Finding Unity In The Division

Leave a comment

First, I would like to say that I am not a highly political man.  All I know is that the politicians tend to make things a lot more difficult than they should be.  Whether you are a conservative, moderate, liberal, or just do not even care to get involved, I want to make this blog entry beneficial to everyone.  The 2012 Presidential elections have finally come to an end and the majority of the people have chosen Barack Obama to lead the nation for the next four years.  The U.S. Constitution gives every American citizen over the age of 18 the right to vote.  I have to admit that the weeks that led up to election day, the day itself, and for the next four years, a lot of voters have, are, and will act like immature children.  Why?  Because they did not get what they wanted, who they wanted, and when they wanted it.  People will complain about certain laws and policies and how things are being done.  They should be fortunate that they have the right to complain, however, what is the point?  If you have a complaint of any kind, I feel that you should either take some action to correct the issue and if that is not possible, just forget about it and move on.  If you complain and want to do something but do not know what, then find out.  We are living in an information age, where the World Wide Web is at your fingertips.  Do some research, get involved in the community, and be the change that you want to see in this world.

As for my fellow Christian brothers and sisters; THINK AND PRAY BEFORE YOU SPEAK AND ACT!  Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 22:21, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”  I truly believe that this verse is referring to more than just money.  We have the Church, CORRECTION, we ARE the Church!  I am not suggesting that all Christians should stay out of politics, by no means.  We do not have the role, we have the COMMANDMENT to be living witnesses of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  It is our duty to live according to what the Scriptures say.  It is our duty to accept EVERYONE just as they are and LOVE them.  It is NOT our duty to save them or convert them, that job belongs to God alone!  It would be fantastic if the American laws and policies were completely Biblically based, nothing more and nothing less.  When we expect that, then we are making the same mistake the Jews made when Jesus was living among them over 2,000 years ago.  Our true home is not in this world, it is in heaven, so do not get too comfortable here.

Advertisements

Technology And Society

Leave a comment

The United States has come a long way in technology, but have we gone too far into the future that we forget about history and even worse, the present? Times have changed dramatically and are continually changing. For example, in an interview for Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 1921 that appeared in Berliner Tageblatt, July 7, 1921, Albert Einstein provides his first impressions of the United States. He notes that one thing that strikes a visitor to the U.S. is “the joyous, positive attitude to life. A person is friendly, self-confident, optimistic, and without envy. Compared with the American, the European is more critical, more self-conscious, less kind-hearted and helpful, more isolated, more fastidious in his amusements and his reading, generally more or less of a pessimist…The American lives even more for his goals, for the future, than the European. Life for him is always becoming, never being…More emphasis is laid on the “we” than the “I”…Hence the most important cultural functions can be left to private enterprise and the part played by the government in this country is, comparatively, a very restricted one.” Today, America has taken on the lives that the Europeans had back in the early 1900’s. I truly believe that technological developments have played a major role in this transformation. Such websites as Facebook and Twitter that are not only accessible by computer, but by cellular phones as well, have depersonalized people. Don’t get me wrong, social networking does have its advantages by finding long lost friends and keeping in touch with family and friends worldwide. Unfortunately, the main disadvantage is that we rely on technology to keep in touch and have lost that personal connection through meeting face to face. Violence seems to be at a peak because without that personal connection, people lose touch of reality and lose sight of values and morality.

Penetrating research and keen scientific work have often had tragic implications for mankind, producing, on the one hand, inventions which liberated man from exhausting physical labor, making his life easier and richer; but on the other hand, introducing a grave restlessness into his life, making him a slave to his technological environment, and—most catastrophic of all—creating the means for his own mass destruction. The desire to live life springs from the darkness in which the individual finds himself, from his sense of forlornness when he stares without love into the void, from his self-forgetfulness when he feels that he is being consumed by the busy-ness of the world, when he suddenly wakes up in terror and asks himself: What am I, what am I failing to do, what should I do? That self-forgetfulness has been aggravated by the machine age. With its time clocks, its jobs, whether absorbing or purely mechanical, which less and less fulfill man as man, it may even lead man to feel that he is part of the machine, interchangeably shunted in here and there, and when left free, to feel that he is nothing and can do nothing with himself. And just as he begins to recover himself, the colossus of this world draws him back again into the all-consuming machinery of empty labor and empty leisure. But man as such inclines to self-forgetfulness. He must snatch himself out of it if he is not to lose himself to the world, to habits, to thoughtless banalities, to the beaten track.

