If you thought you'd heard the last from detractors of Christianity after the movie The Da Vinci Code faded out of theaters, think again. It seems their mission never rests. The most current installment of their efforts to deceive the world has come in the form of a purported archaeological discovery.

About 27 years ago, during the construction of an apartment building in the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem, construction crews chanced upon a tomb containing six ossuaries, or stone boxes for human bones. The ossuaries are purportedly inscribed with Jewish names that were common for that place and time, some of which are apparently not very clear.

The Discovery Channel, and its accomplices in this latest attack on the truth of Jesus Christ (James Cameron of Titanic fame, and lightly-regarded movie director Simcha Jacobovici) claim the inscriptions on the boxes say "Jesus, son of Joseph," "Mary," "Joseph," "Matthew," "Maria the Master," and "Judah, son of Jesus." They insist that Maria the Master really refers to Mary Magdalene and on that basis, conclude that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a son. Apparently, they commissioned certain "scientific" studies that they believe bear out their claims.

Interestingly, an additional "James Ossuary" somehow "surfaced" (whatever that means) apparently in another location and is not only claimed to be from the same tomb, but to contain the bones of a brother of Jesus. Israeli authorities have pronounced it a forgery and are prosecuting its owner. Jacobovici made a 2003 film on the forgery. So of course, to keep from losing credibility, he maintains it's real.

Do you need any more background to realize that these claims are nothing more than desperate attempts to garner more fame and fortune for those involved? In fact, their agenda, particularly in maintaining patient silence for 27 years while they worked behind the scenes, was to develop a significant money-making project in the form of a book and documentary film.

But you have to ask, "Why did it take so long to develop these projects, and why come out with them now?" Here's what I think. They understood their book and movie projects relied on such specious and intellectually dishonest arguments that they formed serious doubts as to their likelihood of commercial success. However, having seen the commercial success of The Da Vinci Code, fueled largely by the atheist and humanistic movements, and the wishful thinking of those whose consciences may be bothering them, they chose to piggy back on that success and hedge their bets that the world didn't get enough the first time.

Never mind that world-renowned archaeologists, anthropologists and scholars from all walks of life, including non-Christians with no real stake or interest in the promotion of Christianity, summarily dismissed it as hogwash and denounced it as a publicity stunt. And never mind that the Discovery Channel and its filmmakers chose to ignore and scorn the legitimate archaeological methods normally employed in such discoveries, including the ensuing tests for validity and peer-reviewed scientific writings. Instead, they commissioned secret testing and held a news conference to announce their movie.

In fact, the detractors ignore all sense of fact and reason in reaching their conclusions, including the facts that Jesus would probably not have been buried in the rock-cut tomb of rich families, in Jerusalem, and with an inscription bearing a first name and father's name. Instead, as a Galilean, Jesus would have been buried in a common grave, in Nazareth, and with a first name and home town inscription. This is what we are told by experts in the field. But, it seems our latest Christian haters considered them minor details that could be ignored.

You may be tempted to think, at first blush, that with nothing more than a few boxes with bones and unclear inscriptions, this latest effort to challenge the divinity of Jesus Christ and the facts of his life, are relatively harmless and will go nowhere. After all, The Da Vinci Code was presumably based on much more research and evidence, if no less blatant hyperbole.

But here's why these claims are dangerous in every way. The filmmakers intend to suggest that Jesus never rose from the dead and the Holy Scriptures are completely mistaken about the true life of Christ as a man. With that in mind, they intend to further suggest that Christianity is entirely based on a lie and therefore, an illegitimate faith. So, they aren't merely unscrupulous opportunists, they espouse a distorted view whose goal it is to destroy the faith of many and popularize the religion of self, fame and fortune.

We could ignore this, knowing the truth about Jesus, and understanding not only the sweetness of our faith, but also the power of God in our lives. We could turn the other way, realizing that God is all-powerful and will not be mocked. And we could go about our lives, feeling secure in the realization that God Himself metes out justice.

But the truth is that, if there were a vulnerability in the Christian faith, it would be the unwillingness of disciples to speak out. The evil one commands his minions to lie to the world by suggesting that we should be concerned about what the world thinks and how we will be viewed if we stand up to the popular culture. Now you know where that little voice that tells you there is no real concern or urgency comes from.

