Does God Want Us to Profit?

A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan, hosted by the Acton Institute. Acton is a think-tank that exists for “the study of religion and liberty.” I went, excited to learn about the relationship between Christian principles and economics and the free-market. I learned an incredible amount at the conference and had many “Ah ha!” moments, some of which I'll share.

My eyes were definitely opened to my own prejudices toward capitalism, big business and profits. I considered myself a fair-minded person, unaffected by society’s constant vilifying of these things, but quickly learned I too had bought into some of the myths about the market. For example, the word “profit” is often given a negative connotation, particularly in discussions about oil companies or pharmaceutical companies. Yet, profits are not intrinsically bad. Without profits, companies go out of business and the services we desire disappear.

As companies are profitable, they create more jobs. And job creation is the most effective way to alleviate poverty. In a free market, profitable companies can take risks and grow, or even fail but have the opportunity to try again, pushing advances in science, medicine, engineering, etc. Furthermore, profits allow businesses to be charitable.

Sunday night, as I watched Extreme Home Makeover with my 6-year old daughter, we saw a family benefit from a CVS Pharmacy donation of more than $50,000. My daughter commented about the generosity of the gift saying, "That's so nice!" I couldn’t have agreed more. And without those “greedy, big business capitalists” over at CVS Pharmacy, the family would never have received that donation to meet their tremendous needs.

The Bible warns that the “love of money,” not money itself, “is the root to all sorts of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). Let us not mistake such misplaced love of profit for pursing profit itself or working hard for the fruit of one’s labor. Indeed, the Proverbs commend the latter: “All hard work brings a profit” (14:23). Certainly the love of money can lead to greed, corruption, and all sorts of evil things in the world of business, but pursuit of profit coupled with virtue can bring God’s blessing not only to oneself but to others as well. Continue to Full Post...

Please Welcome...

I am out of the country next week, buit am excited to have a new voice helping out here (if everything goes as planned - still trying to set everything up) on the PleaseConvinceMe Blog. Her name is Erin Kunkle and I know that she is going to do a great job and bring some new insight as well. Thanks so much Erin. Continue to Full Post...

Manti Training 2009

Here's just some of the great training that was available while we were in Utah this year.


My 11-year-old daughter was able to memorize a few of these verses and get into discussion with LDS on the streets of Manti about the Trinity.


Keith is a great guy who does a terrific job of presenting why the gospel of Mormonism is impossible to call "good news" because it requires perfection prior to recieving the grace and atonement of the Mormon Christ who CAN NOT save you in your sins.


Aaron is another guy who really loves LDS and has devoted himself to the study of Mormon theology for the purpose of understanding LDS so that he can share the truth with them. He has some great insights.

Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Reflections

We are all back safe and sound (protected from a near collision with a deer? elk? Just five minutes into our trip home). We drove through the night and arrived home early yesterday morning. After a nap yesterday and a good night's rest last night, I feel much better.

Our last day in Utah was packed full with great conversations. Our team was invited out to the Stake President's turkey farm and was able to spend time talking with him. Remember that he sought us out because of the serving we had done in his community. We were able to share that serving was a natural expression of who we were as the body of Christ in gratitude for His grace, His forgiveness; for what Christ had already done for us while we were still sinners. In Mormonism, grace is what comes AFTER all you can do, that Christ CAN NOT save us in our sins and that forgiveness of sins through the atonement is conditional upon your repentance which requires the complete FORSAKING of your sins. Another great talk I had was with another TLC member. Both of these divine appointments were directly because of trusting in God to serve those around us. He said that he was completely satisfied with his life, but wanted to know what made us come into a community that we didn't know and serve all. Understand that the TLC and other fundamentalist and polygamous groups are shunned by the LDS church and so are finding some comradery with the Christians in Utah. Like many of the conversations I had, it revolved around the nature of God, how we can spend eternity with Him and trusting in the Bible as the standard by which we compare everything else. I was able to answer many questions that he had and by his own account, "explain things in a way that he had never heard from Christians." Really this was nothing special on my part but quoting God's word. I know that God is working in a powerful way in Manti and it was awesome to be used by Him throughout the week.

The last night of the pageant is usually the busiest with the largest crowds of Mormon attendees. The Saturday nights are also usually the least attended by Christian missionaries due to having to drive home to take care of responsibilities at their own churches on Sunday. This was the case and so there were tons of opportunities to get in discussion. As we would finish one conversation, LDS would then approach us with questions and comments. I didn't have to move much from the spot I originally started from. One of these was an LDS man who wanted to ask me about the Trinity and why I believed that God didn't have a body of flesh and bones, my two favorite topics regarding the nature of who God is. As was every Mormon that I spoke to this week, he had a misunderstanding of what the Trinity is and why we believe that God is a triune personal Being. I explained that the Bible was clearly monotheistic and yet the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all called God and have the powers, nature and names of God. These three persons of the one God are distinct from one another; the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. This usually topples the straw man the LDS church teaches and then proceeds to tear down.

