Tebow is not the ideal Christian, from a Biblical basis, to represent the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas. To a Biblical and Reformed confessional Christian, he is a Sabbath breaker. And, he does wear his faith on his sleeve, which is not my style. Style is not the issue, however. It is whether you, instead of the Gospel, as related by St. Paul, are the stumbling block to faith. Of course, the possibility of being vilified or degraded for sharing your faith should not be an impediment in doing so. We must be discerning in how and in what circumstances to do so. For, the bottom line is that rejection of you as a Christian is really rejection of Jesus as God, Lord and Savior. He said so Himself.

                So, we have the strange case of Tim Tebow, marginal, at best, QB at this time of his career, his “miraculous” comebacks and his openness to proclaiming the Gospel at any time and at any place. He has become a lightning rod of controversy. For many Christians, he is doing what they wished they could do, be unabashed and bold in their stand for Jesus. He is applauded for storming the marketplace of ideas with the Gospel and using his platform to do so. He is a hero to many who profess Christianity. On the other hand, we have the multitude of detractors. Their positions are many and varied: keep your faith private where it belongs, including Tebowing; what has God got to do with sporting events; Tebow is just a pawn in the culture war; why should a mediocre player get attention because of his religion; Tebow is an intolerant bigot; and Tebow is a member of a fringe group of Christians. I am sure you can add to the list.

                So, I compare him to Cassius Clay/Ali because there is seemingly no middle ground when looking at these two. You either are for them or against them; pro or anti. In one sense, Ali was the polar opposite of Tebow. Ali was, in his prime, one of the greatest prize fighters who ever lived. There was no question about his prowess as a boxer. He was a braggart and that turned many folks off. But, when he refused to be drafted and changed his name and religion, he became a polarizing force in the entire country as anti-American and anti-Christian. His actions may be dealt with more sympathetically today in a relativistic society with less of an emphasis on common beliefs and understandings.  However, the Tebow situation may lead us to see that openness is not quite where we think it is.

                I have two thoughts on Tebow. The reaction he engenders seems to have two explanations, not necessarily distinct but separate. One is that he represents to the non-believer what they believed was long ago settled. That ignorant pre-modern man can have an impact on society and receive a public hearing.  And, because the majority of the academic and social elites are indifferent or hostile to religion, it is especially appalling that a “football fundamentalist” is bringing God back into the public discourse. St. Paul says the truth is written on every heart and God’s nature proclaims to all Who He is. Well, modern man has spent the last 200 years trying to marginalize and rid the culture and especially the public square of God. Paul called this suppressing the truth. Now, this celibate footballer, by winning a few meaningless games, re-introduces God again through a very public venue. For the God deniers, this again reminds them of the truth of St. Paul … they know about the Biblical God. And, they darn well do not like being reminded of that fact.

                The second point is a little more subtle. The one thing the football watching public likes to say about Tebow is that he is a “winner”. He may not have the skills of the Manning brothers, Brady, Brees, Rivers or other top flight NFL QBs, but he has a strong will to persevere and win. Even without the spectacular skills, he wins. There is a Biblical message in all that. God can take the weak and powerless of the pro football world and uses them to bring Him glory. And, this is the sense in which Tebow wants his Lord to have the glory. As stated above, many think God has better things to do than be concerned with football games. Yet, He is always concerned about His own. And, he can use the obedience of any of His children to accomplish what He wants. The NFL touts itself as the most popular sport in America. Millions watch every week, multiple times. It seems oxymoronic to the world, but maybe, just maybe, the 24 year old Tim Tebow is being used of God to show that He exercises providence over all things of this world. Consider the lilies of the field and birds of the air; why not the endeavors of His people.

                This idea is quite jarring to believers and non-believers alike. Doesn’t God have more important things to think about than football games? There is hubris in that question. It is as if man can dictate to God in what He is to be concerned and that there is a serious failure of concern by Him if He does not give attention to what we think He should be attentive. What He is most concerned about is His glory and His people. If He has willing and obedient folks in any activity that can bring Him glory, it will be done. That is so in a foundry, on the farm, in an office, on a battlefield, in a home and yes, even in a sold out football stadium with millions watching live on TV and the highlights on sports shows.

