Egalitarianism and Racial Ignorance

The classical meaning of race and racism has been practically effaced by the literary jargon of the 19th and 20th century. The common use of the word race allegedly refers to a class of people related by blood, ethnic similarities, traditions, et al. It has become a common practice to add the English suffix “ism” to caricature a word to the degree of a world and life view. Then racism becomes a term meaning the supreme exaltation of a race of people. The consequence would be the hatred for a different ethnic group. The imago Dei (the image of God) is a natural resident for all human beings according to Christian theology. R. L. Dabney’s Systematic Theology posits, “we learn that man, unlike all lower creatures, was formed in the ‘image of God – after His likeness.’  The general idea here is obviously, that there is a resemblance of man to God.

There is a certain ubiquity associated with the term racism.  To show the shallow rational and mental effort put into defining words we only have to turn to Webster’s Dictionary.  It describes racism as “a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”  Then Webster defines race as “a group of persons related by common descent, blood, or heredity.”  According to Webster there is a difference in races when using the term “race” but when using “racism” the subjectivity shifts only to “a belief” that there are differences in races.  God created one race, the human race, but because of sin they are divided into various ethnic groups. The mass media, powerful politicians, and elusive educators have successfully duped Americans into believing that definitions to words are unnecessary.  We live at a time when ignorance hides under the charm of scholarship and true education is condemned by uneducated scholars.  Anti-intellectualism has been crowned queen of the public square.

The greatest gift God gave the human race was a rational mind.  (Please note:  The greatest gift God gave the children of God is the grace of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.)  An uneducated man may use his rational faculties.  However, an educated man may suppress his rational faculties.  An uneducated man may employ principles of logic while the educated man may employ the principles of confusion.  We have cultural elites treating words with contempt and stirring up confusion.  The sad effect will eventually show its face.  One day people will learn, maybe too late, that words are meaningful.  Then many will look back and realize theological and philosophical principles relating to life and culture should not have been ignored.

The contemporary church has adopted the imaginary assumption that God ordained an egalitarian undefined people called human beings.  In so doing the church ignores the basic principle of taxonomy found in Genesis chapter one.  God not only classified His creation, He ordered the division of nations, boundaries, and an inheritance by separating them into their various lands (Genesis 10).  They were nations with various ethnic and cultural distinctions.  When we avoid the distinction of nations, ethnic groups, and cultural milieus (popularly misinterpreted as racism) we promote the sin of egalitarianism.  I need only to remind you that the amalgamation of the races was a sin against God (Genesis 11).  The Bible teaches that it is a sin to despise or hate another person for any reason, especially because of their natural birth.  The sin is not “racism” but that of pride, envy, and murder.  It is humanism that has reversed God’s plan.  It is humanism with its beloved children (multi-culturalism, despotism, and the one world order) that say “let us build ourselves a city and a tower reaching to the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves.”

The passion of every human being is the desire to be equal to God. It began with the first two people representing the human race. They were charmed with the idea they could “be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Natural man says, “I am and there is no one else besides me” (Isaiah 47:10). Egalitarianism is a world view popularized by the war cry of the French Revolution, ” Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.” Egalitarianism or the rarely used term, ultimate equalism, is wicked to the core. The human race is only equal in terms of, “all are sinners.” R. L. Dabney rightly declared, “The extreme claim of equality is false and iniquitous.  For out of the wide natural diversities of sex and of character must arise a wide difference of natural relations between individuals and the State.  To attempt to bestow identical franchises upon all thus appears to be unjust, and, indeed, impossible.” There are universal natural distinctions found in human beings.  However, he also believed “There is a natural moral equality between all men, in that all are generically men.  All  have a rational, responsible and immortal destiny, and are inalienably entitled to pursue it;  all are morally related alike to God, the common Father; and all have equitable title to the protection of the laws under which Divine Providence places them.”

I pray that the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit may reach the hearts of those professing Christians who have adopted the modern concept of rationalism and the postmodern concept of subjectivism.  I pray they will adopt the Word of God to understand life and faith. May we all agree with the inspired words of the Psalmist:

“Give me understanding according to Your word”

“Deliver me according to Your word”

“Teach me Your statutes”

“For all Your commandments are righteousness.”