Many of the faithful will admirably take on this debate and expose the Discovery Channel and its accomplices for the Charlatans they really are. But there is something that every faithful Christian can do, even if it doesn't involve the high-minded world of archaeology, history and religious debate. We can share our faith. We can start new churches. We can take the good news of the gospel to the far ends of the world like never before.

We can go! And we can open our mouths. We can proclaim the truth of Christ and show the fruit of God in our own lives. There will always be those who can't or won't escape the pseudo-intellectual lure of this issue. And many simply can't separate fact from fiction. Unfortunately, some of them will fail to experience the grace of Jesus Christ. But most people respond to the miracles in their lives and the changes God brings, which they never before thought were possible.

This is where we can and should make a difference. I teach my children that if we don't stand for something, we fall for everything. So, the best way to counter the misguided, ill-intended detractors of Christianity is to stand for something. Stand for the truth of the gospel. And do it by sharing your faith and helping to powerfully and forcefully advance His kingdom.

Our children are watching, so it's absolutely essential that we give them the right example. Aside from ignoring the upcoming book and movie, unless you approach it as pure fiction, which it is, the best thing we can do is to live out the Great Commission. Go! And make disciples!

(For more on the story this posting is based on, go here: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600442.html)

This is a problem that will not go away. Not only because of the mental shift toward secular humanism that is apparent in our society, but also because of the pervasive ignorance among so-called "educators," and the powerful resolve of atheist activists. I'm talking not merely about religious discrimination, but about the cynicism, skepticism, and increasingly apparent hatred directed at Christianity in particular.

It goes like this: Public School officials in America today, allow and promote all sorts of vile, vulgar and destructive expressions of self throughout the educational setting, dismissing them as nothing more than where our society has progressed to and the innocent truths of today's youth. You know what I'm talking about: sexual promiscuity, championing gay lifestyles, drug-addicts turned heroes simply because they go clean, pagan-satanic rituals, and of course, evolution and humanism that deny the truth and existence of God.

At the same time, they prohibit a 10 year old boy from wearing a Jesus costume as his way of saying "NO" to the pagan message he believed was inherent in the school's holloween activities. Not only was he told he could not wear a plastic crown of thorns, he was not allowed to mention the name of Jesus. (See, Boy Who Wanted To Wear Jesus Costume Sues at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17266174/)

The legal problems with the school's actions are many and obvious. It's fairly well settled that an individual student's expression of religion may not be suppressed simply because it is religious. That holds true whether the religious "speech" (and it's obvious that wearing a Jesus costume to protest holloween school activities is most definitely religious speech) is expressed outside of organized school activities, or in the context of non-curricular expressive activities in which students are given freedom to choose their own speech, and then are censored when they choose something with religious content.

This happens often. The instant case is a good example of allowing school children the freedom to choose their own speech… so long as it is not Christian in nature. But most champions of religious rights and protectors of the Christian faith can point to many other examples, often perpetrated by public school officials against children with a strong Christian faith. I can recall off the top of my head the case where an elementary public school teacher assigned a report to her students on "Who Is My Hero." When a Christian boy in her class turned in a report on Jesus, not only did she give it back and give him a failing grade, but the school district backed her up with a "scorch the earth" mentality and resolve. In a more recent case, an elementary school student chose a Christian song for a school talent show that was held in the evening. She was censored because of the Christian message it sent.

These are blatant violations of our children's First Amendment rights, on many levels. Not only is it apparent from legal precedent, but it's also apparent from a simple, logical review of the facts. I doubt that, in organizing holloween activities, school officials first asked whether the organizing administrator had a leaning toward the occult or satanism. There is no indication that they censored any other costumes, including those of witches and devils, as expressive of a religion. (Of course, that would defeat the purpose of the activities at hand.) And I strongly doubt that had someone shown up in a costume of Buddha or Hare Krishna anyone would have batted an eye.