The thing that broke my heart this year in early conversations that I had was that LDS trust the LDS church and LDS prophets over God's word in the Bible even though God tells us that we should compare everything to His word and that His word will not fail or fade away. For every evidence contained in the Bible that contradicted what they believed, they would simply say that the verse in question was "mistranslated". Despite explaining how the Bible was translated and the reliability of the texts, it was a common escape route to addressing the truth of God's word and how Joseph Smith was in direct contradiction to it. It then became my tactic to establish the reliability of the Bible first. Many time's I would begin my conversations with, "why don't LDS trust the Bible?" Mormons do not like to say that they don't trust the Bible, but we know that you either trust it completely or know where you can and can not trust the scriptures or else you can't say that you trust the Bible. If I have a car that's brakes fail intermittently without rhyme or reason, I can’t trust that car to safely get me where I want to go. I certainly wouldn't trust allowing a loved one to drive it, even if it was reliable most of the time. Most Mormons would then assure me that the LDS Bible contained in my Quad was reliable and it was then an open, honest look at God's word could begin.

One last story... my wife was offering bug spray to anyone who wanted some; as there were tons of mosquitoes out this year (I'm still covered in bumps). Because she was a Christian there was a reluctance to take the free gift. Finally an LDS girl who was being bitten thankfully accepted the bug spray and then many more did as well. A comment made to my wife by a young man who was LDS was "that's not bug spray right? It's probably sugar water." The perception that the Christians who come to the pageant are evil is pervasive. We heard many more comments than just this one that we hated Mormons and were paid by our churches to come there and protest the pageant and harass Mormons. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We came out of love for God, love for the LDS people and love for the truth. I hope that came through as we tried to break down those barriers in Utah this year. Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Day 5

Another great day. We were able to split up into groups and accomplish all the service work we were asked to do today and then share in a great time of fellowship and amazing food with Chip and Jamie in their home. The weather turned from rainy to cold and windy with ominous dark clouds on the horizon. Although a little chilly, we again had amazing conversations all night. Again it was just such a joy to see everyone in our group engaged in long, meaningful conversations with LDS. Tonight Jimmy was able to spend all night with a father/son that he had talked with at last year's pageant. The son remembered Jimmy and said that he had remembered everything they had talked about last year and was eager to talk more.

While talking to a group of returned missionaries, a girl came up next to us and kept repeating, "Hey, I know that guy" to her friends. My wife recognized her as one of the missionaries we have had to our home a couple of years ago. They talked and when I had finished I recognized her as well. Now off her mission and visiting a friend, she decided to come to the Pageant tonight. We had a great talk, sharing verses and emails by the light of our phones as the Pageant had begun and it was now dark on the street. She stayed and we talked about truth, evidence, our testimonies and that God's word, His testimony, was greater. We talked about the nature of God and salvation and I pleaded with her to trust God's word over Joseph Smith's.

Here are some pictures for those that have asked and thanks again for the prayer, love and support from home.

Here we are helping Chip and Jamie move dirt.

Our worship time on the streets of Manti before the pageant evangelism.





Our youth sharing God's word.

Tomorrow we will be going over to the Stake President's turkey farm and then do a little local hiking. Please pray for an opportunity to share with this man who has taken interest in our group as well as another TLC member who wants to know what makes our group so willing to serve. Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Day 4

As you can see from the sign, one of the changes this year has been signs posted around all the pageant areas except for the street. Apparently there will be no talking about Jesus Christ on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints property.

God is so good. Our trip has been so great. Our serving the Manti community has created such a buzz that we have been inundated with requests for us to serve. We will be painting over graffiti, continuing to do some yard work and digging a ditch tomorrow. Chip is getting us help from some of the other Christian groups as well. Word spreads fast in a little town like Manti. Tonight the Stake President for the area came looking for "the Rising Tide" and wanted to meet and shake hands with our group. We have invited him to several events we have planned tomorrow. Please pray that we will have some time to talk with him tomorrow as well.

Yesterday we were able to see the College House and Cafe and again hear the miraculous story of how God provided. We were able to help Chip and Jamie move a huge pile of dirt to different places around their yard. We will be hanging out and having a meal with them tomorrow! After a hard day of work we hit the streets of Manti and had great conversations with LDS, then watched the Manti Miracle Pageant.

