No More Bullies (9 page)

When we have told our young people today that Naturalism is true—we have evolved from nothing more than some primordial slime; when we have told them objective moral values do not exist—you decide what is right and wrong for you; when we have told our young people that there is no ultimate designer; when we have told our young people that there is no ultimate destiny; when we have told them that man is the measure of all things, that there is no transcendent basis on which to find out what life is about and what life's goal is, why then are we surprised when we see the hell that is unleashed by that kind of philosophy?
²

Ravi is right! I wish every teacher who indoctrinates his or her students with Darwinian evolution, pawning off unproven theories as fact, could be shown Eric's bloodstained T-shirt. Remember the old movie
Inherit the
Wind
, in which Christians were portrayed as bigoted nincompoops for opposing the theories of evolution? I wonder if the makers of that movie (and a host of films similar to it) might change their minds if they were called upon to clean up the bloody mess in the Columbine High School library. Oh, we've inherited the wind, all right— and a lot more.

It's all perfectly logical: If evolution is true, then there is no God. If there is no God, then there is no fixed, external source of truth and morality. If there is no fixed, external source of truth and morality, then truth and morality are left up to the individual. If the individual judges that killing all the “stupid and weak organisms” in his life is justified and right, then by what basis can we question his judgment? He's only following the moral compass evolution provides.

If all this sounds a bit boring, too pedantic, or too philosophical for you, keep in mind that the end result is extremely personal and practical. It touches nearly every part of your life, from what is being taught in your high-school and college classrooms, to what you hear in pop music, to what you see on television and in the movies, to what is being espoused by supporters of homosexual lifestyles, abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, to radical, anti-Christian political movements, to neo-Nazi skinheads, and more.

Why? Because Mrs. Kravitz is barred from the playground. The rules have been abandoned and, in too many cases, jettisoned from the public square completely. In their absence, we are left to the dictates of our own hearts, and as Jeremiah 17:9 warns us and history has proved, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”

Given all this, the question is not, Why did the tragedy at Columbine happen? but rather, Why
shouldn't
it have happened?

Why shouldn't kids taunt, tease, and torment each other? Why shouldn't bosses make unreasonable demands of their employees and then publicly berate them when the goals are not met? Why shouldn't a husband blacken his wife's eye as a reminder that he is the one in control? Why shouldn't the strong, the rich, the powerful, or the cool people prey upon the weak and the outcast? And why shouldn't the wounded retaliate with guns if they so choose? After all, if we as human beings are nothing more than grown-up goo, what does it matter? Animals will be animals.

It's not my purpose to debate the fallacies of evolution (at least, not in this book). For those who are intellectually honest and want to know the truth about this ideology, the information is widely and easily available. I am simply pointing out that the ultimate issue for the evolutionist is not bones, fossils, and strata—it's
God
. Rejection of God and our accountability to Him is foundational to evolutionist thinking. The rejection of God comes first, and
then
comes the interpretation of the data.

But with God rejected, morality becomes arbitrary. The rights and dignity of others become secondary. Unbridled violence by a Hitler or a Harris, to get what he wants, to guard what is his, or to seek revenge, becomes a perfectly logical alternative.

If a personal, loving Creator God does exist and rule this universe, then we have in Him a transcendent source for meaning, value, sanctity, and dignity, not to mention a fixed and objective point of reference for determining right and wrong—God's Word, the Bible. But if we attempt to remove God from our culture, from our value system, and from our thinking, then we have none of these things, and neither do our children.

My hat is off to authors John H. Hoover and Ronald Oliver, who recognize the relationship between abusive behavior and the absence of spiritual values. In
The
Bullying Prevention Handbook,
Hoover and Oliver astutely point out:

In the end, bullying is related to our ultimate beliefs about the worth of individuals and the way they should be treated. The topics of morality, moral education, ethical reasoning, and spirituality lie at the core of society's problems, including child-on-child aggression. As practitioners think about bullying in the future, it would be beneficial to examine the role that moral development plays in learning to care about one another. Educational leaders may look to the world's religions for answers to the problems of how we interrelate. For example, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view that man is created in the image of God has enormous moral implications for how the weakest among us are treated. In the Christian tradition, Jesus stated that whatever was done to the weakest was done to him.
³

Imagine that! The antidote to our “playground poison” can be found in religious faith and values.

Of course, there are those who would fight this notion tooth and nail, but no matter. We humans can't help proving our need for God most every day, whether we believe in Him or not.

Consider the extremely moving memorial service held in Littleton following the Columbine tragedy. Seventy thousand people attended. The vice president and the governor of Colorado were there, along with other senators, representatives, and dignitaries. Millions more watched on television as Christian artists ministered through music and Franklin Graham delivered a stirring message. Thirteen white doves were released—one for each of the victims. Silver and blue balloons—the Columbine school colors—filled the sky.

With no intention whatsoever of diminishing the solemnity and beauty of that gathering, let me point out something that is going to seem obvious at first: I think it's safe to say that everyone in attendance was in agreement that something horrendously wrong had happened at Columbine High. During the memorial service, people were mourning, crying, lamenting, and sharing a common grief that literally spanned the globe.

But that raises a sticky question: Among the millions of folks who were grieving and agreeing that something wrong had happened, how many, in their normal, everyday lives, believed, talked, taught, and lived by the misguided notion that truth is relative, that there are no moral absolutes, that everyone should decide for him- or herself what is right and wrong? Were there any atheists, evolutionists, or relativists in the crowd?

