the most accurate reading of difficult passages. These are the individuals who are being the most honest, for they choose truth and integrity even when it parts with tradition.

2. KJV-only apologists usually fail to address the fact that there are many more manuscripts available today than there were at the translation of the KJV, and many of these are from an earlier date and are more accurate than the ones used for the KJV. This is established, verifiable fact, not mere opinion.

3. I often find claims that the manuscripts behind today's modern translations are the same as those used by Roman Catholics, yet those that make these claims seem to forget that the KJV was translated by the Anglican Church (split from Roman Catholicism so that the king could divorce his wife) along with the Apocrypha. These were not evangelical Christians. (Though I have no reason to doubt that their goal was to render an accurate translation)

4. Many KJV-only preachers proclaim the sufficiency of the 1611 King James version without realizing that most people have never even seen a 1611 KJV, nor would they be able to read one effectively. It was written in very archaic English, and has been revised more than once since then.

5. The New Testament portion of the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is a Greek text assembled by Erasmus in the 1500's using a handful of very late manuscripts. (10th century at best) Even more interesting is that he didn't actually have a full set of Greek manuscripts, so he translated portions of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate. (standard Bible of the Medieval Roman Catholic church) There is also reason to believe that fake Greek manuscripts were created for Erasmus to follow when he refused to include some verses that were found to be late additions to the Vulgate and did not appear in the original language. In the end, even Erasmus admitted that his translation was somewhat sloppy.

6. Many of those that make KJV-only claims seem to have little knowledge of how the original languages of the Bible relate to English. Greek, for instance, often will not translate cleanly into English, so the reality is that words have to be added or omitted even more than most people realize. This is true for thought-for-thought as well as "word-for-word" (strictly speaking, there is no such thing) translations. In these people's zeal, they have lifted the KJV higher than the original languages from which it was translated, yet anyone who has studied these languages knows enrichment is found the closer one gets to understanding the original text. I found one KJV-only adherent asserting that people need to get back to the KJV and quit reading “Greek Lexicons,” trusting that the Holy Spirit will illuminate its archaic language. This is only slightly less absurd than an English speaking person picking up a Russian Bible and trusting that the Holy Spirit will make the text clear. The Holy Spirit does illuminate Scripture in our hearts, but not until after we have comprehended the words themselves.

7. The assertion that the KJV has some kind of Spiritual superiority over other English translations is unfounded. Where is the scriptural backing for this claim? Where is the proof beyond individual opinions? There is none, yet this lack of proof has not kept people from presenting these opinions as if they were indisputable theological facts. That is a dangerous position to be in!

8. Lastly, the KJV, merely by its age, presents several challenges to propagating the gospel. Experience has taught me that when non-Christians attempt to point out so-called "contradictions" in the Bible, they almost always use the KJV. Why? Because there are a number of problem translations found within the KJV which have been corrected in later versions with the help of more accurate manuscripts. Similarly, I have observed that cults (the ones that recognize the Bible in some form) often use the KJV. Why? Because its language is archaic and is easily manipulated.

I am not writing this to knock the KJV. In fact, I do think that it has a certain poetic flow that is missing from later versions. (this is probably due more to changes in the English language itself) Furthermore, its historical significance is undeniable. However, my life as young Christian was changed when I moved to a version that was written in language that I was used to comprehending. I do prefer translations that more closely resemble the original languages because they leave the interpretation to the reader, however this might not be best for children or new Christians. The bottom line is that KJV-only adherents are creating contention and confusion where it does not need to be, and shifting the focus of some away from the most important issues.

When was the last time that you heard a news story about America's public school system? What is the basic message that you can expect to hear? There seems to be an endless stream of media outlets complaining about failing grades, and calling for more money to send to the distressed government school system.

I believe the claim that the government school system is failing is false.

Now, those that know me are probably a little surprised that I would make this statement, so hopefully now that I have your attention, you will allow me to explain. I would like you to consider a man named John Dewey. (If you are thinking "Dewey Decimal system" that's Melville Dewey) John Dewey is considered the "father of progressive education," but I'm not sure that most people are aware of his relationship to America's government education system. Dewey lived from 1859 to 1952, at a time of great transition. There are a couple of things you should know about Dewey right away. First, he was a prominent adherent to Darwinian Evolution, and he was a signer of the first Humanist Manifesto. This is significant for a number of reasons, the first being that Humanist Manifesto I presented Secular Humanism specifically as a "religion." Later humanists have shied away from this representation, but there should be no doubt that it is a religious belief system.

