Unassigned Radio 1996–2000

Water Baptism #2

Ronald L. Dart

Leadership in Crisis

February 10, 1998 • Ronald L. Dart

By now, everyone realizes that we have a leadership crisis, not only in our country, but in the world at large. I wonder how we got to this place? Where does leadership come from and, maybe more importantly, where does it go? I believe that leadership is a gift from God, and if you’ll spare me a little time, I’ll explain to you why I think that. First, two statements about gifts from God, one from James and one from the Psalms: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17 KJ2000). “You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. Blessed be the Lord, who daily loads us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah” (Psalm 68:18–19 KJ2000). For some reason, we would tend to assume that God only gives his gifts to people who deserve them. I used to think so. I would have told you that God gave his gifts to Christian people, and to good Christian people at that. But the Psalmist says that he gives his gifts to the rebellious also. What are we to make of that? Well, we know that God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust. He doesn’t make the rain run down the property line, with one man’s field getting a good wetting down and the other man’s getting dry and dusty, right? That would probably be an effective technique for promoting righteousness, but God does not work that way. There is a curious incident in the gospel accounts that I think may give us a hint on this very complicated subject. We can find it in John, chapter 5.

No God Tomorrow

March 23, 1999 • Ronald L. Dart

Not long ago, a man stood having pleaded guilty to raping an eight-year-old ten times. The judge had the unpleasant duty of sentencing this man. She wanted to say something appropriate when she sentenced him, so she came up with the words of Jesus: “But whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and they were drowned in the depth of the sea.” She proceeded to sentence the man to 51 years in prison saying, “I hope God has mercy on you and the hell you have created.” Sounds good to me. But a year later the sentence was overturned by the district court of appeals because the judge had allowed her religious beliefs to influence her in giving the man a harsher sentence. Now, I don't know about you, but I would not have needed to open the Bible to give the man 51 years in prison; that doesn't seem like a terribly excessive sentence for someone who would rape an eight-year-old ten times. But I don't think the the appellate court judges really understood their Bible, because if that trial judge had used the Bible, the man should have had the death sentence. That's what would have happened to a man who raped an eight-year-old girl once in biblical times. What's puzzling me about this is that we got along just fine as a nation for 200 years with judges who, every once in a while, would quote scripture in court; and no one would have batted an eye. All those 200 years, if a judge had the Ten Commandments behind the bench, or a Bible in plain sight alongside of his gavel, that was the way things were. It was that way generation after generation, throughout the history of this country. Now what's changed? Why is this going on this way? Well, I think it's *we* who have changed. We are sitting at the end of a long trail where those who want God out of public life and private life have worked quietly (and not so quietly) toward their goal, while everyone else just drifted and took our freedoms and our values all for granted. They have enlisted religious people in the cause under the banner of separation of Church and State. Now, don't get me wrong. There should be no established religion in this country; but to separate Church and State is one thing, to separate *God* and State is another thing altogether. The true, died-in-the-wool atheist is a very rare breed. Nearly everyone in this country believes in God in one way or another. So why do we want to separate God and State? And maybe more important, what are the consequences of the separation of God and State?

Winners After All?

July 9, 1998 • Ronald L. Dart

In this country, we have a political class that are “in it for themselves”. If they weren't, they would have a higher rate of attrition. They would go down with their cause rather than give it up. But instead they chase after polls and focus groups to find out what the people want. They always manage to land on their feet, but in dishonor. But the politicians are asking the people in the polls the wrong questions. And they ask the question to get the answers they want. The whole thing is a cycle of deception as people read the polls, submerge their own beliefs, and go along because they think this or that politician has a majority. I am not a prophet, but I can read the prophets. And I am worried about what I read. It is tempting to say that it is all over—all in the past. What is chilling is that as you read the prophecies, the prophets seem to be talking about the last days of man on the earth. And Jerusalem, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah are still here. Somewhere. And terrible things are about to happen. If you take Israel of old and lay a dressmaker's pattern over her and cut it out. If you then lay that pattern over the United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, you will find a fit that is too close to ignore. At the very least, those who cannot learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. I am going to paraphrase a very old prophecy for you and you can decide for yourself whether to worry…