Einstein hit the mark with this statement: “Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital that leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals that I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced that there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems…my political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized…Desire for approval and recognition is a healthy motive; but the desire to be acknowledged as better, stronger, or more intelligent than a fellow being or fellow scholar easily leads to an excessively egoistic psychological adjustment, which may become injurious for the individual and for the community.”

Over the course of history, we have learned that speaking out can cause misunderstanding and conflict, but not speaking out can endorse far worse. Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel is fond of saying that “the opposite of love is not hate, but silence.” In a world of growing bureaucracy and information overload, we have the danger of having our voices drowned out. No reality is more essential to our self-awareness than history. It shows us the broadest horizon of mankind, brings us the contents of tradition upon which our life is built, shows us standards by which to measure the present, frees us from unconscious bondage to our own age, teaches us to see man in his highest potentialities and his imperishable creations. We can make no better use of leisure than to familiarize ourselves and keep ourselves familiar with the glories of the past and the catastrophes in which everything has been shattered. We gain a better understanding of our present experience if we see it in the mirror of history. And history becomes alive for us when we regard it in the light of our own age. Our life becomes richer when past and present illumine one another. The framers of the United States Constitution hoped to combine democratic principles (a Congress) with some of the benefits of an undemocratic elite rule (a Senate, a Supreme Court, a Bill of Rights). Part of our society’s ambivalence about intellectuals is due to this constitutional tension, however, it is mostly a manifestation of deeper psychological conflicts. We want to have authoritative guidance, but we also want autonomy. We don’t like feeling stupid, yet when we are honest we realize we need to learn some things. We respect the accomplishments of others, but sometimes feel threatened and resentful. We have a respect for authorities when it suits us, and embrace relativism in other cases.

History of American Faith

Leave a comment

Our Founding Fathers drew many philosophic tenets of government directly from the Bible.  The influence of the Christian faith on what is now America has been long and profound, predating the Declaration of Independence.  The Pilgrims planted what were seen as the first seeds of self-government in the Mayflower Compact, which makes clear their purpose and mission—“Advancement of the Christian Faith.”  Freedom of religion was established to protect the free exercise of the Christian faith without the interference of an overly intrusive government.  One need only look at the conflict between branches of the Islamic faith in the Middle East to see that the faith of our founders spared us from future civil war by separating the authority of the state from the practice of religion.  Despite the openness of our nation, Christianity has flourished the most.  We believe that this has transpired because Christianity is compatible with democracy and freedom.  Radical Islam works against democracy.  In addition, experts in foreign missions have repeatedly reported that Christianity has given rise to economic uplift in every nation that has adopted it.  Above all, the few examples of differing faith communities living peacefully together are predominantly in Christian nations.

Our Constitution offers freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.  Without Christianity, America would never have become the great power it is today.  The bedrock value system, built on the Bible, has allowed our democracy to blossom and grow.  Our nation’s tolerance of other faiths is a legacy left to us by the Founding Fathers, many of whom were men of faith.  The limitation in the First Amendment is upon Congress, not the churches.  It was a wall that prevented the federal government from intruding on religion in the states or denying the people’s right of free exercise of religion.  The founders were concerned that the federal government would try to take over the churches and use them for its own purpose.  They did not fear that Christians would influence the government.  Christians were the government.  The liberals who misread the First Amendment proclaim tolerance of others and are intolerant to Christians. 