But, should anyone even suggest the name or idea of Jesus, public school officials come out fighting with all guns blazing. It signifies a pervasive and disturbing ignorance about what separation of church and state in America means. School administrators seem to think it means "do not allow expressions of Christianity in any form and in connection with any school setting or activity whatsoever." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us not forget where much of this comes from. There are many negative, destructive and evil forces at work in this world. It is, after all, the work of the darkest of enemies. But he works through ignorance and hatred. I believe that when public school officials so blatantly and mercilessly discriminate, not against religion, per se, but against Christianity in particular, it had to start in another place and another time. Too many people today have turned their backs on Jesus because they're more attracted by the lies of the world. They believe the answers to life lie in their own discoveries and inventions. Many think psychology and philosophy are the supreme theories that will solve humanity's problems.

When people's lives go awry, they blame God. When the world beats them up, they blame the Lord. When they can't escape their own slavery to sin, whatever form it takes, they blame it on Christ. When they don't want to face the fact that their lives may at times seem meaningless and purposeless, they try to deny the meaning and purpose of the cross. It's the loss of faith and the lure of the world. More than ever, people worship the idols of money, beauty, success, pleasure, and possessions. It isn't convenient to believe in a Christ who teaches us to deny ourselves.

And then there's the atheist movement. What else can we say about atheism, except that it's everywhere, even in public school administration. But here's a telltale sign that even atheists, despite their activism, fear Jesus Christ. They fight with all their might to keep His name out of every place imaginable. I suppose the good news, aside from the fact that Jesus cannot be denied, is that He cannot be stopped. Have you heard the one about the convention of atheists who were in the middle of singing their denial song when a mighty earthquake struck and the walls began to tumble? Well, they all knelt down to pray that their lives be spared.

And that is where much of the problem lies. Somewhere deep inside, people know the truth and power of God, but cannot stand the fact that it convicts their soul. So they do their best to prop up a secular system, purporting to lean on the power of law and the authority of policy to deny what is really going on in themselves and in society.  They deny that God is watching. That he cannot be mocked. That He cannot be denied. That Christ is what's missing.

Does anyone really believe that public school officials really thought that by allowing a 10 year old boy to wear a Jesus costume at a holloween activity, that the school district would get in trouble for promoting religion? Would allowing a child to write a report about Jesus as their hero, that only one teacher gets to see, promote Christianity? Would allowing an elementary school girl to sing a Christian song at an evening talent show amount to the school itself promoting the Christian faith? Obviously, the answer is No, No and No. Even if they suggested that was their fear, where did they get their facts or legal research from? It's obvious that they either do not have legal counsel, or they have one that knows very little about this area of law.

School districts always point to a "policy" that does not allow the targeted speech, as though the word "policy" carried inherent authority or meaning. The truth is that policies can be based on anything, including ignorance, lack of research, and a strong anti-Christian influence in the political and administrative ranks of a school district. The time has come for public school officials to wake up and understand that the law is settled. And that their harassment of small children and discrimination against all things Christian in a public school setting are ill-advised and an exercise in futility.

Their tact, in discouraging expressions of faith, is to overwhelm the faithful Christian with seemingly insurmountable odds. In other words, they force small children to sue them just so they can sing their song, write their story, or say no to paganism. I suggest that Christians turn it upside down on school district officials. If more Christian families encouraged their children to engage in expressions of their Christian faith in the school setting (understanding them to be not only right and appropriate, but also legally and morally sound), and if more Christian defenders resolved to step in and help faithful children fight the good fight, school districts would think twice about violating our children's First Amendment rights and inviting such ridiculous litigation.

Let's make them weigh the prospect of too much litigation against the prospect of letting small innocent children engage in simple expressions of their Christian faith. Not that we need to see what some school officials are already made of–I think we already know that–but I do think we need to see where their priorities lie: the promotion of education and enlightenment, or the perpetuation of ignorance?

As for me and my house, we stand with Christ.

(I am not suggesting in this posting that a majority, or most, public school officials are anti-Christian. But it's apparent that this is a problem in public education. As in all things, if the shoe fits, wear it.)

For more on your legal right to religious expression in the public school setting, go to: www.firstfreedom.gov.

Text Of Email Sent To U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson on February 19, 2007:

Dear Senator Hutchinson,

I am writing to express my shock and extreme displeasure at the recent news about the physical conditions and atrocious treatment faced on a daily basis by our wounded war heroes at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington D.C. I am sickened by the news of severely wounded soldiers having to trudge across a busy road in extremely cold weather to line up for morning formation, after having to sleep with rats and roaches. Not only is it apparent that this military-discipline experiment on very ill human beings is absurd and useless, it's even more appalling that no intelligent, caring personnel seem to be in a position to do anything about it.