Psalm 119:169-176

How to Win Friends and Influence People

  1. Don’t insist on telling the truth on every occasion
  2. Don’t insist on preserving a man’s good name
  3. Don’t insist on keeping promises
  4. Do be willing to hide the truth if it benefits your cause
  5. Do be willing to tell a lie, even if it hurts another person
  6. Do be willing to flatter someone to accomplish your goal

The above six points may win alleged friends and may influence someone, but the six points are ungodly and anti-Christian.

In a society consumed by postmodern rhetoric the ninth commandment, “Do Not Lie” does not fit into the new reality agenda. Friends may not harmonize with the truth; therefore, telling the truth on every occasion may result in a loss of friends.  However, Christians do not have a choice between friends and truth.  The ninth commandment requires a person to tell the truth about his or her  neighbor.

I have alleged that the world of communication technology has changed the way people think.  It has been said that we are living in the fastest age in human history.  We know that time is not relative.  The measurement for time is consistent.  There are 60 minutes for each hour, etc and it always has been.  What is different is what we can accomplish in those 60 minutes compared to a few generations ago.  For instance, no one would travel very far out of the community for regular worship services and church related activities.  Now days it is not uncommon for people to drive to different towns or communities to associate with a local church.  Human history is moving at the same pace it has always moved.  However, with the speed and flow of information, the acquisition of information is faster than it has ever been before.

Telephone (FAXs), radio, television and computer networks have greatly enhanced the ability to instantaneously communicate ideas. We must not denigrate the positive dimensions of electronic communications, but on the other hand, we must not ignore the negative factors of electronic communications.

Radio has a variety of music, talk shows, preachers and teachers with their own programs.  Many of them promote anti-intellectual agendas with a wide variety of very different biblical doctrines.  Television, video, and smart phones have the same influence, but the visual elements corrupt or maybe even destroy the thinking process.

On top of all this, we live in the postmodern era.  Many Ivy League colleges teach literary deconstructionism as the accepted method for interpreting human language.  Deconstructionism teaches that the author uses words to compose a literary piece, but those words are meaningless to the recipient until someone deconstructs the words and gives them meaning.  This means there is no absolute truth for any written communication. To put it another way the author had no real intention to convey absolute truth with the words.  The ninth commandment must be understood based on two inseparable biblical concepts.  They are human communication and truth.

Why are professing Christians becoming less inclined to believe in absolute truth?

They are disinclined to believe the first eight commandments.

They are inclined to believe there are many gods.

They do not believe the true God requires true worship.

They do not have the proper reverence for God.

They do not work and worship according to God’s commandments.

They do not respect the authority of God.

They do not value life or property.

They do not place any value on truth.

Most of what Christians read, hear, and see is fantasy, therefore the truth of reality does not satisfy the human lust for power and excitement.

The doctrine associated with the ninth commandment is derived from the whole counsel of God; it is exceedingly wide and very deep.  There are two doctrinal principles derived from a study of the ninth commandment.

The first principle is that where there is a lie on the tongue, Satan is in the heart.  Professing Christians allow Satan to deceive them into believing that truth is relative to circumstances, conditions, and cultures.  Christians who reject the truth will be drawn into the vortex of Satan’s lies.  For too long truth and error have slept comfortably in the same bed.

The second principle is that for those who have violated this commandment, there is refuge in the righteousness of the one who is the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ. Run to Him, confess, repent, ask forgiveness and be restored into the joy of God’s saving grace.

You may deceive people and allegedly win friends and influence people, but God cannot be deceived and He will never be influenced with lies.

No Men In Israel

You may deny reality, but you cannot hide reality.  Our nation is seriously divided along racial lines, economic factors, religious belief and many other world and life views. The marriage institution is the most dangerous division of all.

Marriage is a divine institution originating within God’s covenant with man at creation. God ordained it in the perfect world before sin entered into the world. To understand this institution properly there are chronological factors that must be applied to the logic of the institution.  Man, a male being, was created first.  God created man to have dominion by the labor of his hands and the propagation of his own kind.  Since man was alone, he had no mutual help to fulfill the covenant responsibilities.  God provided the woman, one of man’s own kind, for mutual help.