Today we headed up to the streets around BYU and went door to door to the off campus houses. This is always a highlight for me as the residents are almost exclusively students and many are returned LDS Missionaries who know what it's like to go door to door. Many times I will hear that they had promised themselves that they would never turn away a missionary from their experience and so we usually get into great talks right away. Today was no different. Every team had a great experience. We then ate lunch on campus and again had meaningful talks with LDS students.

It is raining off and on as I am typing this (our poor campers!) but the weather stayed clear enough for the evangelism time to be uninterrupted. I can't say as much for the performance. It was amazing to look around the Manti streets and see EVERYONE in our group engaged in lengthy conversations all night. We of course had ice cream at Miller's and then came back to hang out, talk and pray.

Please pray for clear weather tomorrow and continued wisdom and discernment as we share in love the truth of God's word. If you have been praying for boldness, please continue as even our most timid have been engaged in conversations. I am so proud of our college, high school and younger kids that are sharing and asking great questions. Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Day 3

From Last Night...

Wow, what a long and crazy day. We were up and on the road by 7am and it is now 11:30pm and we are still an hour away from Manti and bed. Our kids have been amazing! We started the day by going to the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple in South Jordan. The inside of temples are only open to the public during these open house dedications. After this initial time, only LDS who have proven themselves worthy of recommendation are able enter the temples. The temple is described as a place where the presence of the Lord is felt stronger. We were asked several times to experience the peace and presence of God. There is no doubt that the temples are exquisite and expensive but in no way are they a restoration of the temple in Jerusalem. Instead of a place to offer up sacrifices for our sins, they are a place that "worthy" LDS learn secret knowledge to gain entrance to heaven and perform rituals for the dead in hopes that their actions will help those who did not choose the Mormon god in this life.

Temples are a misunderstanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus did. When Christ died, the veil was torn in two (Matthew 27:50-51). The separation between God and man traversed only once a year by the high priest Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was made available yo all believers through Christ, our mediator. When Jesus died and the temple veil was torn, it signified that the way to God was now open through the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:8) We no longer need a temple to have access to God. We can now approach the throne of grace with confidence, to find mercy and grace to help us in our time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through (AK)the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10:19-20

Why would LDS re-hang the curtain in the temple (there is an actual curtain in the temples)?

God doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 17:24, Hebrews 9:11-12, 24) We are the temple of God and He dwells in us (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16)

Junelle made a comment that Mormons don't call Jesus, "Jesus". They will call Him Christ, the Savior, our brother, but not Jesus. Talking to LDS missionaries today, it was absolutely true. Asked about their relationship with Jesus, they will declare that they have a personal relation with Him despite never praying to Him. I had a long talk with one of the sister missionaries who explained that there are two types of grace that Jesus' sacrifice provides. The first is the resurrection which is free for all, the second is the grace that Christ provides for exaltation but "that grace is not free, that grace you must work for." She knew this was true because she knew that the Book of Mormon was true. When asked about the many examples of grace being only described as a free gift that can't be worked for, she bore me her testimony that she knew it was true. When I pointed out that her testimony was in direct opposition to Gods testimony, she broke into tears again bearing me her testimony again. Another missionary led her away to a back room.

We then toured the Salt Lake City Temple and many in our group had many great conversations. Tristan, Jimmy and Chandler spoke with Jason, an LDS with many questions and who wants to meet with them again in Manti. We drove up overlooking the temple and the whole valley and worshiped God and prayed for the city of Salt Lake City, the state of Utah, those divine appointments that God will provide, that our hearts would be humble, trusting in God and full of His love for the Mormon people.

Now...
We are preparing to go to training in town, help out Chip and Jamie at the College House and then the pageant tonight. Tomorrow will be BYU!

Thanks to everyone who has posted comments. We really appreciate them. Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Day 2

