 |
 |
Dripping Springs Weekly Bulletins
Did Enron Get Your Money?
Walter Jones is a blue collar worker, putting back a chunk of money in a 401k for retirement. He knew when he would draw from that fund, and he knew how much he could live on. Peace of mind allowed him to keep his wits and his family together. He told others that he had “the good life.”
Five months ago he discovered that his retirement fund was almost empty. How could this be? How can a man’s retirement be snatched away from him just months away from age 65? “How will my wife and I live?” His is a true story, though his name is not Walter Jones. Hundreds and thousands of others are facing the same future as Walter. They all thought that those who guarded their funds were good, honest people. To their dismay, they found that they were not.
The names have become all too familiar—Enron, World-com, Arthur Anderson. Once highly respected; now highly questionable.
One interesting sidelight to this whole sad situation is that business schools thought “preventive measures” were in place. Past experience indicated the need for courses in “Business Ethics” for candidates for the MBA degree. Such courses were quickly put in place by university administrators. However, we are now discovering that those courses are partly to blame for the scandals in every newspaper every day for months.
Why were they to blame? Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell wrote in the August 17, 2002 issue of the Austin American-Statesman the following words:
The reality is that ethics courses have not failed. They have succeeded in doing something wholly different from what the public was led to believe they were doing. In their various guises, courses on ethics at all educational levels have tended to promote moral relativism, undermining the very concept of right and wrong. In other words, many ethics courses are frauds.
Sowell, from Stanford University, gives emphasis to the fact that the ethics courses did just what they were designed to do. Unfortunately, he says, those courses were intended to teach “moral relativism.” That means each person decides what is right and what is wrong. It sounds a whole lot like what Joseph Fletcher and others began to teach in the 60’s, doesn’t it. They called their systems “Situation Ethics,” or John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism.” These systems denied the validity of objective standards of morality.
In Immanuel Kant’s discussion of “The Categorical Imperative,” he wrote that we could determine the “morality” of an act by use of our reason. He said:
Honesty is a fundamental value, not because of the effects it produces, but because it is right, in and of itself.
But how can one claim “honesty is…right, in and of itself”? If no objective standard of morality exists, then why should man not look out only for himself? Today’s standards are liquid, and can be “changed” at the whim of the “majority.” We saw a lot of that in Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s and recall the foul odor.
The scandals of 2002 demonstrate again the need for honesty that is fundamental. Some men will stretch the limits of “honesty” until it brings enough dollars into their pocket. How, then, can one claim honesty— or any other moral question—has some intrinsic value? Who decides? Legislators? The voters? The courts? That’s the problem with the “truth is relative” philosophies—they provide no standard at all.
Man is merely treading water until an objective standard is seen and recognized. Sure, there are man-made laws that place punitive measures upon some acts, but shouldn’t a course in “ethics” get down to the core of this question? As long as “moral relativism” is taught, either implicitly or explicitly, some will find approval to feather their own nests, and some of your 401k may be the next to go. Will it then be wrong only because it was your money that was stolen?
There is only one source for an objective standard of morality, and it must come from a source outside man. That can only be the Bible. Until America accepts it, our morality will continue to decline, and we can blame only ourselves.
|
|
|
|
“O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,”
“The so-called new morality is too often just the old immorality condoned,”
“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
George Washington, Farewell Address,
September 17, 1796
|
|
|
|
|
Why Premillennialism is Dangerous
(Part One; Part Two Next Week)
1. It denies the inerrancy of Scriptures - 2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.."; Luke 9:22 - "Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day".
2. It denies the place of the church in the eternal purpose of God. Ephesians 3:10-11 - "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord…".
3. It denies the glory of the cross and scheme of redemption in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:3-14 - "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us".
4. It denies the spiritual nature of the Lord's kingdom. Luke 17:21 - "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you".
5. It denies the wisdom and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:3 "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