God created a male and female human being that constitute a married couple (See Genesis 1:27).  God’s plan for marriage includes order and harmony.  The Lord said, “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (Genesis 2:18).  Although there are several renderings of the phrase “helper comparable to him”, the essence of the text is that the woman is just right for the man.  The woman made man complete.

After this remarkable creation, God brought the woman to man, thus forming the divine institution commonly known as marriage.  Marriage is an ordinance of God’s creative work.  Marriage is not a sacrament and marriage, as an institution, does not belong to God’s redemptive plan.

Now we have to ask:  what happened to this divine institution?  Sin entered the world.  Sin does not change the fact that God ordained marriage and therefore God must regulate marriage.  In fact, sin is all the more reason that marriage must be God regulated.

A careful examination of the Word of God will reveal the fundamental principles necessary for a biblical marriage and therefore a biblical family.

Marriage is honorable.  Hebrews 13:4

The woman is necessary for the man. Genesis 2 and 1 Corinthians 11:11-12

The man is the head in marriage.  1 Peter 3:1-7;  Col. 3:18;  Ephesians 5:22

The honor and necessity of marriage is rarely questioned by any culture, because in most cultures males and females marry.  In most cultures the government of the marriage is closely defined.  In America, that is not the case.

The western culture has three kinds of government in the marriage:

The husband is manager

The wife is manager

The husband and wife are co-managers

Which do you think is the Biblical form of marriage management?  The model is the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  In the Trinity, it is clear from the Bible that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit work in perfect harmony.

Unfortunately, when the husband does manage he often acts like a tyrant.  A tyrant exercises authority, headship, and makes decisions, but what motivates the tyrant?  Is it love or justice?  The answer is no, no.  A tyrant cannot exercise justice because he is motivated by his egocentricity.  I expect much of male headship in the home is tyranny.  The godly biblical prescription is dismissed as impossible in our permissive society. Feminism is the present day view of women ruling in the church and state. I’m not making any accusations because self-professing feminist claim feminism as their world view.

The authority of the man in a marriage relationship begins with the primary duty, which the Bible describes as love.  Sentiment is not love.  Sentiment is ones opinion or ones feeling toward someone else.  Spontaneous sentiment is not biblical love.  In a biblical marriage sentiment diminishes as love increases. The husband loves his wife with an overwhelming love and the wife submits to his godly leadership. Harmony and order prevail until the charm of Satan enters into the relationship.

The biblical illustration I use in my book, The Dominant Culture, may be helpful. The context is the nation of Israel during the period of the Judges.

The Bible states the children of Israel were harshly oppressed.  During this oppression and suffering you would think that God would raise up a deliverer or a savior for the people.  God raised up two deliverers, Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15).  When Ehud died the people of Israel, “did evil in the sight of the Lord.”

Even though God’s children were “harshly oppressed,” the Bible does not mention their plea for help or that God raised up a deliverer.  The Bible does not say that God raised Deborah to Judge Israel; it simply says, “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4).  The nation of Israel found itself without a man as a Judge.  The nation of Israel was uniquely a church/state ruled by God’s appointed servants.  The assertion that there were “no men in Israel” does not mean that some male human beings did not reside there, but the Bible makes it clear there was no male leadership in the church or the state.

The remedy for the breakdown of the biblical marriage institution is to follow the biblical principles for all of faith and practice. The great danger for our church and nation is  “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” It is never too late to say, “we will follow the Lord.”

God’s Promise

After my conversion to Christianity, late in life, I wanted everyone to know the forgiveness, acceptance, and peace I experienced from God’s saving grace.  The Christian experience was not a fantasy.  I knew that my experience was grounded in reality.  What I did not know was whether or not God’s promises were applicable to me?  What about Joshua?  Did he know that God’s promises were applicable to him?   What about you?

Immediately following the transition from Moses to Joshua God made a promise to Joshua.  God said, “No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life.  As I was with Moses, so I will be with you.  I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Josh. 1:5).  Wow!  You mean God said He would never leave or forsake Joshua.  Yes, not only Joshua, but God also makes that promise to you.  God’s children need to be constantly reminded of God’s presence.  As you face the transitions of life, the assurance of God’s presence and His promises will sustain you.

