Over the years, our nation’s news reporters have developed a slew of techniques for trashing the Bible, along with anyone who believes it. I just stumbled across a great example from a few years ago, in a front-page story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit.

The piece was written by a female reporter who had been one of my TAs in college – a very talented writer who chose every word with care.

For this article, she interviewed Weston Field, the executive director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. Explaining that the Scrolls were written 1,000 years earlier than the oldest Old Testament manuscript known at the time of their discovery, he said, “Now we had something that … we could use to check what had happened to the text of the Bible for 1,000 years and how much it had changed along the way.”

Okay, so I’m not a journalist; I sold out when I started selling my J-school skills to corporate America. But I still write a lot of articles based on interviews, and I know how to ask an appropriate follow-up question.

So given this comment of Mr. Field’s, what do you think this reporter should have asked?

How about this: “Wow, Mr. Field, what did you find out? How much had the Old Testament changed over those 1,000 years?”

But if this reporter asked the question, the answer never made it into the finished article.

Perhaps that’s because surely his answer would have been something along these lines: “It had hardly changed at all, and not in any way impacting message or doctrine.”

He might have said, “Those charged with copying the manuscripts were so painstaking in their craft that barely any errors crept in.”

He might have added, “The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Old Testament we have today is virtually the same as the Old Testament that existed when Jesus Christ walked the earth.”

Of course, even if Mr. Field had said those things, they never would have been published in the Journal-Sentinel, or any other mainstream newspaper. After all, such comments would have contradicted the idea that reporters like to toss around, that the Bible is just like the telephone game, with the message being hopelessly and hysterically garbled with each successive re-telling.

How much easier it was, for this reporter or perhaps her editor, to just leave the obvious question unasked and unanswered – to instead leave this comment hanging: “we could … check what had happened to the text of the Bible for 1,000 years and how much it had changed along the way.”

Not another word about it. The implication? That the Old Testament had indeed changed, and had changed quite significantly.

I have a follow-up question for those responsible for this sort of oh-so-subtle hatchet job: Do you mean to leave such impressions?

In this case, I asked it, in fact – sent the reporter an email. But I never received a response. Guess she was too busy working on her next story, which turned out to be a piece lauding Darwinian evolution. 

If you're into pro football, you no doubt noticed that most players added pink to their uniforms last October, all for the purpose of "raising awareness" of breast cancer.  And why not? It was Breast Cancer Awareness Month, after all. And if more people are aware of breast cancer, more women will undergo mammograms, more biopsies will be performed (most of them negative, thankfully), more lumpectomies will be conducted, more radiation and chemotherapy will be prescribed, and more cash will be flowing into the pockets of nearly everyone concerned (the exceptions being patients and their insurers).   

But the jury is still out on the big question: will more women's lives be saved? Yes, the healthcare industry is catching more cancers earlier. But the slow-growing ones may not have ever killed their hosts, who end up being subjected to life-diminishing therapies; and the fast-growing cancers can apparently not be stopped permanently. 

So the upshot may be a great increase in the number of cancers detected, a great increase in the number of "cures," but possibly a net improvement of zero in actual lives saved. I'm no statistician, but it really makes me wonder. 

Don't get me wrong: There are a number of women I care about, and have cared about, who have fought the good fight against breast cancer, and are doing so to this day. My prayers are with them for stamina and peace and healing and whatever else they need, and with their doctors for wisdom. 

But I have a question: Are these women and their loved ones really better off because of these "awareness" campaigns? Yes, they raise a lot of money for the organizations whose job it is to raise money for themselves, as well as for "sister" organizations like Planned Parenthood. And they certainly make participants and supporters, both individual and corporate, feel good about their contributions; who can argue against a boost in self-esteem? 

But here's a far more important question: Are we raising awareness of the wrong disease?

The fact is, underlying all this frantic "awareness" activity is the idea that longevity is the ultimate goal in life -- that, in the end, living just as long as we want to live is our entire reason for being. Which makes some sense for those clinging to the idea that this life is all there is.

But these folks are tragically wrong, because it's demonstrably true that we will all live eternally one place or another. And it's demonstrably true that our personal destinations for all eternity depend exclusively on our relationship with Jesus Christ.  

This is what makes it so sad that most of the world, led by a spiritually blind news media, spends so much time and effort on eternally useless fund-raisers.  

I think we Christians should launch our own awareness campaign. Maybe we could get whoever decides these things to declare April Jesus Christ Awareness month. We could suggest a magnificent explosion of media coverage on 4/20, which is Resurrection Day this year. 