                Think about it. A missionary kid loves to play football. He becomes a pro. He is a committed follower of Christ and never fails to tell others about Jesus. By winning a few games with comebacks that may be more “miraculous” than we think, God now has the young man on the biggest stage available to the man to remind others of the God whom they have tried to eliminate from their lives. Just as Jesus in the flesh was not universally acclaimed and accepted, this reminder of Him is not either. That is no surprise. God is glorified by his faithful servants no matter what the world thinks or says. So, it seems to me this Tebow thing is really a God thing: God using Tebow to remind the world of the truth of Him and glorifying Himself even through seemingly meaningless games won by Tebow without the skill set deemed necessary by the world.

           PennStatewas always associated with football in my mind and I was a loyal fan up until they finally won a National Championship in 1982. It now seemed there were more important things in life than PSU football.  I received a wonderful education atPennStategraduating in 1969 with a degree in economics. I was well prepared for law school. Joe Paterno became the head coach atPennStatewhile I was there. He took the Nittany Lions from a regional to national power; from winning Lambert Trophy’s to competing for national championships. This he did while demanding classroom as well as on field performance by his student/athletes. His motto was “Success with Honor”. Football thePaterno Waybecame synonymous withPennStatethe institution.  Football was the public image ofPennState. It was an image of which all alumni and fans took pride.

            In the last gut wrenching sorrow filled week, the image of the football program and the institution has changed. It is now known for sex crimes against children. Crimes spawned within the football community. With these revelations is seen the danger of  a sports team being so important to the image of the university. The Jerry Sandusky case is an enormous human tragedy affecting many, primarily the 8 alleged victims of sexual crimes committed bySandusky. Although the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the Commonwealth, the entire affair has left the university’s reputation in tatters and has tainted the lives of all individuals connected with the allegations.

            This is an extremely complex matter involving criminal and potentially civil ramifications. As this is written, there are members of the bar lining up lawsuits against the university and anyone connected with theSanduskycase. It will take months into years to sort out all that really happened. And, guilty pleas and civil settlements with confidentiality provisions may keep anyone from knowing the whole truth of the matter. We know what the 40 charge presentment says but there are a myriad of unanswered questions. What did the grad assistant really see in 2002? What did the grad assistant tell the head coach happened? What did the head coach tell his superiors? What did the grad assistant tell the athletic director and the vice president? What did the athletic director and vice president tell the president? And, what did any of the above individuals do with the information? Did any of them follow up on their reports when nothing was done?

            Unless there are criminal or civil trials in this matter, it will be difficult to establish the actual culpability of any of the individuals involved. BesidesSandusky, only the athletic director and vice president have been charged with crimes, that being perjury. No other person associated with the “scandal” has been charged with a crime by the Pennsylvania Attorney General.  I repeat: This is a complex matter and rushing to judgment about responsibility is a foolish enterprise. It is understandable, or course. Pontificating about the actors in this drama is much easier than thinking through these matters and waiting for all the facts to be developed. That is not how we operate in the instant analysis, instant gratification society in which we live. In the 24 hour news cycle to which we are subjected, conclusions are reached quickly with the hope and belief that wrong opinions will be long forgotten.

            Two issues have concerned me over this whole sordid affair. The first is that it is difficult to understand why the administration atPennStateacted as if they were surprised bySandusky’s charges. The key players all were required to testify before the Grand Jury empanelled by the Attorney General. Did they think no charges would be forthcoming? The Grand Jury met over an 18 month period. There was plenty of time for the hierarchy at PSU to prepare for the firestorm that would occur when charges were filed. But, the president, the two charged with perjury and the Board of Trustees were seemingly caught off guard by the Grand Jury findings. Was it arrogance, foolishness, indifference, or all of the above? When the two administrative officials were charged with perjury, the president issued a public statement of unequivocal support of the two men. What was he thinking?

            The entire performance of thePennStateauthorities was inept and foolish. Where was the empathy for the alleged victims? These were horrific crimes against children. Yet, the immediate administrative stance was that the two charged with perjury are good men. Their response is indicative of the attitude exhibited by the famous: We Are Penn State. It is as if the president was saying: “you have to be kidding; these men are above reproach because they work for me atPennState”. This was a gaffe of major proportions and set the tone for what was to follow.

            When the seriousness of the matter became apparent, the silence of the days that followed was baffling. What then ensued was more confusion. The athletic director charged with perjury took a leave of absence to pursue his defense. The vice president also charged with perjury retired. The Board of Trustees announced the formation of a committee to examine what really happened in the whole sorry mess. Next, the head coach announced he would retire at the end of the football season. However, later in the same day of the coach’s announcement, the president resigned or was fired and the head coach was fired via the telephone. All of this done behind a shield of silence with the Board finally having a press conference on the day after the firings.