Think back through this past week or this past year.  Did you encounter some bumps in the road?  Maybe a death in the family, a serious illness, a financial setback or at the very least a flat tire which made you late for an appointment was a bump in the road for you.  Was God with you through the transition?  Sure He was, or you wouldn’t be reading this blog.  Joshua was reminded of the previous faithfulness of God.  God was with Moses during some difficult transitions and Moses was aware of God’s presence.  How many times does Moses refer to “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”  Too many to mention, but the point is that God is not just the God of three generations.  He is the God of all generations.  It was a reminder to Moses that God was with all previous generations, because God is an eternal God.  The eternality of God is our benchmark to look back and see how God carried us through the transitions of life.

We live in a fast paced world, a technical world, and an image producing world.  These characteristics do not serve well to remind us of God’s presence.  So, you may ask, how can I be reminded of God’s past faithfulness.  More particularly how will God’s past faithfulness affect my present circumstances?

Make sure you have a favorable relationship with God. In the words of the Apostle Paul, “believe and you will be saved.”  Ask the Holy Spirit to empower you to follow the ways of the Lord. Read the Word of God.  You cannot and will not ever understand God’s promises unless you read the Bible. Read church history and don’t think for one minute that you will not be as spiritual as the next person.  God’s promises to help us during the transitions of life are evident from reading church history. Two thousand years of church history reveals God keeping His promises and man breaking his promises.  The failure of the evangelical church to teach church history within the agenda of Christian Education robs Christianity of the great revivals and reformations.  To ignore nearly two thousand years of church history will create a vacuum in the demonstrated promises of God.  Don’t deprive yourself of the joy of seeing how God has provided for and protected His children throughout the history of the church. God’s faithfulness is evident every day.  And for sure, ponder those transitions you experienced and overcame by the grace of God!  Write the transitions in a journal, because next week, next month, or next year you will need to be reminded of God’s faithfulness.

Most of us make it through transitions and say, “thank goodness it’s over.”  During my undergraduate work at Columbia International University, I had the opportunity to become friends with many married students.  A married student with a couple of children taking a full load was likely to face financial difficulties at one time or another.  I remember one student telling me that he was thankful for God’s gracious hand as he went through some difficult times.  We are all thankful for God’s gracious promises, but most of us often face transitions with uncertainty about the future.  Do you sometimes have that feeling that the road up ahead has some big bumps?  Do you wonder how you will make it over those bumps?

God told Joshua, “I will be with you.”  The Hebrew verb translated “will be” refers to a future action as good as accomplished.  It’s like your favorite basketball team leading by thirty one points with only thirty seconds left in the game.  You could say “we’ve won the game.”   When God called Moses to the task of leading the Israelites out of Egypt, God promised “to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land” (Exodus 3:8).  God’s plan did not change no matter how many transitions the Israelites faced or how difficult they may be.  For the Israelites in the Old Testament and the Christians in the New Testament, God’s great promise is His special and gracious presence.  During the teenage years there will be an outburst of transitions.  As teenagers become young adults new responsibilities bring more transitions.  When a single person becomes engaged and marriage takes place, then you have life transitions.  If your un-married daughter announces she is pregnant, your homosexual son comes out of the closet, or you lose your mate, then you are facing those transitions in life that you thought would happen to the other person.  When the transitions come, and they will, remember God’s past promises are also future promises.  Trust Him today for the rest of your life.  The words of the Psalmist are present tense as he says “To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul; in you I trust, O my God” (Psalm 25:1,2).  The Psalmist also looks to the future with positive expectations as he says “When I am afraid, I will trust in you” (Psalm 56:3).


Two Necessary Principles for Church Government

Contentious times prevail in our country and the various churches in the United States.  There is no order or harmony in civil government or church government. Both have a constitution but the state does not follow the secular constitution and particular churches do not follow the sacred constitution.  My primary concern is the malicious mistreatment of the sacred constitution, commonly known as the Bible.

I believe in God!  I believe in Jesus Christ!  I believe the Bible teaches predestination! All these are familiar assertions frequently heard from the lips of Christians everywhere.  Muslims and Christians believe in God, but which God.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) and the Methodist Church believe in Jesus Christ, but which Jesus Christ.  Baptists and Presbyterians believe in predestination, but which view of predestination.

