Human effort marks the world’s religion, not faith in a God who solved the fundamental problem of the human condition in Christ. Yet, religion, as I am defining it in this essay, continues to dominate the world scene. In fact, religion seems to be growing – and with it a growing hostility and intolerance. When one combines meritorious religion with political, military and financial power, you have a lethal combination. This has been much of the narrative through human history – and it continues today. Let’s consider modern Islam as an example. Several thoughts.

Recently a Harvard Divinity School scholar, Karen L. King, published a paper, provocatively entitled, ?The Gospel of Jesus? Wife,? on a 4th century 1 ½ by 3 inch Coptic papyrus scrap that, she argues, contains the phrase, ?Jesus said to them, ?My wife. . . .?? Indeed, she announced her research in the Vatican?s front yard at a Coptic Studies conference at the Catholic Church?s Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum in Rome?Written in Coptic, an Egyptian language that uses Greek letters, the fragment is in the opinion of several scholars who have seen it, not a forgery. What should we make of this papyrus scrap? Does it provide evidence that Jesus did indeed have a wife? How should we think about this provocative thesis? Several thoughts.

At the last minute during their convention, the Democratic Party added the name of God back into its platform. At the Republican Party convention, Republicans invoked the name of God 12 times. Since platforms and conventions are now more about symbolism than substance in our political culture, is this contrast between the political parties important? Actually, no. But there is a much larger issue at stake here. In so many ways, faith in the state and its benevolence is replacing faith in God. In some ways, this is the most important issue facing our culture today. Let me explain.

Evangelical Christians are often charged with preaching the doom-and-gloom of the coming apocalypse predicted in Revelation. There is little doubt that this teaching is often overdramatized. But there is an environmental apocalypse that also needs critical evaluation. Since 1972, we have been told that environmental disaster is imminent and those warnings are usually accompanied by the language of the apocalypse. Such predictions framed in apocalyptic language have spawned much of the modern environmental movement. How should we think about this?

Many scientists begin their thinking with the proposition that there is a God; others do not. For example, physicists and others who practice science have been looking for a ?Theory of Everything,? a theory that explains everything in the universe. That was the passion of Newton in the 17th century, Einstein in the 20th, and currently Brian Greene in the 21st century. Greene?s contribution is the ?string theory,? postulated in his important book, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. He posits that the universe consists of a complicated combination of vibrating strands or strings. The language of his book resonates with the language of awe, majesty and near worship. But he leaves out God.

The security of the nation-state of Israel has been one of the centerpieces of US foreign policy since the administration of Harry Truman. Perhaps at no time since the 1967 war has the security of Israel been such a viable matter of concern. Unfortunately, it is now a part of the political culture of the 2012 presidential election. In addition to the obvious threat of Iran, whose nuclear capability grows each week, and the growing instability of Syria, which is on the verge of civil war, there are other real threats to Israel?s security. For that reason, it is imperative to summarize the current volatility of the Middle East and the genuine threat this all poses to Israel?s security.

On Issues in Perspective over the last decade or so, I have argued that American culture is now Postmodern in its orientation and worldview. Among other things, Postmodernism means that truth is defined personally, as what works for you. There are no universal truths and the test of ?truth? is a pragmatic one?does it work, and does it work for me. The end result of this insanity is that as a culture, both individually and collectively, we really do not believe in anything. Personal autonomy trumps all other standards and beliefs. Two recent developments highlight this thesis.

Each time I travel to Washington, D.C., I make it a point to visit the Lincoln and the Jefferson memorials; they are my favorite places in our nation?s capital. Each memorial causes me to think of great men, who exercised power in the service of high ideals and who knew how to use power for the good of others. But, as the columnist David Brooks argues, recent memorials in our nation?s capital have avoided memorializing the topics of strength and power in leadership. These recent, terribly unfortunate memorials in Washington reflect a significant shift in cultural values?and that shift has not been positive. Let me explain.

The United States was founded on the principles of both religious and political liberty. These precious principles were enshrined in the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment. As a nation that has championed these rights throughout its history and indeed the world, in terms of protecting these rights, our nation is changing. Rights and personal liberties are now defined as personal autonomy, something never envisioned by our Founders. Permit me to offer several thoughts.

Since the fall, physical violence against fellow human beings has been a given (see Genesis 4). There is probably no greater evidence of human rebellion against God?s moral law than the premeditated killing of humans. War, state terrorism and premeditated murder have characterized human history. But the causation of violence against humans is difficult. It is correct to argue that all human violence is due to sin but that does not solve much nor, for most, does it satisfy as an explanation; nor does it bring much comfort.