The Calvary group arrived safely yesterday and we had an awesome time at the park last night spending time with our former Mormon friends worshipping God and having a meal together. Our team went door to door around Manti off erring to serve the community in any way we could, which meant mowing lawns, weedwacking and helping haul trash to the dump. Through this service we were able to have many natural conversations with the LDS in town and show that Christians were not "evil" ( a common misconception here. I was able to spend over an hour riding to the local landfill with Chris. Chris belongs to the TLC (True Living Church) church which is a local splinter group from Mormonism breaking off as late as the late 1980's. They believe that Brigham Young was right when he preached that Adam is our God. Although they say that they left due to false prophecies, the still believe most of what LDS believe. Because they feel that the line of authority was broken by these false prophets, their "authority" come from knowing "the true nature of God" meaning that He is Adam. It reminded me of Gnosticism having special knowledge". They have their own prophet and practice plural marriage. I actually think that they are more consistent than LDS. We spoke on the nature of God - God can not be one of many and have declared that He was the only God, that He knew of no others. We then spoke about the reliability of the Bible. It's inconsistent to say that you believe in the Bible and yet discard God's word where it disagrees with revelation. We spoke on the apostasy - Did Jesus mess up? Didn't He lie when He called Himself the Good Shepherd? A good shepherd would lose ALL OF HIS FLOCK! We had a great conversation and even talked about his polygamist upbringing. Even though he and his wife (he currently has only one) were both brought up in polygamist families, when I asked him if his wife was comfortable with bringing another woman into their home, his whole demeanor changed. He could say the words, but you could tell that it was painful to know in heart that his god required him to betray his wife in that way. Thanks for the prayers and support. Continue to Full Post...

Utah 2009 Day 1

We arrived safe and problem free last night in Manti. We met with our friend Junelle and settled in to the rustic stone house. In the quiet before the week begins, we are enjoying the beautiful city of Manti and the quiet of the town. LDS will be travelling from all over the US to attend the pageant and so we are excited about the opportunities for this week. Today we plan on serving in and around Manti, reaching out to the LDS community here.

It should be an interesting year. There has been threats by the LDS leadership to keep the Christians sequestered away from any LDS walking to and from the pageant with the consequence of being arrested for any who might try to evangelize. So far they have not done this, but are refusing Christians use of the public restrooms near the temple. Please pray that we would continue to have opportunities to share God's word this week.

We await the rest of our team from Calvary Chapel later this afternoon. Please continue to pray for safe travel. Continue to Full Post...

On a Personal Note

I apologize for not posting this week, but I have just been super busy preparing and training our group for our annual trip to Manti, Utah to share the true gospel of grace, true Jesus Christ and true God with Latter Day Saints who attend the Manti Miracle Pageant. I would appreciate any prayers for our group. Please pray that God would provide safety as we travel, that we would have many great conversations with the LDS there, that the Holy Spirit would change hearts and minds and that we would be good ambassadors for Christ.

I am excited to see great friends in the body of Christ that we have become close with over the years. I will be blogging next week from Utah about our trip for our friends and family in Southern California and anyone else who is interested in evangelism to Mormons. If there are any LDS in the Utah area, specifically near the Salt Lake City Temple, Manti area or BYU, I would love to buy you a meal and talk about what God says about Himself, His Son and eternal life. Let's try and meet up.

For those who may not understand why we go, it's because the Mormon people are worth spending our vacations, our time, money, energy and study to understand Mormonism and share with LDS who God is. God tells us that He is unique, the only God, He is all powerful, all knowing, perfect and holy. God is not just like us, only further down the road, one of many who share power and knowledge. God was not once a sinner like man.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:16-23

Continue to Full Post...

Burden of Proof

In a previous post, Does God Exists?: The Craig vs. Hitchens Debate, I wrote, "Hitchens brought no evidence for atheism and instead tried to push the burden of proof onto Craig and then claim that the proofs were not extraordinary enough."

saikyocrusha posted the comment,

An atheist does not have to prove the existance of a god. The one claiming that a god exists bears the burden of proving that his deity exists.

This is an informal fallacy known as the burden of proof fallacy.

I have to admit, it was my understanding that during a debate it was the responsibility of both sides to not only knock down the oppositions arguments but bring their own arguments as well. I was wrong. Apparently during a formal debate the pro side of the argument presents arguments and the con side simply needs to show that the arguments are false. Obviously, I was not on any debate team and am still learning. In light of this standard, Hitchens only failed more miserably, barely addressing any of Craig's points. That being said, I still think that the issue of "burden of proof" is worth examining more.

While it is true that the person making the positive claim has the responsibility to back up that claim; has the burden of proof, atheists are making positive claims as well. It is not my intent to bash atheists here, but to say that if the purpose of having conversations about, what I think both sides would agree are incredibly important topics like, “Is there a God?”, then I think that we need to do away with tricks and ploys. Steve Tsai at the apologetics.com blog writes,

...The burden of proof is a principle that states that the person who asserts a proposition has the burden to defend it by reason or evidence. Notice here the person who has asserted the proposition must prove it true. Then and only then does the other person respond to the substantiated claim with counterevidence or a counterargument (which is called the burden of the rejoinder). The point here is that if you assert it, it’s your responsibility to prove it. And the converse point is, you don’t have to disprove what is unproven. There’s no need to go about disproving wild unsubstantiated claims.

