Volume 44   Number 2                                                                                    October 2001

America’s response to the events of September eleventh has not been what I hoped it would be. Yes, people have become less self-centered, have chosen to help the helpless, and have put their own lives at risk to save the lives of others—commendable acts, all of them—but their religious responses have not been so gratifying. I had hoped against hope that this tragedy would awaken America from her slumber (Eph. 5:14), force her to look at what she’s become, and remind her Who alone can heal her wounds, but it has not.

Some would quickly commend the fact that at least the country is talking religion, but surely this alone cannot be commended, for what has America’s religion become? What of the religious meeting in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. on Friday, September fourteenth (the day one news channel wanted to call only a “day of remembrance,” in spite of the President’s full title, a “day of prayer and remembrance”) in which no “major world religion” was left out, but all were treated as if equal in verity and value? And, what of the fervent defense and, in effect, exoneration of a false religious system we heard in the President’s speech before Congress six days later? Are these acts commendable? Are these the acts of a penitent people who may very well have received a Divine wake up call on 9-11? Are these the actions of a country that knows religion?

To my disappointment, I see in these acts that America remains more interested in compromising and creating “harmony in a world of difference” than she does in finding truth in this world of lies. She continues to work hard at being like that empire after which she was patterned in the beginning—Rome. While, however, the similarities were once limited to things such as Congress and the Presidency and their respective powers, or the eagle as a national symbol, things that made Rome great, now America strives to follow her religious and philosophical paths that hastened her demise.

A brief examination of history reveals this. During the second century A.D., the Roman Empire was at the peak of its glory, enjoying peace and prosperity greater than at any other time in its history, much like what America has experienced in the past fifty years. And, as in America, there were many peoples, and many beliefs. They were able to manage these beliefs with little or no controversy. “The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded themselves that, under various names and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities” (Gibbon, p. 23). “The various modes of worship which prevailed...were all considered by the people as equally true...” (Gibbon, p. 22). Rome even offered the Christians a place for Christ in the Roman pantheon. Perhaps, they said things similar to what we hear some say, today: “We all worship the same God, right?” “And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord” (Gibbon, p. 22).

Peace at the expense of truth was and is the name of the game. Today, America wants to view truth subjectively rather than objectively, relativistically rather than realistically, because it wants to avoid the inevitable controversy that ensues when truth is asserted and falsehood exposed. Better to believe that everyone might be right and his/her opinions valid, than to believe that there is a truth that is separate and apart from persons and opinions, immutable in nature and immune to speculation. Better to view such a notion as unacceptable than to view the mass of divergent doctrines as unacceptable. Political correctness for peace—that is the hallmark of this era, and its contribution to posterity. And, brethren, since society has the ability to affect the church if we are not watchful, let us be diligent, lest we be found to humor this, and political correctness and the desire to accept skew our vision, and become barriers to truth.

Let us be aware, also, that truth must be ascertained before it can be maintained, and that relativistic thought is at work at the lowest levels, even those of Biblical interpretation. Let us be wary, when in the course of a Bible study, after several persons have offered their interpretations of a passage, one suggests that perhaps the passage can mean all of the submitted understandings, even when one may contradict another. Let us take note when an individual asserts that the meaning of a passage cannot be apprehended at all, and that individuals ought to freely apply the passage as they will. Let us beware of these statements, for they are the mark of something insidious. We cannot believe that God has so layered meanings in His Scriptures that contradicting interpretations may reasonably co-exist—“God is not the author of confusion...” (1 Corinthians. 14:33). Nor can we believe that God communicates in such a convoluted manner that we are left to guess at what He’s saying. A just God would not command us to “work out [our] own salvation” (Phil. 2:12), and not give us the means to do so.

The truth is we have a God Who speaks understandably, and Who expects us to understand, a God Who is jealous (Ex. 20:5), and Who will not share His glory with another. Let us, then, seek to know His will, cling to it, and stand upon it. Let us be unswerving in our love for it, and unashamed to speak it, even to a world, a nation, that has no respect for it. Let us leave the foolishness of this world behind, and remember that one truth from God is worth more than all the wisdom of men, as it is written: “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Corinthians. 1:20).