            What happened to the fact finding committee? Did they complete their work and find that the president and coach were culpable? No, the committee is going to press on with their work. Were the firings a response to the public outcry for something to be done? Were these two men out in order to stop the public relations nightmare because of the administration’s ineptitude in handling this matter? Were these two men sacrificial lambs offered up as a sacrifice (albeit an inadequate one) for the sins known and yet unknown of thePennsylvaniaStateUniversityand all its agents in the Jerry Sandusky scandal? We do not know if they thrown to the wolves to satisfy mob lust, but they were suddenly gone replaced by interims.

            This brings me to the second, more troubling, issue. That is the sanctimonious attitude of the talking heads who commented on thePennState“scandal”. It was a cacophony of moral indignation toward all the names in the indictment ofSandusky. There was an overwhelming moral superiority of “woulda, shoulda, coulda” directed to those who have been made household names by the media. It was as if the press and its commentators represent the moral compass ofAmerica. Individuals of whom we know nothing of their moral standing in their respective communities were claiming the moral high ground in a matter they knew only from a 23 page document. This in a society where choice is god, tolerance is its sole virtue and where individual freedom means “anything goes.” It has been surreal.

            The head coach and graduate assistant have particularly been subject to withering criticism for moral failings. Although these two targets of moral disgust were found to have acted within the law, the pundits demanded more … what would be moral perfection in their eyes. After all, this affair is about children, the most vulnerable of our citizens. When children are being sexually abused, there is demanded by these moral police escalated standards for the sake of the children. There is more than an odor of hypocrisy here. Not only to we not know the moral standing of the critics, they all should be asked where they stand on abortion. Where is the moral outcry when a woman has an abortion? Sure, having an abortion is legal, but should not there be a higher moral requirement to protect the MOST vulnerable of children, the unborn? The moral magpies exhibit a selective imposition of moral perfection, a moral perfection that neither they nor the head coach or graduate assistant possess.

            It is convenient to moralize about another’s failure. It helps keep the spotlight off you. It is easy to say what you would do in a vacuum. Moral actions are always perfect in a world of your making. But, in the real world, with all its imperfections and warts, demanding moral perfection of others is above any human’s pay grade. Even those who deny Jesus Christ is deity [a position to which I do not hold] recognize him as a good teacher of morality. When he came upon the woman caught in adultery whom the officials were going to stone to death, he requested the individual without moral failings to cast the first stone. None did. They understood that they could not demand moral perfection for they did not possess such themselves. When they all left Jesus did not condemn her for her moral failing, he knew no one was capable of moral perfection. This is a good lesson for us all.

            For the third time: This is a complex matter. Yes, it is an unmitigated tragedy. But, there is much we do not know; and may never know. In such a climate we must be slow in making personal judgments on who the villains are apart from the accused. And, we need to remember the law under which he is charged deems him innocent until it is otherwise proved by the prosecutor. No less a presumption should be applied to those who are not charged with a crime. It seems ludicrous for any of us to be the judge of the morality of the conduct of another. As a Christian, I certainly cannot.  For what may seem like good moral teaching of Jesus is authoritative and binding on me. Unlike the many who exercise some sort of moral superiority, I have none. I am a sinner like all the characters in this repulsive drama. Truth be told, there is no one who possesses the moral perfection to pronounce moral judgment on another. This matter needs to play out in the criminal and civil courts. In the meantime, we all need to quit throwing stones.

            Robert Nisbet, a key thinker of the 20^th century, posited such an outcome long ago. He believed that a more powerful state is the nearly inescapable outcome of radical individualism. He argued that human beings are communitarian and social beings. They need communities. He also argued that modern liberalism was centered on the individual to the detriment of tradition, institution and virtues. All past vestiges of control over individuals would have to go for the individual’s freedom to flourish. Is there any community left?

            For the ancients, especially embodied in the work of Aristotle and Aquinas, the idea of an unfettered self was unheard of. Their context of freedom for the individual was conceived within limits of the community in which he lived and worked. To be a human being required other humans and standards to dictate behavior. The “modern” thinkers conceived of liberty as the end with each person being free, ungoverned and non-communitarian. There was a state in that way of thinking, created by the individuals for the purpose of guaranteeing and extending liberty.