Now I think this is a fair thing to ask of the atheist, that is, asking him to bear the burden of proof. If God’s existence is impossible, improbable or simply fortuitously untrue, it seems common sense dictates the atheist should give evidence for these claims. At least you would think.

Here is where the atheist (and Hitchens as well) claims that atheism is "a" (without) "theism" (belief in God), not a positive belief that there is no God, but a lack of any belief in God. Atheists, they will claim, are therefore not responsible for a positive claim and can simply take the easy route of shooting down the theists arguments while being released of any responsibility of creating or defending their own. Please note that I am not saying that all atheists do this or that atheists have no positive arguments, they do. I am simply saying that with respect to the burden of proof, atheists can use what Tsai calls, "the atheist's ploy". Tsai offers some good responses to show the unfairness of this trick,

1. ...play the same game. That is, refuse to give in to this unfair tactic by turning it around back on them. How this is done is you take the positive affirmation of the atheist (which they must have, since a belief system cannot be purely negative) which is the materialistic thesis that claims, “all things are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry” and simply add the prefix “a-“ to it. So instead of claiming to be a “theist” (which would be a positive claim), one can claim to be an “a-materialist.” That is, one simply fails to manifest the materialistic thesis... In effect you’re saying, “if your view does not require proof, than neither does mine given the same rationale. Oh, you don’t like that? Then let’s do away with this game and get back to proving our claims."

2. ...ask the atheist if she would answer “yes” or “no” to the question “Do you believe that God exists?” Either answer to this question would be considered a positive assertion, and would therefore require argumentation and evidence...

3. ...An unsubstantiated claim is not a false claim. Epistemologically they are different. Even if all my arguments fail, all that proves is that I have bad arguments or may be a poor apologist. It does not prove God does not exist. And it does not entail that no one has good arguments for God’s existence. At worst, my failure would leave the issue of God’s existence a question mark. That is, maybe he does exist, maybe he doesn’t. You see, this is the point where the atheist is supposed to step up, and argue from uncertainty to the positive claim of God’s non-existence. But if he is not willing to bear his share of the burden, then God’s existence is neither impossible, improbable nor fortuitously untrue (and this is the case even if all my arguments have failed)...

4. ...It may be the case that the atheist’s ploy is self-contradictory. That is, there is a logical difficulty in asserting a lack of a belief (here I will use “knowledge” and “belief” interchangeably for this point, which I think is fine for present purposes). I know we do so all the time in common parlance, but strictly speaking this may be impossible, since you have to at least know something about what you’re denying knowledge of. So to totally lack knowledge of something and to assert that at the same time would seem to be contradictory.

Now there’s a weaker sense in which we can assert our ignorance of certain issues. But in these cases it’s arguable that the assertion of ignorance is one of lesser knowledge to greater knowledge, that is, one of degree. We know a bit and we wish to know more. The problem with the atheist’s ploy is that it is not this type of degreed claim, but a non-degreed claim of a total lack of knowledge. It’s hard to believe that anyone can assert their lack of belief in things that don’t enter into any of the propositions that one holds. How can you affirm you lack a belief unless you first know the belief that is lacked?

This is more clearly illustrated by employing what philosopher’s call propositional or doxastic attitudes. For any proposition, there are three epistemological stances or attitudes that can be taken towards it, 1) affirmation, 2) denial or 3) withholding of judgment. Notice there are only three propositional attitudes. The proposition under consideration is that of “God exists.” If you affirm the proposition, you are a theist. If you deny the proposition, you are an atheist. If you withhold judgment, you are an agnostic. Notice there is no propositional attitude of “lacking a belief.” Affirm God, deny God, or throw your hands up in the air and say you don’t know. But it is unclear on this very standard account of propositional attitudes where “lack of a belief” would fit in. So at best, “lacking a belief” is an extremely queer concept, and at worst it is self-contradictory.

Romans 1:18-20 says

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This is most evident to me when atheists say they don't believe in God but express such anger and hatred for the supposed non-existent being. As a Theist and a Dualist, I am convinced that the world we live in is not confined to merely the natural world. God's eternal power and divine nature is clearly seen at every level (from the precision fine-tuning in the cosmos to the intricacy of the factory within a single cell). If we allow the burden of proof to be solely upon us as Theists, we are in our conversations with atheists, trying to explain God while abandoning the supernatural and agreeing to assume materialism. Continue to Full Post...