Theological liberals have accused theological conservatives with divisiveness because of doctrine.  In fact the war cry of the liberals during the middle of the 20th century was “doctrine divides, service unites.”  They were wrong.  However, I grant that the spirit of the postmodern age opens the door for a form of neo-ecumenism.  Doctrine no longer divides because the legitimacy and credibility of a creed has become personal relative among many creedal and confessional churches.  (Denial will not ease the pain of this truth.)  Every branch of the church has been touched by postmodern theory, to a greater or lesser degree.

What kind of church and confession are we passing on to our offspring?  If churches follow their current neo-ecumenical course, there will be no doctrinal distinctions.  Everyone will do what is right in his own eyes and loudly proclaim that “we must agree to disagree.”  It is not possible to agree to disagree. It will not stand the test  of logic and intelligent discourse.  It is possible to say that one or the other is wrong and maybe both are wrong.  To agree to disagree is to fan the fire of ecumenism.  It will destroy the church by deception.  We should all remember that Jesus called some churches “synagogues of Satan” because they had a false profession (Revelation 3:9).  The only protection the church has from “false professions” is the biblical form of church government. God designed the government of the church to protect it from false doctrine and promote order and harmony.

The reason that various denominations have so many different gospels and so many different doctrines can be found in the fact that although they may have one common creed, they have an unbiblical form of church government. Churches everywhere seem to have forgotten that God is the governor of the Universe.  The Word of God in the Book of Psalms declares,  “The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).  God’s government must be the factor that determines church government.  Common law and humanly devised statute law is not sufficient to rule God’s kingdom.

This generation of God’s people is past due on their responsibility to call the entire church to task on the very issue that has divided the church.  What has divided the church?  Is it the doctrine of God’s saving grace?  Is it the doctrine of God’s holiness and man’s responsibility?  Is it over the consummation of all things?  No, the church is divided over the government of His church.

Since we believe the gospel and we believe that born again sinners need to hear the gospel, then it would seem normal and sensible for God to give us the means to preach and teach the gospel and for that matter preach and teach the whole counsel of God.  However, the condition necessary for the church to determine who has the right and authority to decide which gospel is the right gospel and which doctrine is the right doctrine is biblical church government.

The reason the church is divided and the reason there are so many denominations is they have not determined who has the right and who has the authority to settle a controversy in the church.

Paul faced the same dilemma in his day as we face today.  There were two different versions of the gospel.  In Acts 15 “some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue (Acts 15:1,2).  According to one gospel salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.  The other gospel taught salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus the necessity of circumcision according to the custom of Moses.  Please notice that Luke brings to our attention the fact that the brethren were the subjects placed under the duplicity of doctrine.

If they are brethren, they should have every desire to settle the controversy.   A brother implies kinship, a covenant relationship and therefore a unity of doctrine should be the norm.  Instead the church was divided over the question of keeping the law of God for the salvation of the soul.  Brethren are sinners and subject to disagree and find themselves on the opposite end of some doctrine, but the Bible makes it clear that Paul could not live with two different gospels.  Neither did Paul seek the advice of two church courts.  If they were brethren it would seem that they would be willing to discuss the controversy and come to unanimous decision (See Acts 15).

The Governor of the universe gave two principles so His people could establish the biblical form of church government.  The first principle is the Word of Truth.  This principle calls for constitutional government.   John Calvin recognized this principle in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Under the heading “necessity of church constitutions Calvin said, “many unlettered persons, when they are told that men’s consciences are impiously bound by human traditions, and God is worshipped in vain, apply the same erasure to all the laws by which the order of the church is shaped” (Institutes 4.10.27).  He is right because man-centered worship tends to replace God-centered worship.  The same principle applies to the government of the church.  Calvin continues:  “Yet since such diversity exists in the customs of men, such variety in their minds, such conflicts in their judgments and dispositions, no organization, is sufficiently strong unless constituted with definite laws…Therefore…when churches are deprived of them, their very sinews disintegrate and they are wholly deformed and scattered” (Institutes 4.10.27).

God regulates the manner in which the church must be governed.  When the church is deprived of God’s regulation and God’s constitution of church government, then the church is deprived of God’s government. At the present time the evangelical church has not agreed on the doctrine of God’s government.  The prophet Amos left a masterpiece for the New Testament church.  “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3).