I am so incensed, I can hardly put into words the magnitude of my outrage that this is all happening just down the road from Congress and the White House, with no apparent show of concern from those in a position to change it right away. As a native San Antonian from a proud and patriotic American military family, whose own father died at Brooke Army Medical Center 16 months ago and two oldest brothers fought bravely in Persian Gulf War I (the oldest is now buried at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery), I know that we can do better. Why should our Irag-war heroes deserve any less than any member of Congress would receive should he or she fall ill at any moment?

I would be interested in hearing from the honorable Senator about her specific plans to do everything within her power to make sure the conditions and treatment of our military heroes change IMMEDIATELY at Walter Reed and any other such facilities where military heroes must suffer through such undignified treatment. At this very moment, as I write these words and contemplate the facts as they have been reported, assuming them to be generally true, I am ashamed of how we as a nation have failed and insulted those who have given everything up for our safety and freedom.

I cannot imagine that it would not be worth your time to not only work diligently to change things for the sake of our heroes and their families, but also for your own sake and your ability to sleep well at night. I know this is not your fault specifically. But, as a member of the United States Senate and from the great state of Texas, no less, you have the power to influence this situation for dramatic change very quickly. This is the kind of situation where our elected representatives prove themselves worthy (or not) of the trust the people have placed upon them. I will pray for your wisdom and fortitude as you move forward on this matter.

Humbly and respectfully,
Abe Hernandez, Esq.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a very high percentage of churches that own property don't have the right level of insurance, if any at all. Is this a bold, ridiculous guess? Or, do I know something you don't.

First, I know from my experience that many church leaders have a hard time accepting the idea that they should pay for insurance to protect buildings and property. Honestly, some church leaders even have a problem with insurance coverage for defense costs in the event of a lawsuit.

Second, I read a lot of what's out there. How often have we read or heard about a church that was destroyed, either by arson, a hurricane, tornadoes, or other unfortunate event or catastrophe… only to learn that they will never rebuild because the church was under-insured, or not insured at all? If they decide to rebuild, it's usually on the financial backs of their members, who would much rather have footed an insurance bill than a rebuilding fund raising campaign.

Insuring the church and its property against foreseeable and unforseeable events should be one of the pillars of every church start up. Unfortunately, when many church leaders are busy starting a church, they mostly think about the ministry and outreach aspect. The idea of insurance may not realistically emerge to the forefront for months, or perhaps even years. In the meantime, they fail to recognize the enormous risk they face.

We know from recent events that disaster can and will strike anytime and anywhere. Even when we believe our earthly structures are… indestructible. If and when disaster strikes, whether in the form of a natural disaster, an atrocious act, or even a legal complaint against the church, will your insurance be enough to protect your church? Or will you be forced to close your doors… forever?

Here's one case where a devastating event has left an entire body of Believers unsure of what the future holds for them. No doubt they will wholeheartedly explore the idea of rebuilding. That's the natural response to such an event. But the uncertainty is simply too great when there was no insurance policy to foot the bill. Read it now at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16949257/

We're not really sure what will happen to the church in this story. But it doesn't sound too promising. What we didn't hear the spokesman say was, "We had the foresight to insure our property. We're already planning the rebuilding process."

Instead, I sense a sadness coupled with a feeble attempt to be brave. I understand the sense of loss and grief one can experience at a time like this. But my hunch is that the sadness comes from thinking of what it will take for church members to come up with the money to rebuild. Not an easy task.

It will certainly not as simple as it would have been to make monthly, quarterly or annual payments on an adequate insurance policy. Am I simply promoting insurance here? Not at all. It's a matter of being the kind of stewards that Jesus would have us be. It's a matter of being shrewd while innocent.

Adequate insurance coverage is not the only risk-management issue that churches face. And it certainly cannot replace an effective risk-management scheme of policies and procedures to help reduce risk and complexity. But should disaster ever come knocking on your church doors, be prepared so you find yourself piling tragedy upon tragedy.