            The extending component was accomplished by eliminating as many limitations on individual freedom as possible. So, for true liberty to exist there was needed a state, agreed to through the Social Contract, to eradicate all impediments to the freely choosing autonomous individual. Modern liberal thought has embraced the state as the only organization to which loyalty is owed for it alone can bring about the sought fulfillment of liberty. A vast apparatus of state has grown over the years, not to oppress but to facilitate freedom. Any previous existing institutions [family, church, local communities] not onboard with the new way of unlimited freedom by the sovereign self are marginalized or privatized.

            But how does this work today? Does not the state represent a limiting factor on the individual thus requiring elimination? Karl Marx thought so but could not pull it off. Nisbet pointed out another conundrum. Regardless of how modernism tried to eliminate community limitations … human beings still needed membership and belonging. This was provided by membership with other nameless and faceless individuals in the concept called the USA. Of course, to maintain such a large community, more power had to be centralized in the state with the concomitant decrease of authority by all other institutions. It all seems like a paradox, but it works, doesn’t it? The imperial self and the imperial state together.

            So far, so good, or is it? With a bankrupt central government; a morally bankrupt populace of individual philistines; and an almost vanished system of institutions and communities to meet the individual needs of people, what is next? Our government is tied in knots with the political types seeing each others blood in the water and waiting for the expiration of the other in the 2012 federal election. I think it was Russell Kirk who said politics is the art of the possible. The political parties seem entrenched in their ideologies. Nothing seems possible today.

            Nisbet believed that Statism is the logical consequence of individualism. So we have together the sovereign state and the sovereign individual. At present, there seems no appetite by either the state or the individual for limitation of their authority. And, because all other mediating institutions for the benefit of an individual in community have withered or are marginalized by the state, the bureaucratic state is indispensible for the individual. Everyone knows you cannot be two masters or bosses. Likewise, there cannot be two sovereigns. If Nisbet is correct, under the new boss liberty for the individual will not be guaranteed or expansive.

            It is early, way early, but a few observations:

1] Raising Cain. Herman Cain seems to be gaining traction. Imagine a race between black men! Won’t happen I imagine and even if it does, Cain will be described as the white man’s black not a real black. I read a recent editorial that BO has been treated more harshly than Clinton in his first term. Clinton was not nearly as successful as BO in legislative initiatives, so the article opines. But, he is treated as less successful because he is black. Racism always comes out and it would even in a black on black Presidential tussle.

2] Tex Gov. I believed from the beginning that Perry’s candidacy was doomed. Whatever you thought of GWB, the country is not ready for another Texas Governor. And, if Perry did win the nomination, he would be portrayed as just another Bush. He would be an easy target for Democrats.

3] Seems to be high time to somehow cut back on this election Presidential campaign stuff. We know Congressmen continually are in campaign mode because of the 2 year term. That could be addressed by meaningful term limits, but that is another story. It is clear that BO and his jobs bill is a campaign foray. He keeps tweaking it to try and get more Senators from his party onboard, and he may yet do that. But, it is DOA in the House, and BO knows that. Yet he is on a whistle stop tour, today in PGH, to promote this bill. Why? It provides talking points for his campaign for another term by drawing comparisons between Congressional Republicans and him.

 Problem is he is not running against Congress. And, the country needs jobs now. The whole scene results in hopeless posturing and name calling … not governance on either side of the aisle. So, how about limiting the Presidential campaign to the year in which the election takes place, or better yet, to 6 months before the election? This would also minimize the $ needed thus addressing the endless fundraising for such a long campaign.

4] Another candidate. Palin and Christie are not running … for now. But, would they run if the party is in a hopeless quandary that would lead to a BO re-election? That, of course, remains to be seen. There may be a candidate out there who has yet to be considered who fits the bill. That, too, remains to be seen. That is why it is probably best, for your sanity, to tune out now and tune in later. It is early.

             A van load of Presbyterians from Clearfield plus a few carloads—like Lucas, Susan and me—attended the crusade. Lucas was 13. The date was August 21, 1994. How do I remember? The date was inscribed in the grey NIV Bible that was being used by Lucas at the time.

            I do not recall who the evangelist was that evening. Both John Wesley White and Franklin Graham participated in the crusade. Lucas says it was Franklin Graham. I remember the bleachers in the gymnasium where the meeting was held because of weather. They were hard! And, it was hot and humid in the building.  During the “altar call” Lucas turned to me and asked if I would go forward with him. “Of course, son,” I said. Now, I am not much for “decisional” evangelism or “accepting Jesus” because I believe in the sovereignty of God over all things, including salvation.  But, I also recognize and understand the import of the words of Jesus:

The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes, so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8).