God’s government is constitutional.  However, the contemporary church has heard little if any about God’s plan for constitutional church government.  There is a tendency to ignore the principles of God’s government as unimportant to the congregation.

The government of the church is under the supreme headship of Jesus Christ. It is well known that there must proceed from the headship of Christ a particular form of church government. The government of the church is not merely an optional stand in for modernity’s managerialism.   The principles of church government must be founded upon the Word of God. Jonathan Edwards, although a Congregationalist, said to the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Ebenezer Erskine, that “as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the Word of God, and the reason and nature of things” (The Works of J. Edwards, Hickman ed., vol. 1, page cxxi). It is true that many in the history of the church understood that the guiding principles in Scripture demand a representative form of church government.  Edwards like so many more seemed content with what they viewed as an acceptable form of church government, thus denying the ultimate authority given to the elders by the Lord Jesus Christ.  The spiritual government of the church is not merely pragmatic or utilitarian. The government of the church is the source of order and authority for the church to carry out its mission.  The church cannot carry out its mission of making disciples without sound biblical God appointed church government.

The second principle God gave His people to establish a biblical form of church government is “rule by order.”  The elders in the Old Testament ruled by order, according to God’s law (See Exodus 18).  The elders made binding decisions.  The fashionable “thou shalt not judge” is not God’s plan to settle matters of doctrine and practice.  In the Old Testament judgment was the work of the elders at the gate.  In the New Testament judgment is the work of elders who come together as representatives of the church.  The immediate thought and words of any Christian is “what about the sinfulness of all men, including the elders.”  True, but the elders were men who had been set aside according to God’s constitution.  In the Old Testament the qualifications for the elders was not merely old age.  God’s constitution says they must be “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, [and] hating covetousness.”  In the New Testament the qualifications are more specific than the general qualifications found in the Old Testament.  The elders make vows thus calling them to account for the purpose of judicious adjudication of all matters pertaining to doctrine and practice.  Therefore care must be taken in the selection and ordination of elders.  If the elders are ungodly, unruly, and ill equipped, then their decisions will be ungodly, unruly, and deficient of God’s constitutional government.  A number of ungodly men making ungodly decisions are not the biblical form of church government found in Scripture.

The most prominent example of biblical church government previously referred to is found in Acts chapter fifteen.  The decision of the court was in agreement with the Word of God.  Since the representatives of the court were under constraint to judge justly, they could not possibly disagree with the Word of God.  When a decision is contradictory to the Word of God, then the constitutional principle was abused or ignored.   An ungodly decision does not come from a godly church court.  Furthermore godly people must not obey an ungodly decision.  Until local particular churches decide to obey the biblical principles, there will be no peace and harmony in the visible universal church. Start a reformation in your local church.

New Book Release – Death: Reflections on the End of Life and What Comes After

New book release:  Death: Reflections on the End of Life and What  Comes After, by Max Malikow, ISBN 9780986405570, 103 pages, $16.95


In a word, this is a book about death. However, a one-word characterization of any book is likely to be too general to be helpfully descriptive. The subtitle, Reflections on the End of Life and What Comes After, provides a more meaningful representation.

Arguably, humankind’s two most enduring questions are: What is the meaning of life? and, Is there an afterlife? Noteworthy is both questions are unanswerable if definitive, irrefutable answers are being sought. The endurance of these essentially unanswerable questions imply a feature unique to human beings. To be human is to be curious about our place in the creation and if we have a place somewhere after we die. Both curiosities involve our existence and whether it comes to an end. Moreover, there is a curiosity about whether our earthly conduct has consequences for what, if anything, awaits us after our death.

Presented as questions, the issues addressed in this meditation are:

  1. Why is death a live topic?
  1. Is death an asset or a liability?
  1. Is there an afterlife?

4. What constitutes a heroic death?

  1. Would a life of 450 years be a blessing or a curse?
  1. Is it a bad thing to die?

Max Malikow is on the faculty of the Renee Crown Honors Program of Syracuse University and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy at LeMoyne College. He earned his M.A. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Th.D. from Boston University.  He is the author or editor of twelve previous books and is a practicing psychotherapist in Syracuse, New York.

Available on Amazon or order through local bookstore