Pro-Life Response to Murder

In light of Scott Roeder's first degree murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller and recent claims from his jail cell that, "I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," pro-choice groups are using the opportunity to link Roeder with anyone opposed to abortion. The Washington Post reports,

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, said Roeder's comments "continue to escalate that kind of activity, that kind of violence. Quite honestly, I think it's imperative for anti-choice groups to tone down that rhetoric and keep the more extreme elements in their movement form copying Scott Roeder."

Pro-abortion groups would love nothing more than to use these tragic attacks to try to gain the moral highground and suppress the only voice that the aborted have. While every major pro-life group has denounced the killing of Dr. Tiller, Melinda Penner gives good reasons why the pro-life movement is against the killing of abortionists,

Some ask, "If you consider abortion murder, doesn't that incite the killing of abortionists?" This question needs to be answered clearly and directly and here is the answer. No. It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists. In fact, it's not only wrong, it's counterproductive to ending legalized abortion.

...It's always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without good reason. Therefore, it is morally obligatory for civilized people to campaign vigorously against such a wrong and use appropriate means to end it.

In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.
Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.

Killing abortionists is, therefore, also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle of life that pro-lifers are committed to defending.

Penner adds in another post,

If an action such as killing an abortionist leads to the death of more innocent children, that is an immoral thing. If more children die, it's immoral. Killing abortionists doesn't do anything to end abortion and innocent babies dying - it actually extends it by damaging the moral force of the pro-life argument to bring a final and legal end to abortion.

Those who kill abortionists (there have been eight such killings in the U.S.) probably think they are saving some lives of unborn children. One person compared killing an abortionist to shooting a sniper at a playground. Isn't it justified to take out the sniper? These are very different circumstances and killing an abortionist cannot be justified in the same way.

One difference in the circumstances is that in the playground comparison there is only a specific group of children on the playground to save and one sniper who isn't likely to be replaced by another; it's not comparable to the industry of legalized abortion. There are other "snipers" operating, and many more children now and in the future are in danger, not just those on that "playground." Shooting this "sniper" doesn't prevent more snipers from continuing to work long into the future. It's all of those threatened lives we have to keep in view, and any action that extends legalized abortion and thus sacrifices more lives of innocent children is immoral and cannot be justified on pro-life logic.

Another serious difference in this analogy is that someone taking out a sniper would be operating under the law to stop someone from operating outside of the law. The reverse is true for killing an abortionist, so it's the law that has to be changed, not just individual "snipers." Otherwise abortionists keep operating under protection of the law. We live in a country of laws and are morally obligated to work within those to change a legal but immoral circumstances.

...Our actions should not undermine and weaken the system so that we possibly lose our freedoms to change the law and also undermines a system that protects us. We have an obligation to God to obey the laws and work within the system of laws to include unborn children under that protection.

I share the sentiment of Robert P. George who wrote on the day of the murder,

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

Continue to Full Post...

Stem Cells Help Repair Sight

...adult stem cells that is. Austrailian scientists are optimistic about a "simple and cheap" procedure that involves removing stem cells from the patients own eye and then culturing the cells inside of a contact lens which repairs the damaged eye when worn.

University of New South Wales medical researchers used the technique to treat the damaged corneas of three patients, all of whose vision improved within weeks of the groundbreaking procedure.

..."Unlike other techniques ... there's no suturing, there is no major operation, all that's involved is harvesting a minute amount - less than a millimetre - of tissue from the ocular surface.''

The lens stayed on for 10 days allowing stem cells to change their form, colonise and repair the cornea.

Two of the patients involved in the trial had suffered extensive corneal damage to one eye, caused by multiple surgeries to remove cancerous growths.

Dr Girolamo said that in these cases the stem cells were taken from their healthy eye - but the third patient posed an additional challenge because of a congenital disorder which affected both eyes.

"We took them from another part of the eye altogether - the conjunctiva which also harbours stem cells,'' Dr Di Girolamo said.

"The stem cells were able to change from the conjunctival phenotype to a corneal phenotype after we put them onto the cornea ... that's the beauty of stem cells.''

The procedure could be replicated in third would countries by a surgeon with a laboratory for cell culture, Dr Di Girolamo said.

The patients have enjoyed their corrected vision for 18 months now and the researchers believe that a similar procedure can be used to repair damaged skin.

Even though one article mentions, "The stem cell procedure was considered non-controversial" and "this use of a patient's own stem cells is no more ethically contentious than a skin transplant", it is appearant by the comments posted that many people are still confused about the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells.

isn't it amazing - the more we allow our scientists to research the more they find - now lets just get them the funding they need to continue advancing these techniques!!