Faith that unreservedly embraces the truth is transforming faith.  It begins with the individual and, fully realized, has the power to transform nations.  Daniel attempted to impose no religious requirement or duty upon anyone other than himself.  But Daniel’s testimony led the king to declare that Daniel’s way was the best way.  It was not due to Daniel’s political maneuvering and power moves, but because God honored his faithful service.  (Daniel 6:23-26)  Our goal here in the United States is not establishment but accommodation.  The Bible teaches that man has a free will.  In other words, he can choose to run toward God or away from God.  Freedom of religion is one of the “inalienable rights” mentioned in our Constitution.  See Psalm 139:8-10:  This quotation summarizes David’s experience with God.  The grace and mercy of the Lord were always there for him.  David accepted the negative consequences of his bad choices and the blessings of God upon his correct choices.  America has prospered not because it forced everyone to be a Christian; it has not, but rather America has recognized that we each have a choice.  Of course, historically there has been an understanding that with choice comes both the individual and collective consequences.  Today, however, the threat is not in the government forcing people to accept the Christian faith; the threat is in the government excluding people of faith from serving in government, if that faith influences their decisions.  Instead of accommodating religion, our adversaries want to exclude it. 

Christianity has its roots in Old Testament Judaism.  In addition to this freedom of choice, the Hebrew Constitution had seven additional freedoms, which is also found in the United States Constitution:

1. No man could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Num. 35:9-34).

2. No one could be convicted of a crime without two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:2-13).

            3. No one could be put to death because of the crimes of their fathers, and no one’s children could receive entailed or transferred punishment (Deut. 24:16)

4. Everyone’s home was inviolate (Deut. 24:10-11)

5. A freed slave who acquired his liberty through his own effort was to be protected (Deut. 23:15-16).

6. One’s homestead was inalienable (Lev. 25:23-28, 34).

7. Indentured servanthood could not be made perpetual without the person’s own consent (Exod. 21:2-6)

Many Christians wonder why they should be involved in the defining public policy debates of our day, debates that include the value of life, and the fundamental definitions of marriage and family.  Lately there has been a move among some well-meaning Christians and their leaders to abandon the public arena altogether.  What kind of government do you want?  Do you want an honest, efficient government under which there is security for private property, life, and personal freedom?  George Washington said such government cannot be maintained without morality and religion, what he called the “great pillars of human happiness.”  We preserve these pillars through character, influence, and actions of those who serve in government.  Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”  Our government reflects the people who serve in it.  If you want to change the character of government, you must change the characters in it!  Christians must realize that God has ordained and sanctioned civil government.  It is part of His plan.  The first and most basic is self-government.  Unless individuals govern their own conduct, there is little hope for civil order.  Basic standards of conduct come from the Bible.  The institutions that follow are: Family, Civil, and Church.  For society to be properly balanced, all three must bear their proper load.  Our point is that God has said government is necessary and we are to be subject to it (Rom. 13:1).  But if we want a government that honors God and protects our freedoms, then we have to have a government that is made up of people who honor God and value freedom.

The most frequent objection we hear from opponents of Christianity who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?”  We should reply, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.”  Someone’s values will always be reflected in public policy.  Almost every government policy decision is a value judgment.  In this postmodern world, where moral relativism is the philosophy of choice, these value judgments are often based on the conditions of the moment rather than objective, transcendent, biblical truth.  As Bible-believing Christians we believe there is absolute truth, a view, incidentally, that was held by all Christians and many Americans until the turn of the twentieth century.  This view holds that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God even when it speaks to the topics of history or the cosmos.  A Christian worldview says that there is a personal God who is directly involved in the activities of man and who authoritatively communicates to man through His Word and the Holy Spirit. 

John Adams made clear the connection between the Christian faith and government: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”   “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty”– John Witherspoon repeatedly asserted that our government rested upon the foundation of faith.  Our liberty and freedom rested on the virtue established by our faith in God.  William Penn expressed a clear understanding of the bedrock foundation of democracy.  He said, “If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”  His words strike a piercing contrast: either we govern ourselves according to the truths of God or our conduct will be such that tyrannical men will lord over us. 