Dewey's philosophies on education are, I believe, the key to the current state of the government education system. A thorough examination of these ideas would take more space than I have available, but here are some relevant points. First, Dewey did not believe that the primary purpose of education was to impart factual knowledge to children. He saw education as a means to develop children in the way that their society sees fit. In fact, he believed that providing an individual with too much fact knowledge can lead to self-centeredness. Within the writings of Dewey, you see a de-emphasis of the role of the family unit in education, and a focus on how the community imparts knowledge to children. What is so disturbing about this idea is that it is common to many dangerous belief systems like Marxism. While Marxism and Secular Humanism are distinct and separate philosophies, they are allies in their desire to remove children out of their homes and away from the values of their parents as early as possible, and maximize unhindered access to children. This is seen as a primary method to change society's beliefs in the future, and I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to think that Marxism provides the political means for this end. In America that is just what we've seen, the school year has gotten longer, (some are even talking about going to a perpetual school year), and children go to school earlier. Yet, with all of the steps that have been taken, if you compare modern public education with that of the 1800's for example, it seems that in many ways an eighth grade education from then far surpasses today's twelfth grade educations.

My goal is not to create a villain to blame for all of America's problems, or to suggest that a single man is responsible for the destruction of the government school system. I simply would ask you to consider these questions. Could it be that when politicians and bureaucrats argue that if we just send more money to the schools, or if we pay teachers more, that schools will succeed, their idea of "success" is not what we believe it to be? Might it be plausible that when some seek longer school years and more school related programs, their goal is not to educate children in the traditional sense of reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to find occasions to indoctrinate them with the religion of Secular Humanism while removed from the influence of the "outdated" values of their parents? Perhaps, as we continue to throw money at a problem in hopes that eventually our children will be equipped with the knowledge to succeed as individuals, many of the recipients of that money have no other goal but to give children just enough knowledge to make them intellectually subservient to the official religion of the American government school system, Secular Humanism. You might believe that the government school system is failing, but I would have to disagree. It is highly successful at its intended purpose.

It seems that the idea of an extremist, as referenced in American culture, often assumes a sliding-scale view of belief systems. If I’ve lost you, hang on and I’ll try to clear things up. Imagine a line that represents the beliefs of Christians. Granted, I am oversimplifying for the sake of explanation, but bear with me. On the very right end are abortion clinic bombers, hateful protestors and those who commit all kinds of deplorable acts in the name of Christianity. On the far left end of the scale are those who, though they claim to be Christians, have few standards for their own behavior and do not believe that people should “impose their morals” on others. Where a person fits on this scale is determined by how dogmatic their stance is on many individual issues. These include inerrancy of Scripture, the role of Christians in secular culture, and many more. The underlying theme is that under this perspective, all the ideas on the scale are related. The more “extreme” a person is in their acceptance of certain beliefs, the further right or left person slides on the scale. Some in the media who are not friendly to Christians try to push this further by connecting Evangelical Christians, via this line, to the Crusaders, well known cults, or even the Nazis. While most people would find this association ridiculous, this philosophy has created a particular phenomenon in the belief systems of many Americans. This phenomenon is characterized by a particular preference for middle-of-the-road beliefs, which are viewed as more enlightened than ones that are more exclusive. They are careful not to take a strong stance many issues for fear that they will slide too far to one of the extremes. They may be afraid to proclaim Christ, as the exclusive way to heaven for fear that they will become too much like (ideologically) those “Christians” who have tried to kill and destroy any who disagree with them. They may not emphasize the influence of scripture in everyday life because some who have claimed these ideas have surrendered their wills to cult leaders.