I get no pleasure from writing this post, as it deals with many of the issues I warn church leaders and faithful Christians against on a regular basis. My hope is that it will serve as a warning to church members, their ministry leaders and their boards, about what can and will happen when oversight is lax and a church board is nothing more than a rubber stamp for a forceful, if charismatic, pastor.

I won't try to break down, in this post, all the legal issues that are presented in this scenario. Not that I wasn't tempted to, as it reads like a veritable law school testing hypothetical. But it would be boring legal chatter and miss the whole point. Suffice it to say that this man did many bad things and no one seemed to be keeping an eye out… not just on him, but also on the church itself.

To me, it seems that in literally stealing ALL the church property out from under the unsuspecting congregation in tiny Ripon, CA, "Pastor" Randall Radic always intended to hurt people. Why else would he parade down main street to flaunt his "spoils"–the shiny new BMW he bought with the dirty money? Why would he do it in the first place?

It didn't seem that he was in a tight financial spot. He got to live in a parsonage (church-owned home that is provided to a pastor to live in), for which he was able to deduct the fair-market rental value from his ordinary income. Thus, if he was paid, for example, $75,000 annually as pastor of "Unsuspecting Church," and the fair-market rental value of the parsonage was $2,000 per month, his reported ordinary income would be no more than $51,000. Of course, when you take into consideration the numerous other deductions allowed under the IRS rules, such as maintenance expenses, utilities, furniture, etc,… the deductions from ordinary income could have brought his taxable income down to $30,000 or less, each year. Have you calculated lately the taxes on $30,000?

Now, I don't really know… but I wonder if anyone has even attempted an audit to see what kind of other money may have been embezzled along the way. I wouldn't doubt that it happened regularly, or that the congregation would rather keep it quiet.

It also seems that he did not have the stresses of family, like many good pastors do. There's no indication here that he was married or had children. In fact, his entire behavior is that of a man who doesn't have to look into the eyes of a young boy or girl and say, "Let me teach you to be honorable." Or perhaps, "Follow me as I follow Christ." Perhaps not all pastors with families with do that either, but when a family is involved, it's less likely that your pastor will sell the house out from under them as well.

Also, unlike another situation that most Americans are by now familiar with, there's no indication he was a closet homosexual, or drug addict, or both. But if he were, it would not have been known by a group of people who didn't seem to see anything wrong with hiring a younger single man to be pastor over a congregation of senior citizens.  Or was he hired? Is it possible that the church had never really established any structure of legal and/or religious authority? There is a suggestion that the church board was duped in this situation. But we don't really know if he was not perhaps, an all-powerful pastor with a rubber stamp board and no spiritual group to whom he was accountable.

Let me also address the church culture where members tend to claim their ministers as "favorite sons." That's part of what leads disciples to care little about setting up oversight procedures. That's part of what allows them to have unquestioned, if misplaced, trust. A minister is not someone who should be coddled and winked at by a bunch of older ladies, and looked upon by senior men to remind them of their younger days. The ministry is much more than a "job," or "profession." It's the role that God has ordained, through which He intends the flock to be cared for. Treating pastors like our grandchildren, or "that handsome young buck that preaches to us on Sundays," does the ministry a great disservice.

There are so many others things one can say about the shameful displays of selfishness and heartlessness by Radic, not just in selling the parsonage and church building, but also in how he rubbed it in the collective face of the congregation after the fact. The point is that churches all over this nation should take this as a warning. The enemy is not only lurking in the outskirts, he's also lurking within. The enemy is not merely a red, horned monster. Unfortunately, sometimes, the enemy is "us."

Because of this truth, the time is now to do everything within your power to protect your church, not just for yourselves, or the generation that follows, but for the good name of Christ. You mark my words, this evil man's exploits will one day soon be made into a Hollywood story. Are you not yet aware of how Hollywood likes to distort the image of Christianity and defame the name of Christ?

Don't give them the opportunity. Don't give the evil one a foothold. Stop the foolishness of slobbering all over charismatic single pastors and hold them, as well as all ministry personnel, the the standard of the bible. What other standard are you faithful to? Let someone help you learn how to protect your church. That's what I always preach.

You can find the article this post relates to at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17120210/