Abortion and Lies

March 27, 1997 • Ronald L. Dart

Suppose a young couple have brought a baby into the world, and have now decided they don’t want it. The reason could be almost anything. Maybe they can’t afford it. Maybe they already have more children than they can handle. Maybe the baby is the wrong gender—they wanted a boy but got a girl. Or, perish the thought, the child is handicapped—perhaps born with Down Syndrome, perhaps lame, blind, or deaf. Since they do not want the child, would it be *wrong* for them to kill the child? I’m asking this question seriously because, in the great debate in this country over questions of life and choice, there’s got to be common ground somewhere. Do we, as a society, have the right to force parents to take care of their children? Can we put parents in jail because they abuse or neglect their children? Well, *of course* we can. We believe it is the responsibility of the community to protect children—even from their own parents, when necessary. And sometimes, tragically, it is necessary. Any society that does not protect children does not deserve to survive. Any society that does not exalt life over death does not deserve to survive. Until recently, I would have said that we had common ground in this country on the question of infanticide. We’re a prosperous and progressive nation. Unlike some ancient societies, we don’t feel the need to leave infants exposed to the elements to die because we lack food to feed them or because they’re the “wrong” sex. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, I thought we were on common ground on this. Now, I’m beginning to wonder. (Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.)

Too Late for Christmas

November 20, 1997 • Ronald L. Dart

If you’re planning on celebrating the birth of Christ in the near future…well, I hate to be the one to tell you this but you’re about three months late. Yeah, really. What’s funny about it is that the whole story is right there in the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus, right in your Bible, but nobody pays much mind to it. You can read it, for example, in Luke 1: “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:26–27 KJ2000). And what follows is the annunciation of the birth of Jesus, and you’ve probably heard it in a hundred little Christmas plays—that is, if you’ve lived long enough. But did you notice the expression in there—the “sixth month”? Did you ever wonder about that? It was in the *sixth month* that the angel Gabriel came to Mary and announced the birth of Jesus. Well, sixth month of *what*? Well if it’s the sixth month on your calendar, that would put the conception of Jesus in June and his birth in, well, nine months later, March. On the other hand, if it’s the Hebrew calendar, well the sixth month in the Hebrew calendar would be September and that would place Jesus being born in June. So, what’s with this December 25th business? How on earth did we get the birth of Jesus in December? Well as it happens, it isn’t the sixth month of the Hebrew calendar. It isn’t the sixth month of our calendar. It’s the sixth month of something *entirely different*. Let’s find out more beginning in Luke, chapter 1. (Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.)

Dangerous Times

March 31, 1998 • Ronald L. Dart

Several years ago, I was driving through an area the weekend after a tragic mass shooting had occurred there. I listened on the radio to the people who lived nearby as they responded to being put in a goldfish bowl for the whole country to watch. I couldn’t help but reflect along with them about how unfair the whole thing was. Every special interest group had their spokesman on television telling us all why this tragedy had taken place. It was guns, of course. Someone noted that crime in the cities was going down while crime in rural areas was going up. He blamed the availability of guns for the problem. The poor fellow obviously has never lived in the rural south. I grew up in northern Arkansas, and I can tell you that guns are not a new arrival there. As a boy, I don’t think I knew a family—especially a rural family—that didn’t have guns and that didn’t teach their kids to hunt. We grew up playing war around the barns, pretending to shoot one another, and faking a fall out of the loft into a stack of hay below. None of us ever killed anyone. As far as I can tell, none of us even thought about it. Some other TV talking head blamed drugs. Another blamed the schools, another blamed the movies, and yet another blamed television violence. It’s true enough that everything that happens is the world is *caused* by something. But the causes are often so complex that specific prediction is impossible. However, *general* prediction is not at all impossible. There was no way to predict that those two boys would do what they did. But you can be certain that some boys (or girls) will kill again. It may be Elmira, New York. It may be Fairfax, Virginia. It may be *your* hometown. I can’t predict *where* it will happen, but I can predict that it *will* happen. And so can you. What we can’t be quite so sure is *why* it will happen. That’s what I want to talk about. [Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.]