This method of relating particular ideas is rarely ever valid. The truth is that a particular person’s system of ideas is built on a series of premises that they have consciously or unconsciously accepted. All other beliefs branch from these basic ideas, creating a unique worldview. Additionally, this worldview contains an individual’s formula for determining which premises take precedence over others. A person who takes a middle-of-the-road position is not necessarily more enlightened than one who takes an “extreme” view. It merely reveals that a person values a certain idea over another. For example, a person who says abortion is wrong and should be illegal may do so based on a belief that the life of an unborn child is more important that the feelings of the parents. Whereas, another Christian who says, “I believe that Abortion is wrong, but I cannot impose this belief on you,” may do this based on a premise that the life of the child is less important than imposing upon another’s autonomy. Additionally, the sharing of similar beliefs does not make two worldviews equal. The Nazis believed that homosexuality was wrong, and so does Evangelical Christianity. However, Christians come to this belief from a completely different premise (Scripture) and they have a completely different solution for dealing with the problem. (For Christians, that solution is the saving Grace of Christ and Godly counsel)

When these truths are applied, they bring important implications for Christians. We must evaluate wordviews based upon their underlying premises and not the negative perceptions of a secular culture. People who have done horrible things in the name of Christianity were not carrying Biblical principles to an extreme. The Crusaders, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others had long ago forsaken the premises of Scripture and replaced them with their own values. Scripture, interpreted according to the authors’ intent and applied accordingly in everyday lives, will never lead to “extremism”. It will continue to have positive effects on the lives of individuals and society as a whole, and these effects will vary in intensity directly proportional to the diligence with which the principles of Scripture are applied. There will always be some who label any belief in absolute truth “extremism.” Under this definition, I will wear the term “extremist” with pride, for history tells us that those individuals make an important impact on the world are not the ones who live their lives in limbo fearing to take a concrete stand on important issues.

Not surprisingly, there is a small group of unbelievers who used the chance to bash Christianity as a whole. They asked, “If there is a God why didn’t he protect His servant?” Some made all sorts of unfounded accusations against the character of the pastor who was killed. They tried to lump all “Christians” into one group that is at best delusional and at worst sick predators who victimize the weak. Others even concluded that because Christians cause all kinds of problems, this man probably got what he deserved.

The next group of people blamed some “thing” or circumstance for causing this tragedy. Their worldview holds that if all the guns were removed from the population, then these kinds of events would never take place. They may also think that if we could improve every person’s environment, and give them education, healthcare, and good jobs, people would not resort to violence to get their own way. To someone who holds this worldview, a tragedy like this is just a failure of humanity to allow its basic goodness to shine through.

After reading through these opinions, I had a few thoughts: First, Proverbs 26:4 says: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (ESV) I have often made the mistake of engaging a person in an argument when I knew there was no point. If a person is neither willing to think rationally on even the most basic points, nor interesting in understanding my side of the issue, discussion is probably not the best way to reach him/her. These types of arguments have always ended badly for me, because I started off the discussion on the other person’s terms.

Ultimately, before a person can try to explain difficult things, like human suffering, to an unbeliever he must first define the Christian worldview. Even if a critic does not agree with our worldview, he can understand a Christian’s reasoning within a Scriptural framework, and perhaps see that he too is operating under some kind of preconception. This means, among other things, going back to the beginning and explaining the fall of man and his basic sinfulness. All too often, well meaning people will start off quoting large amounts of Scripture, not understanding that to those with a pagan worldview the preaching of the cross is “folly.” (I Cor 1:23) Three paragraphs of Scripture (as one person tried) presented without any kind of foundation to an atheist will most likely make little sense to him, because he sees the Bible as merely one of countless ancient myths. Once a proper foundation has been presented, we can then explain that terrible things happen because man was given free choice and he chose (and continually chooses) sin. We know that God doesn’t cause people to do such terrible things, and He often does not interfere in events on earth because he has given man the ability to make decisions, even ones that have grave consequences. Guns don’t cause these tragedies, nor are they caused by a person’s surroundings. Evil comes from the sinful heart of man. Whatever compelled this individual to commit this horrible act, whether it was mental illness, demonic influence, or any number of issues, the ultimate problem is sin. That is the problem, and there is only one solution for any individual – Salvation through Christ. As whole, society will only be improved if our culture turns back to Biblical principles.

How do you get an unbeliever to understand these things? Every person is different and it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to know exactly the right thing to say. I’ve come to the conclusion that arguing with a complete stranger on a forum is probably not very productive, so I rarely post anything, but I hope that I can use these opinions to better equip myself to give an answer for the hope that is in me. (1 Peter 2:6)

August 5th 2008 will mark the official end of my service in the United States Air Force. It is a bittersweet time for me for a couple of reasons. I am proud of my years as a military member. There is a laundry list of great things that have come about as a result of my enlistment, not the least of which, was meeting my wife. I wouldn’t give up the last 7 years for the world, and I hope that as a result of my service I have helped preserve the freedom of this great nation.