How is it that some people are still against Stem Cell research. I think it is great to think where it can take us.

There is a misunderstanding that this type of research, non-destructive, adult stem cell research has in any way been prevented from getting funding or that some are against this type of research. Quite the opposite, the pro-life movement has been touting the numerous cures in this area of research compared to the complete failure to bring about any cures by embryonic stem cells.

Other comments indicate that because we see promise in one area (adult stem cells) that we should spend equally in the area of embryonic stem cell research.

This is exactly why stem cell research should not be hampered but rather encouraged. There may well be a number of ethically questionable methods being used right now, but only with proper research and funding can we possibly expect our scientists to develop more of these ethically acceptable methods. The research has to start somewhere. This is brilliant work even if it is still very early days.

If funding is indeed limited it seems to make much more sense to invest wisely in the advances that are being made with adult stem cells. Continue to Full Post...

Busting Porn Myths

With access to the internet available now on laptops, phones and mp3 players, pornography through the internet has become increasingly available to younger people. Sean McDowell, son of noted apologist Josh McDowell and a high school teacher experienced this phenomenon first hand at lunch with some of his students,

...we swapped phones for a few minutes. Pretty soon all the students were showing off the “cool” features of their individual phones. One young man handed me his phone and I wanted to see how quickly it would connect to the Internet. I pushed the Safari icon but got something I was not expecting—a deeply disturbing pornographic image. This got me wondering how many young people look at porn. How common is this? Now that porn is accessible from anywhere, at any time, how much is it really affecting young people?

McDowell writes about the myths surrounding porn “It doesn’t affect me”, “I’ll quit later” and “I’m not hurting anyone”. McDowell "busts" each myth and then asks, "So, What Do We Do?"

When it’s all said and done, the reason pornography cannot be ignored is that it profoundly affects our relationship with God and with other people. As Jesus said, the greatest commandment is to love God and to love other people. The great human desire is for intimacy in relationships, which is being fully known and fully knowing another. But this is the very thing pornography robs us of the ability to experience. In Porn University Michael Leahy observes, “Nearly all who have made porn consumption a regular part of their lives confess struggling in relationships. They talk about the guilt and shame they feel regarding sex and the difficulty they have experiencing genuine intimacy with others, sexual and nonsexual.”

Burdens of guilt or shame erode our capacity to trust others because we have something to hide. We can’t be fully known because there’s always a secret to keep, some part of ourselves that we feel we must hide from others. This is why the Apostle Paul says to renounce “the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God…” If you struggle with pornography (or any other issue), the place to begin the healing process is to confess to God and to another believer. It’s never too late! 1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Amazingly, such confession actually begins the process of rewiring the brain!

God wants us to be holy. But just as importantly, we worship a God who is compassionate, loving and forgiving. Pornography can be addicting, but we worship a God who is far more powerful and committed to our well-being than even we are. Healing is possible. I’ve seen it many times.

Continue to Full Post...

Why We Glory in the Chief Instrument of Christ’s Torture and Execution (Cross) Part 2

On a previous blog, I wrote about the aversion to the cross of Christ that LDS show by removing any sign of the cross, crucifix or crucified Christ. Mormons often avoid the cross altogether when describing the atoning work done by Christ as occurring in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to the crucifixion. LDS often respond to the question of the cross by saying that they would rather not focus on that part, but just as God uses the good times in our lives to bless us, we are blessed incredibly in the times of suffering and hardship as well. Aaron Shafovaloff at Mormon Coffee had this to offer,

“The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” (Jesus in John 12:23-26)

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” (Paul in Colossians 1:24-29)

I have been asked by Mormons (and Jehovah's Witnesses as well) in regard to the cross, “Would you wear a pendant of a shotgun that killed someone you loved around your neck?” My response was that a better analogy would be if someone died smothering a grenade to save me or if I was sentenced to the electric chair and someone went in my place, then I would absolutely wear the weapon that was meant for my destruction, but through the sacrifice of another I was saved.

Aaron responds,

If Christ himself had been murdered with a handgun, I would still be glad to wear such a symbol around my neck and light it up behind the pulpit of my pastor. But this pales in comparison to the cross. Crucifixion is a far more gruesome and embarrassing way to die.

It is the paradox of shame and glory, death and life, and darkness and light that we find at the cross. We glory in the cross not to domesticate it, nor to make death or the instruments of death inherently beautiful. We glory in it because it is where divine glory has had the most the beautiful and striking and life-changing juxtapositional display in all of history.