Just think of the message: The disease is sin, the solution is repentance and faith leading to salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the cure is eternal. And no donations (or brightly colored accessories) are needed! How could it fail? 

One of many Teen Challenge testimonies on youtube.com -- testimonies that point to the only One who can set us free for not just a week or a month or a year, but now and forevermore!

You've no doubt heard all about the wonders of Alcoholics Anonymous and its offshoots -- about its "message of hope" and its greatest blessing being "anonymity."

But one thing you probably haven't heard much about is its long-term success rate. Yes, yes, no doubt it's difficult to measure these things, and the tie-ins to residential treatment centers no doubt complicate it.

Nevertheless, various experts have attempted to gauge its long-term success. You may be surprised to learn that the best estimates run from 5 to 15%. Not much of a track record, is it?

And yet, there is a global organization that has, for the last few decades, routinely achieved five-year success rates on the opposite end of the scale. It's called Teen Challenge, but only because of its origins; it's open to addicts of all ages. Here's what one report has to say about its success:

"The last statistically significant evaluation of the Teen Challenge program was in 1975, by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Of a sample of 1968 Pennsylvania Teen Challenge graduates, 87.5% of former abusers were abstaining from the use of marijuana seven years after completing the program and 95% of former abusers were abstaining from the use of heroin seven years after completing the program. In 1994, another study was conducted by Dr. Roger Thompson at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Thompson also concluded that Teen Challenge had phenomenal success. Bicknese's research found that 86% of those Teen Challenge graduates interviewed for his study were abstaining from drugs."

Here and there, I've found reports of other studies confirming these results -- including one by a team of Princeton researchers -- but apparently those managing the purse strings have little incentive to dole out money for evaluating the performance of this remarkable organization.

The reason is obvious: Teen Challenge is Christ-centered. It helps its participants realize where they came from, what they're doing here, and where they're going. It helps them repent and trust in Christ for their eternal salvation. It allows Him to free them from the bondage of drugs and alcohol.

And as a result, the vast majority of them are still clean five years after completing the Teen Challenge program.

Astoundingly, there are those who would rather see addicts crash and burn than be exposed to Jesus Christ.  As Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis said last year, his concern is that "too many in the GLBT community can be damaged by the program that he says is 'proselytizing.'’’

He explained: “When a gay person is immersed in an environment like that, they can’t help but think there’s something deeply wrong with them,’’ said Dibble. “Some of those [homophobic] values are inseparable from their approach. It does not work for the GLBT person. . . .It’s fine for those at Teen Challenge to believe what they want, but should taxpayers pay for those beliefs?’’

Well, hmmmm, I dunno. Better to spend the money on locking addicts up, patching them up physically, and, in some cases, burying them?

Apparently so.

Dibble said he understands “faith-based’’ treatment. Those in AA, for instance, refer to “a Higher Power.’’ 

“But they [Teen Challenge] substitute Higher Power with Jesus Christ,’’ Dibble said.

Horrors!

Better stoned on drugs than fed by the living God, Mr. Dibble? Better self-righteously drunk than Christ-righteously sober? Better dead than born again?
 
This is a tragedy of eternal proportions. Mr. Dibble and his ilk would be well-advised to heed what Jesus had to say on the subject:

"Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36)

"Jesus answered them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.'" --John 8:34-36

Legal and illegal drug epidemics are turning the U.S. into a nation of addicts, observes David Kupelian in a February 2014 Whistleblower article entitled "The Real Zombie Apocalypse." It's an outstanding article and a very frightening wake-up call that, unfortunately, will be heeded mainly by all the wrong people.

Except for exposing how dire the situation really is, there aren't too many surprises in the piece. We all hear daily about celebrities going in for treatment, and many of us have friends or relatives who are even now trying to clean themselves up or dry themselves out with the help of various professionals.

There's just one problem with all these efforts -- a problem described by Jesus in Matthew 12, when He talks about the unclean spirit leaving his "house" and then, thinking better of it, returning with seven friends even more evil than he is. 

"The last state of that man is worse than the first," Jesus concluded, adding, "So shall it also be with this wicked generation."

And isn't that just what happens with most drug and alcohol treatment programs? They attempt to sweep the addict's house of "unclean spirits" (although of course they'd never accept this interpretation of the cause). And they replace those demons not with the only guaranteed remedy -- the Holy Spirit -- but with vague talk about getting healthy and respecting yourself. 

No wonder these programs so often fail so miserably.

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, has a 100% cure rate among those who give Him free rein to work in their hearts. Allow me to share my own experience: 

In John 8:36, Jesus is quoted as saying, “Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.” 

It was in early 2002 that I had my first real experience of that freedom.