That being said, I feel compelled to write some things that give me no pleasure to express. My first tendency is to feel that I am somehow betraying a trust, but I believe that it is vital for Christians in America to hear this, so they can act before it is too late. I entered the Air Force for several reasons, school money, travel, and necessity all played a part in this decision. A large part of me wanted to serve and to make a difference in the struggle to preserve freedom. (This, even before 9/11) I suppose all military recruits have preconceived notions of what the military will be like, but reality for most of us is somewhat different than our expectations. It is a reality that you get comfortable with over time as you learn your place in the big picture. This is not one not one of those typical “I thought the military would be different” moments. I have observed a disturbing trend in the last few years that is deeply troubling when I consider its implications. I present this example:

Several months ago, I learned that a mandatory (for all men and women under 25 years old) sexual assault briefing would be held at Fairchild AFB, near Spokane, WA. These types of briefings are quite common, usually they center on a “no means no, even if you’re drunk” kind of message. Since I choose not to live the party lifestyle that these messages assume, I typically would just suffer through the briefing and move on with my day. I quickly discovered that this case was different. The presentation was by a civilian who had been sponsored (with your tax dollars) to perform at the base theater. His name is Ben Atherton-Zeman, and his show is called “Voices of Men.” The idea behind this show is that, since male roles in the media are not sending the proper message, Mr. Zeman impersonates well-known characters and says what they should say. I did some on-line searching, and found some interesting facts about Mr. Zeman. He is a spokesperson for the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), a fact mentioned only once in passing on the website advertisement for his one-man show. So, I looked up NOMAS to see what they support. According to their website, they are “Pro-feminist” and “gay-affirmative.” I also found with a little searching that, not only is Mr. Zeman a feminist in philosophy, he welcomes the label.

Naturally, I was shocked that a feminist gay activist was being sponsored on base, considering the military’s supposed neutrality when it comes to politics and religious matters. I often question whether my actions after this point were the best, but I want others to know what happened, and to understand that I was facing a giant with little knowledge of how to fight it. I thought at first that this was something that only the local base officials were involved in, and thought perhaps they were not aware of Mr. Zeman’s affiliations. I called to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator’s (SARC) office (who was sponsoring the event) and left a message. The next thing I knew, I was explaining to the Chief Master Sergeant why I had called this office, harassed them, and informed them that I wouldn’t attend their show. None of this was true. I had given them the benefit of the doubt, and said nothing about gays. I merely stated that, based on my religious beliefs, I disagreed with this man’s activist agenda. I said that I didn’t believe it was appropriate for the US government to force people to listen to his rhetoric against their will. I also said that if they persisted, I would be forced to pursue any available legal action. (In retrospect, probably not the best thing to say) Though I had never threatened to disobey the order to attend this event, I was informed by the Chief Master Sergeant, that if I didn’t go, I would face prosecution under military law. After I explained my position, I asked him what he would do in my situation. Though his answer could have been simple, he refused to reply, saying that he wouldn’t comment on that. The whole conversation was typical of the current leadership in the Air Force. He told me that the Air Force had invented their “own morals” that its members had to follow and said in so many words that mine (based on Biblical principles) didn’t count. (I still haven’t wrapped my mind around that one. Where did the Federal Government find authority to invent morals?)

What followed was a series of fruitless phone calls where I was juggled between various base agencies. I called the legal offices, the equal opportunity office, and even the inspector general’s office. I got everything from open hostility to the typical “you make some valid points, but there’s nothing that can be done” reply. The predominate view was that since Mr. Zeman was only talking about sexual assault, the Air Force has no concern with his activism in other areas. (Somehow I doubt that logic would hold up if they wanted to bring in the head of the KKK to talk about fiscal responsibility) I even contacted some civilian legal advocacy organizations who informed me that current law allows military leadership to do practically whatever they want in this area, with no consequences. I explained to every person and agency I talked to that, as an Evangelical Christian, I believe that Biblical male and female roles in the family are a fundamental basis for society. I explained that while I agree whole-heartedly with the anti-sexual assault message, I fiercely disagree with this man’s assumption that traditional masculinity and femininity is the root cause of these acts. Furthermore, I believe that it was a violation of my rights for leadership to force me to attend Mr. Zeman’s show.