If the “let's-tear-down-the-rules” crowd is right, and there are no absolutes, no ultimate right and wrong, no transcendent scheme of justice in this universe, then what were those people crying about? According to their world-view, nothing
wrong
happened at Columbine. What happened just
happened
, that's all. Lions eat gazelles, bats eat bugs, and kids shoot kids. What's the big deal?

The truth is, of course, that we all
know
something horrible happened at Columbine. Interesting, isn't it? No matter how adamantly men and women attempt to deny God, we still hint at His existence every time we “get moral” about something.

As Ravi Zacharias explains it (and I'm paraphrasing): In order to say that something is good or evil, you have to have some overall moral scheme, a moral law, by which to figure out what things are good and what things are evil. In order to have a moral law, you have to have a moral law Giver. If there is no moral law Giver, there can be no moral law, and what is, is. You can't make any judgment about it.

And yet we make judgments all the time based on a morality that is, I suggest, beyond ourselves.

Some people may argue that morality is merely a function of culture, that any particular culture develops a morality for the purpose of survival, and that no culture's morality is any better than another's. Then, in almost the same breath, they'll decry Nazi Germany's slaughter of the Jews, the white Europeans' slaughter of the Native Americans, and the burning of widows in some parts of India.

Others might say that our morality has evolved from worse to better: After all, we once had slavery, and now we don't; once women couldn't vote, and now they can; once we trashed the environment, but now we're cleaning it up. But didn't they just say that no particular morality is better than another? By what basis do they fault any agreed-upon morality we may have had in the past? What is, is. What was, was—unless something (or Someone) from somewhere has planted in their hearts a sense of what a better morality would be.

I got a kick out of watching the movie
Contact
, based on the novel by atheist astronomer Carl Sagan. The story deals with the search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and it brings up provocative spiritual and moral issues, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes—I think— by accident. One example is the main character's rationalization for believing that extraterrestrials must be out there someplace: It's such a huge universe that if there's nobody else out there, it would be a terrible waste of space.

If you think about that statement, you quickly realize that it's a moral judgment. It's a good thing to occupy and utilize space; it would be a bad thing to waste all that space. But wait a minute! A moral judgment in an accidental, random, impersonal universe? A waste of space? Who says so? By whose moral standard do we decide what is and isn't a waste of space?

The lead character in
Contact
, played by Jodie Foster, is unfairly bumped from the opportunity to travel to meet the extraterrestrials. It seems her egotistic and ambitious superior has reserved that role for himself. Now we have a moral dilemma because someone has been treated unfairly. But wouldn't it be more consistent with Sagan's atheism to say that the fittest have survived? Funny, isn't it? Avowed atheists and relativists who ardently declare that we should not be encumbered by moral laws still recognize when they have been wronged, and they protest.

We see this same truth wherever two people engage in everyday squabbles and quarrels. Each is convinced of how right he or she is and how wrong the other person is. Imagine a married couple having a fight: Somebody feels he or she has been used, abused, or treated unfairly and the other person had better straighten up. The element of fairness always comes into it.

But who decides what is fair? And where did they ever get the idea that there is such a thing as fairness? Who taught them that?

Even little children know about fairness, and most of them have never taken a philosophy class or majored in theology:

“Johnny, put that cookie away; you'll spoil your supper.”

“Well, Susie gets to have one!”

Or . . .

“Sam, it's time for bed.”

“But Jimmy gets to stay up!”

Even kids who have not been raised and schooled in theism still know when they're being ripped off. I suggest that every human being is born with a sense of transcendent justice because every human being, whether they acknowledge it or not, is made in the image of God. God is a moral God, a moral law Giver, and He has written His moral law upon the heart of every human being.

When people try to get around this, it makes for a wacky world. They'll often smack into themselves coming the other way in the same sentence:

“It's wrong to impose your morals on others!”

Uh . . . pardon me, but when you tell me it's wrong to do something, aren't you imposing your morals on me?

“There are no absolutes.”

That in itself is an absolute statement.

“No one's moral opinion is valid because we all speak
from how we've been indoctrinated.”

Well, I guess that would apply to you as well, which means what you've just said isn't valid either.

“Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want!”

Then why are you arguing with me?

“Life is meaningless!”

Would you consider that a meaningful statement?

“You can't know anything for sure.”

You seem rather sure about that.

“Students, no view of reality is superior to any other.”

Then why are you grading our papers?

“You have no right to say truth is external! We all create
our own reality!”

Then I'm
your
fault.

“Oh, here we go again, another right-wing fundamentalist
making bold assertions of fact!”

Pardon me, but didn't you just make a bold assertion of fact?

“There is no right; there is no wrong.”

Is that statement right or wrong?

“You can't tell anybody they're wrong.”

Am I wrong in doing so?

See what I mean? A lot of this stuff can get pretty silly, especially for those of us who ascribe to a biblical code of ethics. The simple truth is, because objective, external truth and morality exist, we cannot build an argument against objective, external truth and morality without falling back on objective, external truth and morality!

This is why some folks will pontificate about tolerance and open-mindedness and deny absolute truth or morality—until someone crowds in front of them in the grocery checkout line. They will scoff at such antiquated ideas as honor, virtue, and integrity—until their spouse cheats on them or a burglar ransacks their home. Then, suddenly, they will appeal to transcendent absolutes: “That's not fair! I've been cheated, robbed, violated!”