*The notes from this entry was collected from Personal  Faith Public Policy by Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson*

Biblical Worldview and Liberalism

Leave a comment

Christian sociologist George Barna defined biblical worldview as being based upon a foundation of eight beliefs:

1.      Absolute moral truths exist.

2.      The Bible defines these absolute truths.

3.      Jesus Christ lived a sinless life during His ministry on the earth.

4.      God created the universe and continues to rule it today.  He is omnipotent and omniscient.

5.      Salvation is a gift from God.  It cannot be earned through good works or behavior.

6.      Satan is a real living entity.

7.      Christians have an obligation to share the gospel with the unsaved.

                  8.      The Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

Shortly after the Civil War, the Protestant church began to divide over a literal interpretation of Scripture.  Liberals began to move away from Scripture as the sole authority in order to accommodate “rational truth,” which they saw as incompatible with the Bible.  These liberals embraced the “essence of Christianity” rather than the inerrancy of Scripture so they could synthesize their Christian thought with so-called scientific findings of the day, most notably Darwinism and social Darwinism.  One of the preeminent voices to emerge in defense of absolute truth shortly after the turn of the century was a Princeton Theological Seminary professor and Presbyterian minister, J. Grescham Machen.  Machen, who would later lead a split within the Presbyterian Church over the rejection of biblical orthodoxy, wrote in 1923 what became the definitive work for Bible-believing Christians in their battle with liberalism.  It was titled Christianity and Liberalism.  Machen said that liberalism was not only theologically wrong but was not connected at all to true Christianity.  “What the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a different category.”  In Machen’s description the argument was no longer between two views of evangelism, conservative and liberal, but rather a conflict between two religions.  Liberalism is “a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core,” Machen wrote. What has transpired in the mainline denominations over the last one hundred years gives us clear evidence of the results of this abandonment of absolute truth.

Faith, Politics, and Law

Leave a comment


I am convinced of the following: (1) Conservatives see the Bible as it is, the incorruptible Word of God, and believe that public policy should be based on Biblical Principles.  (2) Liberals have a tendency to twist and take out of context various verses of the Bible to make it say what they want it to say.  (3) Moderates seem to favor moral relativism (let the people do what they want, just as long as they do not hurt anyone else).  I am sure that those with moderate to liberal point of views have good intentions, however, the fact is there is only one source of Truth and it should not be altered to fit certain lifestyles.  Most, if not all, Christians have found ourselves adjusting our beliefs to go along with the world’s values and making deals with God.  In Criminal Justice Today, Frank Schmalleger points out that, “many critics of the present system claim that courts at all levels have become so concerned with procedure and with sets of formalized rules that they have lost sight of the truth.”  Sir William Blackstone wrote Commentaries on the Law of England, which came to the colonies and became greatly influential in designing the American legal system.  Blackstone said there were only two foundations for law, that of nature and that of revelation via the Holy Scripture.  If you are not tethered to the truth that there is right and wrong and everyone is accountable for their actions, you can get sucked into a moral black hole where anything is allowed and standards are no longer fixed.  This leads to loss of morale, loss of conscience, and a state of hateful lawlessness even among “the good guys.”  This is a problem that applies to society in general, especially with Christians.  There are way too many people who focus on law itself, which is legalism, rather than concentrate on people.  Agnostics and atheists stand stronger in their beliefs because they have had bad experiences with Christians.  I am not suggesting that we not focus on God’s Law, because His Law is made for our good.  John 14:15-17 states: "If you love me, you will obey my commands.  I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he lives with you and he will be in you.”  In Deuteronomy, God tells his children to remember who loves you, to remember what matters, and to remember what is right and what is wrong.  Laws created by man should strive to emulate the laws of God.  Only men of clear moral vision should judge and lead society.  With that being said, there needs to be a carefully combined practice for Christians to follow.  In Hebrews 10:24-25 and Philippians 1:27, we read, “Encourage one another to outbursts of love and good deeds, meeting together, struggling side by side to get others to believe the Good News!”  Later on we read in Philippians 2:12-13 that as a result of being saved, we obey God with deep reverence and shrink back from all that might displease him.  It is said that 98% of people follow the 2% of people that shape culture.  Christians are called to perform a “prophetic” role in modern-day culture.  In both the Old and New Testaments, prophets were charged by God to deliver important messages to their generation.  They served as God’s conscience to their people.  In addition to speaking, they often demonstrated their messages to the culture in which they lived.  They were like walking, talking billboards placed at key intersections in their nation to relay God’s messages.  Christians are called to act and believe as though each one of us has a prophetic assignment to the nation that begins right where we live and work.  We have been assigned to speak and live out the truths of God.  It is important to remember that everyone is always learning, growing, and changing, becoming the kind of people we choose to be. 