With no other recourse, I prayed and examined my own conscience. Since merely attending the event was not a violation of Scripture, I obeyed the order to go. It was a big production, with stands passing out reading material, pens, and various trinkets with logos printed on them. To start, the base commander addressed the crowd, expressing his whole-hearted agreement with Mr. Zeman’s message. I learned at this point one reason why it had been impossible for me to change the situation. Mr. Zeman’s show has been touring numerous Air Force bases with the apparent approval of high level Air Force leadership.

The show itself was what I expected from viewing the information available on the Internet, though I do believe he changed a few things to appear less controversial. It centered at first around the “no means no” message as I mentioned earlier, but he skillfully weaved in his feminist, pro-gay agenda. The whole last segment shamelessly promoted feminism and touted its superiority as a philosophy. All this time, he refused to acknowledge the role that a bar-hopping, binge-drinking lifestyle plays in putting many (if not most) of these people in a position to commit sexual assault or be victimized. He also had a short, laughable section on how using a pet name like “honey” or “babe” is demeaning to women. He closed the presentation by asking all the men in the audience to stand and take an oath vowing, among other things, to always seek equality with women. While it sounds harmless enough, I recognize that when a feminist says “equality” he means something completely different from the equal but different roles that I believe men and women should have. So, in this group of several hundred people, I was the only man that did not stand and take the vow.

The harsh reality is this: Your hard-earned tax dollars that should be used to help secure our God-given freedoms are being spent to indoctrinate young men and women in a godless, liberal worldview. I wish this was an isolated incident, but these types of programs are all too common. At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, every military member was required to attend “diversity awareness” classes that openly proclaim “tolerance” for deviant lifestyles. This type of thing is becoming the norm, and attendance is enforce by laws that were created to keep solders from deserting in war and certainly never intended to provide commanders unquestioned ability to propagandize young military members. Even if he does agree with these worldviews, it seems that a reasonable person would admit the error of forcing people under penalty of court-martial to listen to his point of view. However, these activists have found a perfect (captive) audience and are taking full advantage of it.

This is a reflection of the times. As more military leaders accept a politically correct worldview, and forsake the Biblical values that have made our country great, we will find this trend getting increasingly worse. Gone are the times when we could view the military as generally conservative Christian-friendly. (At least as far as my experience in the Air Force has taught me) In the next 20 years, the greatest challenge for Christians in the military may very well be that they are forced to choose between their faith, and their career. (Or military prison in some cases) Already, the right to pray in Jesus’ name has been attacked. Remember, this is your military. You pay the taxes to finance it, and its commanders answer to the Congress that you elect. The time for action is now. We need to hold these leaders accountable. Remember that nations don’t fall from the outside. Once we are corrupted from within, nothing will stand between us and our enemies.

I've come to believe that there is a high ground in my heart. I imagine it to be a strategic spot that overlooks all aspects of my life. As I grow in Christ, the Holy Spirit continues to guide me in building up fortifications to defend against Satan's attacks. It is to this place that the Spirit delivers supplies that I need to fight spiritual warfare. He provides me strength to fight and ammunition to fire at the enemy. When I spend daily time in meaningful communication with Christ, the defenses are strengthened and expanded. Often Satan launches assaults against me through temptation or difficult circumstances, but I can, from this position, effectively fight back. As long as I keep the Holy Spirit (through me) in control of the high ground.

The problem is that I have lost the high ground in the past. Satan has lured me away from its safe defenses. Distracted by all the things that vie for priority in my life; I have, without realizing it, moved away from the high ground. It is in this weakened condition that Satan launched his assault. Suddenly, I realized that I was very vulnerable. I grasped for strength to fight, but I was cut off from the Holy Spirit's supplies. I had no ammunition, and I had lost any strategic advantage. I was now surrounded by the enemy, and worse, I was fighting in enemy territory and on the enemy's terms. Sadly, this is where I have suffered some of my greatest defeats.

I've come to the realization that I must protect and maintain the high ground at all costs. I will not give the enemy the advantage in his war against my soul. I pray that, with God's help, I will continue to build up the high ground in my heart and never again give up its control to the enemy. I know that days will come when Satan marches against me with seemingly all of the black forces of hell. Brandishing every weapon in their arsenal, they will charge up the hill time and time again. Yet each and every time they will be forced to retreat, because I will be fighting with the power of the Holy Spirit -- and He never runs out of ammunition.