Religion or Faith?

December 29, 2000 • Ronald L. Dart

There is a difference between religion and faith. That may be a little hard to explain, but I think it is fair to say that a lot of people have a religion who have very little in the way of faith. Their religion is more a matter of ideas, arguments, positions, creeds, dogmas, and the like than it is about the heart. Churches can easily become the religious equivalent of political parties. They may be conservative or they may be liberal, and theological discussions can involve as much spin as any political discussion. Churches’ creeds can be just a political as any party platform, and heretics are merely people who are out to change the platform. In fact, political parties are disturbingly like religions and churches are disturbingly like political parties. But faith—real faith—has to be something entirely different from that. For one thing, the first prerequisite of real faith is *honesty*, and honesty is not possible without her sister, humility. When you think about it, unrelenting honesty leads naturally to humility. These twin sisters are conspicuous by their absence from most religious discourse. It is a lot like politics—without humility and honesty, you don=t get faith; you get religion. Unfortunately, most of what you encounter in this world is religion rather than faith. It is a creed, a dogma, a set of doctrines carefully crafted to explain God and the Bible. The problem is that every dogmatic position has its inconsistencies and contradictions which have to be maintained, and they are too often maintained at the cost of simple honesty. It is, after all, a lot like politics. When I thought about this, my thoughts went to a marvelous statement by one of the Old Testament prophets. He said this: “He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8 AKJV). [Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.]

A Mother to Remember

September 9, 1997 • Ronald L. Dart

What would happen to you if you were down and out and there was no one to help? Where would you be if you were sick and broke in a strange city with no place to sleep and nothing to eat; no money, no credit cards, no checks; no one to accept a collect call, no one to send you bus fare home, no one to send you money for a meal, and no home to go to; no father, no brother, no sister, *no one*? You know it doesn’t take long to start looking like a tramp. It doesn’t take very long before you start smelling bad—about two days. It doesn’t take long for your clothes to start looking very dirty and very worn. Do you realize how short the distance is between an executive—walking along the street with his briefcase in hand, and his necktie, hair combed, clean-shaven—how short the distance is between that man and a man lying on a grate in a gutter, if you take away from that man all of his money and all of his support? You know, families have obligations. They have obligations that should not be taken lightly. No man should *ever* become alienated from family; he should not *allow* himself to be. There’s safety in family. There’s safety in love. I have a message for you from home. If you’re out there alone and life is not working for you, if you somehow got alienated from your family—I don’t care whose fault it is—go home. Take your hat in your hand, prepare your apology if you need one, but go home. And while you are thinking about going home, think for a moment about God. There’s a passage from the Bible that reminds us of this. It’s found in Ecclesiastes, chapter four. [Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.]

