But Words Will Never Hurt Me

It is said the American Civil War was fought over the meaning of two words expressed in the difference between 'The United States is' or 'The United States are'. The Great 21st Century Western Civil War will be fought over whether or not any word has meaning at all.
One of my colleagues at work has a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. She was appalled at the idea I could actually support what was being done in Iraq. "Don't you realize Bush is exactly like Hitler?" I steered the conversation away after a few moments to avoid creating an unfortunate row, but I was supremely curious. Apparently the fact Bush says he is defending America against aggressors is proof of his evil intent. You see the Nazis made a similar claim and named the Jews as the bad guys. Besides, war is just evil anyway.
The politics of the conversation were boringly familiar to me as they are to most of us. What I found myself dwelling on was the fact my friend at work could not see that her words denigrated the millions of Jews, Christians, and others who died because of the aggressive war launched by Hitler and the Japanese militarists. Worse still, her words did not possess a coherent meaning. They were not simply untrue, they were mere sounds chosen for their emotional power. I have little doubt she believes Bush=Hitler. But she could not and would not make an argument marshaling knowledge of current events, history, or logic to support her thesis. It wouldn't matter anyway.
In a post on the wonderful Belmont Club, Wretchard notes a speech made on the topic of truth. The quest of the Enlightenment to find the ultimate truth ironically led down a path where the idea of Truth itself has become an object of scorn for the intellectual elite.
Without a common understanding of truth, words lose their meaning. They are no longer a means of expressing thoughts but have become weapons to advance an interest. We in the West have created a growing divide between those who still think words mean something and thus rely on them for communication and those who USE words.
If a civilization is no longer united, if its people cannot talk to each other about the Great Issues, some other means of resolution will be found. The issues we face are such that a compromise is not possible. It would result in Solomon's baby being truly cut in half. Those who still believe in words and their meaning must find a way to reach the others in the West, to convince enough of them to create a renewed consensus. The alternative is war.
Brother against brother.

We Don't Have to Believe in Science

Perhaps the most difficult intellectual problem facing the Christian today is the question of origins. Many have written extensively on the scientific arguments for and against evolution, but in order to properly settle the question we need to look to a more foundational area of thought. This in itself represents an assault on the basis for evolutionary theory because it contradicts the assumption that knowledge exists only as the result of observation. Empiricism and positivism are the labels variously given to that statement but it is the way in which modern secularists rule God out of existence quickly and easily. Thus reason and revelation are both thrown out recklessly, the first tacitly, the second with great and deliberate fanfare. It is a wildly unsustainable idea but in our post-modern era the slogan itself is often sufficient regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.
Theistic evolutionists should take note; this is a package deal. God is a self-consistent entity completely unable to NOT BE HIMSELF. He cannot contradict His nature. Evolution is a natural consequence of the conceit expressed by the famous Carl Sagan, "The universe is all there is and ever will be". Ex Nihilo (out of nothing) creation is the logical outcome of a personal, infinite God who does not require any kind of external method or tool in order to accomplish the tasks He sets for Himself. If, as we believe, He is the Uncaused First Cause, why should we add extra caveats and restraints to Him?
I could not believe in a God who hides behind some elaborate creation scheme. It would make me question whether or not He is capable of doing what He promises or even whether He is trustworthy.
Such is providentially not the case. I stand in awe.

But I Was Saved By Sovereign Grace

Our salvation is not a contract signed by two consenting parties, whereas the party of the first part agrees to hoist the party of the second part into heaven pursuant to the party of the second part consenting to stipulate to certain facts in evidence. It is rather the surrender of a defeated rebel on a battlefield, who, having been overwhelmed by both the power and the justness of his lawful sovereign's cause, applies for pardon on his knees. The rebel is then stunned to learn he has been granted adoption and access to the king's table.
It is no wonder then that Paul speaks of us as slaves to sin for that is the exact truth. Far greater scholars than I have spoken and written on this at length. I cannot hope to make a proper sermon. My interest is the metaphysics of the act of salvation. What does it tell us about our God? His justice and mercy are self-evident in the act, as is His devotion to our eternal rescue. But it is His self-existent, all powerful nature that stands in the most stark contrast to our abject dependency. Many people have trouble accepting salvation that requires them to cease their own efforts. I have concluded I would not accept salvation from a god who requires me to earn my way, for such a being would not be a god at all.
If I earn my place in the heavenlies, I would not be amiss to challenge the being who runs the place for greater power, prestige, or whatever I desire. That being either needs my help to raise me toward eternity, or else is arbitrary and unscrupulous in his decisions. A being in the first case is not strong enough to be God, and in the second not wise or good enough.
Thankfully such is not the case. I stand in awe.

Intent

There is no defence of a questionable activity or idea for the Christian so barren as that of harmlessness. The person who falls back on that is giving in to the temptation to believe in a life without intention.
We have built a civilization of observers, of spectators, to life itself. If a thing is harmless, it possesses no objective, and thus, no moral content. It has been designated as neutral. But then it is meaningless. Each follower of Christ should remember this phrase: For every thing there is a thought, and for every thought, there is a thinker. Accordingly, every thing, and I do mean EVERY thing, has a purpose. Solomon understood this fact far better than we. When he began to write "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity," he was reflecting on a lifetime spent pursuing fulfillment and meaning. He surveyed the entirety of human affairs and found its conclusion within the time of his own reign. Western Civilization has made two attempts to do the same over 2400 years but we still can't figure it out. Maybe, just maybe, he really was the wisest mortal in history. Perhaps we should stop regarding Ecclesiastes as a minor devotional, instead seeing it for what it is; a treatise on the very purpose of life.
Let us cease to see the mundane and seemingly minor as throw-away items. Let us not defend our own desires with the phrase 'It doesn't hurt'. We sell our race short in those moments, seeing ourselves as small and insignificant. But we were made for so much more.
To every thing there is a season.

Rich Folks Living in Boxes

The issue is isolation. In our quest to free our society from the constraints of God and nature, we have made ourselves small, unbalanced, unable to make sense of our own lives let alone answer the Great Questions. Who, what, and why, am I? Without any sense of boundaries we have been forced to construct fences of our own making. But they are flimsy, and when we don't like where they have been placed, we move them, denying ourselves the ability to know not only where the boundaries are, but also the very definition of the word.
The search for meaning and truth has degenerated into mere semantics. These word-games give us the illusion of definition and substance while we scheme and plot to break the next fence, pull down the next barrier. Once in a while some of us decide to forgo the restraints at all, invoking some excuse to get away with our arrogance. A philosopher of the 19th century approvingly named it the Will to Power. (Friedrich Nietzche, in the original German "Der Wille zur Macht" meaning not so much brute strength as the desire to dominate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power)
The concept cost over one hundred million lives during the last century and sadly has not disappeared.
Having witnessed that horror some of us have turned inward, pretending to be strong, denying the outside world's influence over us. These peculiar people have built small boxes for themselves, written the words 'personal universe' on the cardboard, and tried to ignore the sights and smells around them. Unfortunately for them the world has a way of intruding on every one of us. How then shall we escape?