Homosexuality

Leave a comment

Sinful Nature
By focusing on homosexual activity, I am not singling it out as inherently worse than other sins.  The biblical evidence indicates that accepting their lifestyle as legitimate violates Scripture’s teachings.  The Old Testament begins with the affirmation of the creation order, which is the goodness of sexual pleasure within the context of a husband-wife relationship.  Jesus and Paul appealed to this creational order as opposed to homosexual relationships.  The Scriptures offer no indications—no stories, no metaphors—that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God.  The underlying spirit and redemptive movement across the sweep of Scripture consistently prohibits homosexual activity.  Scripture clearly affirms the equality of all individuals—blacks, women, and slaves—because they are God’s image-bearers.  The same doesn’t hold true for sexual relationships.  Scripture’s regular affirmations reinforced by the unfolding direction of Scripture reject any inherent legitimacy to homosexual relations.  If one persists in trying to muster biblical support for homosexual relations, we could point out that the same argument could be extended to bigamy/multiple marriage, incest, or pedophilia.  If we justified sexual activity based on “natural attraction” or “That’s the way I was born,” all kinds of immoral activity could be justified.  The Bible consistently rejects homosexual activity as legitimate.  The following verses clarify the sinful nature:  Genesis 19:1-29; Judges 19; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27.

The gay marriage debate tends to be rooted in moral relativism—“What’s right for you may not be right for me.”  But if so, then why think humans have any rights—including a right to gay marriage—at all?  If people insist on legalization of gay marriage as “inherently fair,” one wonders on what basis.  Where does the standard of fairness or human rights and human dignity come from?  It is hard to see how such moral standards could be grounded in anything apart from a good Creator who has made human beings in his image.  And if that is the case, then we are back to God’s original design for us at creation.  Moral relativism and rights don’t mix.  Relativism undermines any appeal to rights:  If rights exist, relativism is false; if rights exist, where do they come from?  We are once again pointed in the direction of a good God.  If we change the definition of marriage, why restrict it to two persons—or even to humans?  If marriage is just socially constructed, then why should any marital arrangement be preferred over any other, and why should gays get preferential treatment over others?  Once we cast aside the time-tested male-female, one-flesh-union view of marriage in favor of marriage as individuals choose to define it, we have endless possibilities (Group marriage, Incestuous marriage, Bestial marriage, Pedophilia, Polygamous/polyandrous marriage, Marriage to self, Marriage to material objects).  If marriage is just a socially constructed arrangement as a result of human choice and preference, it’s hard to see how any marital arrangement can rightly be banned.  A traditional model of mother-father parenting is empirically more beneficial for children and society.  We should take note that a push toward gay marriage moves us in the direction of pedophilia, and this should make us cautious about gay marriage and gay adoption.  The goal of a one-flesh union between husband and wife is a picture of marital completeness and unity, not simply a fulfillment of sexual desires. 

The first official “scientific” legitimization of homosexuality didn’t come as the result of research; it came as a result of political pressure.  The 1973 reversal of the American Psychiatric Association’s position on homosexuality had nothing to do with advances in scientific research to support the biology of homosexuality.  In fact, prior to this time, the APA had listed homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, believing that homosexuals needed treatment.  The strong political pressure from gay activists (the National Gay Task Force) forced APA to “legitimize” what was once considered a disorder.  In 1979, sex researchers Masters and Johnson said that homosexuals oriented by learned preferences,” and as late as 1985, declared the “genetic theory of homosexuality” to be “generally discarded today.”  The idea that “biology is fate” is actually demeaning to homosexual persons, who are much more than sexual/biological beings.  We are more than sexual beings; we are spiritual, creative, emotional, intellectual, and social beings as well.  Just because we are born a certain way doesn’t mean that it ought to be affirmed—let alone that we’re compelled to carry it out.  We shouldn’t make the mistake of moving automatically from “is” to “ought”.  Presumed explanations for behaviors are not the same as justifications for those behaviors. 