Halloween

October 20, 1998 • Ronald L. Dart

Excuse me for asking, but what’s wrong with you people? Why on earth would you dress up your children like witches, or hobgoblins, ghosts, demons, dead men’s bones and then send out to commit extortion on your neighbors by demanding treats and threatening tricks if the neighbors don’t come across? What could you possibly be thinking and why allow your children to go to the door of a house of a total stranger and accept gifts of candy? I thought we didn’t want our children accepting candy from strangers. And anyway, it’s gotten to the place where you have to take the candy and the apples and stuff down to the hospital to have them x-rayed to be sure there isn’t a razor blade embedded in it somewhere. My, can’t we afford to go out and buy some candy for our kids? Do we have to send them around the neighbor’s house begging for it? They call it Halloween because it falls on the eve of All Hallows or All Saints Day. This is the day when the church honors all the great Christians of years gone by, people who’ve lived good lives and sometimes sacrificial lives in their service to other Christians and other peoples. Considering that, I’ve got a question. Since this day, All Hallows Eve, is all about people who have lived their lives doing good works, why don’t we dress our kids up in costumes representing these good people and take them out on All Hallows Eve to do good works? Couldn’t that have gone either way? Couldn’t we have made that choice? I mean, do we have to go to dead men’s bones and all that stuff, or couldn’t we have gone out and done good works instead of tricks or treats? Why don’t we put together packages of candy and gifts and take our little angels to a nursing home somewhere and go around giving gifts to the elderly and the infirm? Why don’t we teach our little angels to sing songs for the old codgers that would bring tears to their eyes? Why wouldn’t we have, let’s say, one of these cute little girls crawl up in the lap of an elderly lady and give her a big hug? Do you have any idea what a difference that would make in the life of an old person who hardly ever gets to see her own grandchildren because nobody will bring them in? Why is it that we don’t teach our children how good it feels to do nice things for other people, instead of teaching them greed and extortion? Again, I say, I don’t get it. If we had a choice of doing one or the other, who in the world made the choice of taking it one way instead of the other? What you are allowing your kids to do by the way, on Halloween, has nothing to do with All Saints. It’s the old Druid New Year *Samhain*, the night in which the doors of the abyss, the underworld with all their evil spirits, are released out into the world. I was rummaging around on the Internet trying to find something about Halloween and I came across one of these Internet magazines called *Samhain*, of all things. I found this little item in there and I thought you might find it of interest. It says this… (Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.)

Lost Children

January 12, 2000 • Ronald L. Dart

I really hate to tell you this, but I think we did a better job of sex education back in the 1940s than you folks are doing today. Now, in case you are scratching your head and saying, “But they didn’t *have* sex education in the schools back then!”, let me assure you that you are right. And there is a very strong case that no sex education at all may be better than the sex education that is in today’s schools. Now before you write me a letter, stop and think about how you would evaluate that statement—how you would judge it. What I’m looking at is *results*: the number of teenage pregnancies, the occurrence of venereal disease, and so on. If you are looking at results, sex education has been *worse that useless*. I consider all this and recall that sex education in the 40s took place on the playground, with little or no guidance from adults, and I want to know how come you folks today can’t do a *better job* than we were doing. Because your programs today have been an abject failure, and you know it. Let’s discuss one concept in particular that I believe is missing in sex education today. [Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.]

The Culture War

Ronald L. Dart

The Death Penalty

July 11, 2000 • Ronald L. Dart

There is something that is puzzling me about our society. Maybe you have the answer. When the time comes to execute a murderer, and all the television crews are out filming the demonstrators, interviewing talking heads for and against the death penalty, why is it that they hardly ever tell us in any detail what the murderer *did*? And, during election years, why is the execution of a criminal so much more important in a state where the governor is running for president? Why is the governor of a state more important than the victims of the criminal rampage. It is incredible to me how some people can muster so much sympathy for the murderer and forget altogether the victim and his family. Don’t get me wrong. It is a terrible thing to take anyone’s life. I cannot conceive of anyone taking pleasure in the execution of a killer. God certainly doesn’t. He spoke to Ezekiel: “Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live? Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:10–11). I suppose it is a measure of our society that we might ask, “Well, if there is no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why kill him?” It is a fatuous argument against the death penalty, but the question still remains. Why kill him? Isn’t human life sacred? Isn’t it just as wrong to execute a murderer as it was for the murderer to kill? (Image credits, if any, may be found by visiting the "View Online" link above.)

To Kill a Newborn

Ronald L. Dart

What Teens Believe

Ronald L. Dart