I still smoked as much as humanly possible – three packs a day, more often than not. I still drank a lot, too; it was not unheard of for me to put away a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine in a single evening. But I didn’t see this as a problem: Early on I had overheard a pastor telling another new Christian who smoked, “We expect you to be in prayer about it.” No problem – I could handle that. And in fact, I often mentioned to the Lord that anytime He wanted me to quit these little habits of mine, He should just say the word.

I guess I never expected Him to take me up on it.

Not that I actually heard Him say anything about it to me. But in mid-February of that year, in the midst of a prayer, I suddenly knew with dead certainty that it was time to lose both cigarettes and liquor.

Even more amazing, I complied. Cold turkey. After 30-plus years of chain smoking and beer-guzzling, I became a teetotaling nonsmoker overnight.

What’s nearly as remarkable, to me at least, is that my taste for alcohol vanished instantly. I still enjoy non-alcoholic beer (apparently verboten among secular alcohol-abuse programs, for some strange reason), and upon occasion someone has given me the real thing by mistake. Deep in conversation, I have taken a sip, and have had to literally spit it out – the taste is foul to me now.  

This is real freedom, in my book – the God-powered freedom to turn one’s back on even deep-seated behaviors in order to glorify Him instead of oneself. In my case, that meant being sober, as the apostles Paul and Peter repeatedly advised, and taking seriously Paul’s admonition that the Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. 

There are those who would deny that giving up a pleasure could be called “freedom.” But the “do what thou willst” freedom they prefer leads to enslavement. Just ask someone who’s addicted to alcohol or drugs or gambling or exercise or gluttony or sex or self-importance or any of a thousand other out-of-control pleasures; if they’re being honest, they will not describe their ability to pursue their poisons of choice as freedom. 

“Freedom is slavery,” George Orwell said in his book 1984. Perhaps he was merely commenting on the propaganda he imagined would drive the totalitarian societies of the future. But it seems to me there’s a lot of truth to this slogan for a “free” society, even if Orwell didn’t realize it. 

--Heaven Without Her, pages 191-2

This story has a happen ending: I’m still free, a dozen years later – free in particular of my long-standing tobacco addiction, which  many experts agree is the toughest to break, more difficult even than crack cocaine.

But I’m just one example of thousands upon thousands who’ve been set free by the Lord. After all, for the Christian, "He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). Happily, there are some addiction specialists who use these truths to set hard-core addicts forever free from their bondage. 

Next up: A Christ-based treatment program with an 85% “cure” rate! 

“For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” Romans 8:19-22, NKJV

Romans 8 may be my favorite chapter in the entire Bible, for a number of reasons – not the least of which is this intriguing passage, which I believe offers us animal-lovers some encouragement that our pets will be joining us in heaven.

Consider: “the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

“Delivered” means to be “liberated,” “exempted from,” “made free.” And “corruption” is another word for “decay.” So here the apostle Paul is telling us that the creation – which surely includes animals – will be freed from the bonds of decay.  

What’s more, the creation will be delivered from bondage into “the glorious liberty of the children of God.” It doesn’t say “into the glorious liberty that is something like that of the children of God.” It’s definite: the creation will be delivered into OUR liberty. Sounds like the same place or state to me.

Consider, too, that “the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God,” per verse 19. “Sons of God” is rendered “children of God” in other translations, so I don’t think we have to worry about this being a reference to the mysterious and possibly creepy “sons of God” in Genesis 6. It just means us – those who have repented of our sin and trusted in Jesus Christ to have paid for it on the cross.

So tell me – why would the creation earnestly expect or eagerly wait for our revealing, if it was not to be a part of what follows?

Some will say, “Well, sure, we know there’ll be animals in heaven, but not OUR animals – they don’t have souls, after all.” To which I would respond, “not so fast.” In the original Hebrew, the bible calls both man and vertebrate animals “nephesh chayyah.” It was the translators who rendered this phrase “living soul” for man, but “living creature” for animals. In other words, Moses called both men and animals “living souls.” And really, shouldn’t we listen to him rather than the scholars?

Okay, so maybe I’m all wrong about this, and I’m sure I’ll be charged with wishful thinking for even bringing this subject up again. But check out my beloved Thumper’s Shadow and Tiger (above), whom we buried in 2011 and 2008, respectively; they are just two of almost a dozen dear pets who’ve already gone on ahead, with four more on deck.  

I personally think they'll both be there, along with all the rest, and I ask the Lord regularly to please make it happen. And why not? After all, “with God, all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27) 

Really, the only remaining question seems to be whether we will be there to join them. But that's the easy part, because Jesus has already paid our way.