The Spirit of God was calling Lucas then and there.

            We clambered down the steps of the bleachers. To do so we had to climb over John Reilly who was seated at the end of a row next to Lucas. As Lucas and I stood together, the preacher prayed the “sinner’s prayer”, or a variant thereof. When our heads were unbowed, I noticed John was standing next to Lucas. Literature was passed out and instructions given. When we left the gym floor, I walked over to John and thanked him for coming down to support Lucas. He replied, “I am here for me.” John K. Reilly, Jr., President Judge of Clearfield County for twenty years was also being called by the Spirit.

            A couple weeks later, I stopped into John’s chambers. On his desk was the Graham literature. He was faithfully going through the daily lessons. When he finished that literature, he called me and began  borrowing Biblical commentaries. Over the next year he read through every commentary I owned. He was hungry for the Word. John had been a member of my Sunday School class for many years, a faithful attender. Now he was more engaged and inquisitive. He also went with Dick Bell and me to sit under the teaching of RC Sproul and Jim Boice in Johnstown at the PCA church. It was pretty obvious John was a new creation.

            John Reilly died recently. He was lauded for his many earthly accomplishments. He was the first judge to succeed himself in Clearfield County serving for thirty years. Many remembered him leading the Shrine band and he was the first man ever elected Potentate of the Shrine from Clearfield. As a senior judge, he served throughout the Commonwealth. His was a life of civic service and virtue. He was a good man. But for me, I will remember August 21, 1994, the day of a supernatural work in his life.

            The above quoted language from Jesus was an explanation to Nicodemus of how a man is born again. August 21, 1994, was the date a good man became a righteous man. It was the day a man of power and prestige acknowledged his brokenness and need of a Savior. It is the day when John and Lucas are forever intertwined as souls; a day they both made a public profession of the work of the Spirit in their lives. It was a once and for all acknowledgement of their status in Christ.

            So, John Reilly has passed on to his eternal reward. Not earned by anything he did on this earth but fully bought and paid for by the Jesus he recognized as his Lord and Savior on August 21, 1994. His life changed eternally on that day. Here is the promise of that Savior:

So, everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10:32).

Today, that promise is a reality for John K. Reilly, Jr.

            I can remember being at Uncle Milt, as John was known, and Aunt Lydia’s house in Sykesville as a young boy.  It was very formal and had dark wood and big floral patterned wallpaper that was the staple in homes during  the 1^st part of the twentieth century. My maternal grandmother was John Milton’s sister and two of the eight children of John Frederick Kicher and Mary Trexler Kicher. Unlike today, all of the children lived in and around where they were born in Sykesville orHendersonTownship,Jefferson County,Pennsylvania.

            Most of the Kicher relatives are buried inParadise. I had never been to the grave sites and during the Decoration Day period of 2009, I decided to rectify that. So, I traveled toPunxsutawney, where Daryl lived, to have him, as the last living Kicher, take me to the sites of the graves. Here is a part of a piece I wrote after my time with Daryl:

 This year I added to my itinerary, a trip to Paradise, PA. Like Sykesville, it is in Jefferson County, between Sykesville and Big Run, PA. The reason was to find the graves of my mother’s grand and great grand parents. I needed assistance in finding the graves, so I journeyed to Punxsutawney, PA, to pick up my mother’s sole surviving cousin, Daryl Kicher. Daryl is 82, failing fast, and living in what he calls a “rest home” in Punxsutawney. After lunch we began our journey to Paradise; what a journey it was!

Remembering. We do not do enough of that. We are busy folks, living life to its fullest [usually understood in a selfish manner] at breakneck pace. We have little time for remembering. But, the problem with that is not the remembering, it is the opposite side of the coin. Forgetting. We forget where we come from and who sacrificed and worked so that we could be better off than they were. We forget how we were blessed with caring and loving forbears. We forget who we are. Remembering is an antidote to self-centeredness and self-focus. So, on this coming Decoration Day take time to remember so you do not forget the people who make it possible for you to be who you are.

            Now, Daryl has joined the garden of the saints, awaiting that Last Great Day. I am glad that I had that day in May with Daryl since he is the last connection for me to my maternal past. And, that day will keep me from forgetting those of the Kicher family who prepared the way for me. Those four hours together will assist me in remembering Daryl.