Christian Response
Sy Rogers is a former homosexual and transvestite who grew up in an abusive home and was tormented by his peers.  In the midst of his homosexual struggles, he would pray, “Lord, I have these temptations in my life…I have these desires in my life.  But I want You more.”  He eventually married and became a father and is now a pastor and speaker on the topic of sexual temptation and wholeness.  Christians tried to reach out to him but made the classic mistake of trying to win a moral argument with him.  Sy proclaimed to be Christian, but believed that God hated people like him because of how other Christians treated him.  All too often self-proclaimed “Bible-believing Christians” can act with a smug moral superiority toward homosexuals rather than extending friendship and Christ-like love to them.  The Scriptures indicate that God is able to deliver people from a lifestyle of homosexuality or adultery, greed, and so on.  “Such were some of you; but you were washed…sanctified…justified” (1 Corinthians 6:11).  Of course, those committed to the pursuit of a gay lifestyle aren’t going to be swayed by such appeals to biblical texts.  Besides that, grace, kindness, and love tend to speak much more powerfully!

Since homosexuality is not the result of genetic necessity but results largely from dysfunctional same-sex relationships in one’s youth, this also signals the possibility of greater healing and wholeness, which thousands of ex-gays have found—another indication that people are not “born gay.”  Ministries such as Exodus International (www.exodus-international.org), Inqueery (www.inqueery.com), and the International Healing Foundation (www.Gaytostraight.org) offer support, help, and hope for transformation.  The secular National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (www.NARTH.com) also offers important discussion and scientific research results on this topic.  Christians should not insist that homosexuals have to change, but that they can make significant strides if they want to.  Christians should seek to understand, show grace, correct misperceptions, and build bridges wherever possible when interacting with others.  Everyone needs to be committed to truth seeking. 

 

References:
Paul Copan provided much insight regarding this topic as well as other topics in his book When God Goes To Starbucks.  Because of his straightforwardness, I have mixed his work in with this journal entry. 

Abortion

Leave a comment

I see abortion as a “get out of jail free card.”  Men and women can have as much premarital relations as possible with no worries.  They may have minimum protection, but if the woman gets pregnant, no worries, there is always abortion.  Being pro-life is more than a bumper sticker on your car or even a guide to voting—it is the heart of God.  All innocent human life is deserving of our collective protection.  In a legal brief filed by Mother Teresa, she wrote:

“I have no new teaching for America.  I seek only to recall you to faithfulness to what you once taught the world.  Your nation was founded on the proposition – very old as a moral precept, but startling and innovative as a political insight – that human life is a gift of immeasurable worth, and that it deserves, always and everywhere, to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.” 

Abortion is wrong based upon God’s injunction not to murder human beings.  An unborn child is a person with a calling and destiny ordained by God.  In the eyes of God, killing an unborn child is just like killing an adult, because life begins at conception—a fact that even science confirms.  Scripture makes clear that God acknowledges and has His hand upon the unborn (Job 31:15; Ps. 139:13-14; Is. 44:2; Jer. 1:5).  As Christians, we must continue to actively, boldly, and compassionately work to reduce abortions.  We should encourage more crisis pregnancy centers to open, especially in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.  These centers are even more effective when they have sonogram equipment and more medical staff.  Once mothers see those remarkable images on the screen, it is difficult to accept an abortion.  Churches should educate women about the risks associated with abortions, including the potentially heightened risk of breast cancer.  In the policy arena, we should continue to promote abstinence until marriage as the standard.  We should continue to lobby for the elimination of state subsidies for abortion and to protect and enhance parents’ rights in the pregnancy-related decisions of their children.

 A fair question that comes up when discussing the issue of abortion is that when a woman has been impregnated from a rape, would an abortion be ethical?  It is unfortunate that rapes occur, and they are certainly not part of God’s plan.  However, God does have a plan for the child, even though He did not plan on the way the child was conceived.  We have to remember that His understanding is far greater than our understanding.  It is understandable that a woman would not want a child that came from a rapist.  What should be done is that the woman will receive love, support, and counseling, while she has the child.  At birth, the woman can make the final decision whether to keep the child or put the child up for adoption.  There is no justice in abortion in any situation.

I encourage everyone to go to the following websites and sign up for the mailing lists and sign petitions that they have:

http://www.cc.org 
http://www.afa.net
 

Older Entries