            But, that is not what interests me in all this. Instead, I am interested in the ongoing secularization of the church inAmerica. Many believe that the liberal soul has converted the religious soul of the American church. It has been a kind of cleansing of the church as a threat to liberal democracy. The church/state tension is no more. My question: Is that a good thing?

            My Kuypernian friends think not. It should be the other way around. Not necessarily a theonomy, but the church should exercise moral authority over all culture including the state/political structure in a kind of redemptive manner. For my fundamentalist friends, what is going on is predictable and why they have consistently chosen to avoid a wicked world by cloistering together awaiting the rapture. But, isn’t there a middle ground where a healthy tension between the church and culture/state exists, not to convert or avoid, but to hold accountable?

            The church is the supernatural creation of the Lord Jesus Christ. The state is the creation of man. They are not co-equals nor are they competing for the same sphere with the same duties and responsibilities. Neutering the church so that it is not a threat to the state’s governing principles is foolish. Likewise, combining the church and state keeps the church from doing the work Christ has given it until He returns. So, regardless of the type of state or culture the church finds itself in, the church must find a way not to capitulate to the state or try and escape its duty to act as a leveling force on the state’s exercise of power. There is a needed tension; the survival of society depends on it.

            These false assumptions stemming from the denial of the manifestation of evil in this present world is exhibited in the expression of principles such as the perfectibility of man, the adequacy of social and political solutions to so perfect and the substitution of state based programs for the old idea of redeeming an individual. It is a view that nothing outside man’s own experiences and abilities are needed for society to progress or advance.

            It is upon this foundation that Weaver’s three destructive fallacies emanate. The one we see played out for all to see the “fallacy of the popular will”. It is the fallacy upon which is built the presumption that the free and democratic political process is appropriate for all peoples at all times. As if democracy was a timeless truth, not an experiment in governance. It also manifests itself in the majority deciding everything from elections to ethical systems and moral conduct. Even, it is the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that sets the current standard. And why not, after all we are the most enlightened and advanced of all people who have ever lived so the majority of us can always get it right.

            Less visible is the second fallacy … the “idealization of mediocrity”. When man is in the self-perfection business, and the majority is always right, there is no timeless standard to meet. What results is a constantly moving standard, the one(s) the majority wants. It used to be difficult to make the honor roll for academic performance. Today, there is the high honors, medium honors and low honors. Yes, there is still a hierarchy but “honor” has been expanded to what used to be mediocre performance. We do not want kids with low self-esteem, so everyone is rewarded in some way. Merit/reward has been replaced by the idealization of the mediocre. Is it any wonderAmerica’s young people have trouble competing with students from the rest of the world when merit still counts?

            Where the majority rules and no one is better/worse than the next guy, we get the third Weaver fallacy. Go back and try to institute a system with unchangeable standards and failure if not met and see what the response is. Weaver called is a “spirit of rebelliousness” toward self-discipline, sustained effort and service to autonomous ideals. Witness the decrease of participation in organized sport where hard work over a period of time is required to earn a place on the team competing to improve and reach goals that do not translate into individual glory. Why should I do that? I am already a “winner” and I do not have to work hard to “achieve” anything that is not in “my personal interest.” Nothing outside my own vision of what is good for me deserves my effort. This is the cult of the imperial self.

            Imagine if everyone bought into this last fallacy. We would never have any armies. If men and women failed to see the reason to defend their country and the ideals for which it stands, they would not be willing to serve and sacrifice. Same can be said for police, fire fighters, nurses, teachers, pastors and mothers. Rebellion toward any service and sacrifice for a greater good is the end of a society. The “spirit of rebelliousness” is actually the “spirit of self-destruction”.

            The fallacies Weaver saw being lived out in his time were, in his view, the result of evil denied. That is not the same as not believing in evil. Everyone does. Hitler as a manifestation of evil is hardly disputed … except by Holocaust deniers. And for the Iranians, theUSAis the great Satan, so evil does exist. These fallacies come to the fore when the presence of evil in individuals is denied as an everyday problem. In theological terms it is the changing of sin to socially modifiable misbehavior. It has sociological expression in the phrase “man is basically good.”

            What Weaver saw as a problem is now ingrained in the warp and woof of society. They are no longer “destructive fallacies” but “the way it is.” The rule of the popular will, the entrenchment of personal advancement on all bases except merit and the divine right of the individual represent the framework for living in the USAin the 21^st century. The timeless institutions, traditions, beliefs and practices of the past are of no importance. So, Weaver’s “destructive fallacies” can destroy nothing. What was is already gone.