In my own life, I have some sweet moments I look back to where God has shown himself. Many of these moments were non-suffering events for me: the birth of my adopted daughter, my wedding, experiencing the goodness of friends and family, listening to some special sermons in college, the enjoyment of nature, and some particularly precious moments of worship with other believers.

But other moments were moments of suffering. My wife almost died at the birth of my son. There was so much pain and so much joy at the same time. I remember waiting in a room with my weeping midwife and mother-in-law, holding my newborn son in my arms, and praying that my wife would make it through the surgery she was undergoing that very moment. I was so glad and so heartsick at the same time. Thank the Lord, my wife made it through. When she was being discharged from the hospital we let everyone leave her room, and we prayed together as we held our baby boy. One of God’s precious testimonies hidden in my heart came to my mind, and I said it out loud in our prayer:

“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” (Romans 5:1-5)

...Other moments of suffering have been moments of deep guilt and embarrassment. These moments were where the light of God’s glory shone on my sin and painfully exposed it for what it was. But it was there God’s grace covered me over and over, where I was lowest and most hurting for what I had done and what I had become. My God is a repeat-forgiver who loves to alarm our judicial sentiments by justifying ungodly people who should not be forgiven (Romans 4:4-8). Ungodly people, that is, like me. And he loves to amaze me by sending his only begotten son to fulfill the demands of justice in my place.

“This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26)

All these memories are, as I am sanctified, baptized into beautiful memories. Not because my sin was beautiful, and not because my suffering was inherently good, but because it was in those moments that God mysteriously chose to most display the goodness and power and grace of Christ to me...

...The way of the cross is the way of seeing God’s beauty and unmitigated goodness shown through suffering—in the darkest moments of our own lives, and most of all, in the darkest moment of Christ’s life. Why? Because the darkest moment of Christ’s life was also his brightest.

That is why we glory in the chief instrument of Christ’s torture and execution. Christ triumphing in his resurrection over death to reign as the “Lamb who was slain” doesn’t make us want to celebrate the cross less, it makes us want to exult in the cross even more. The cross of Christ has a strange, captivating glory that the saints (the redeemed ones) and the angels are drawn to, the kind that has caused men to give up everything they have for Jesus and serve him.

“And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:8-10)

“And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!’ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.” (Revelation 5:9-14)

Will you join us in being captivated by this strange glory? Will you join us in directly worshiping the “Lamb who was slain”?

Continue to Full Post...

Has RNA Been Shown To Be the Origin of Life?

The recent Nature paper Origins of life: Systems chemistry on early Earth claims,

At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the 'RNA world' hypothesis this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed.

Where others have failed, Szostak declares he has succeeded.

David Tyler of the Access Research Network (ARN) explains why the recent claims by the media such as "Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life" and "Molecule of life emerges from laboratory slime" deserve closer attention.

The first point worth making is that new advances are often shown to be significant by referring to the lack of progress that had earlier characterised the field. This is often a surprise to the general public, who are typically fed a story that the problems are largely cracked and abiogenesis researchers are confident of tying up the loose ends in the near future. Wade's report refers to the solution of "a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life - how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth."

...What, then, has been achieved? The researchers have synthesised both pyrimidine ribonucleotides (but not the purine ribonucleotides). As Van Noorden described it, they have "shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules". They have not formed RNA molecules; they have not addressed the chirality problem, they have not generated any biological information and they have not made RNA do anything of biological significance, let alone become clothed with a membrane and undergo replication. Nevertheless, what they have done can be applauded as an elegant example of systems chemistry. A specific bond was needed between the Ribose and the Nucleobase, and a decade of research proved that the bond was not going to form directly. So what the researchers did was to create the bond and then turn the components on each side of the bond into the desired building blocks of the Ribonucleotide.

...It is good chemistry, but does it achieve a major advance in abiogenesis research? Questions can certainly be raised. The researchers argue that they are not starting with any unrealistic initial conditions: "We don't use any way-out scenarios - all the conditions are consistent with what we know about early Earth." However, this is disputed.

"The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic - that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University.
[and]
Dr. Robert Shapiro [. . .] said the recipe "definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world." He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland's assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth "could be considered a fantasy."
[and]
"But while this is a step forward, it's not the whole picture," [James] Ferris [of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.] points out. "It's not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It's a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn't happen in the ancient world."

Ultimately, the origin of life by way of RNA chemical evolution is as plagued as was the Miller-Urey experiment. Neither have reasonable starting materials, explain the chirality problems or occur without an intelligent designer controlling the laboratory environment. Continue to Full Post...

Why We Glory in the Cross

If you have ever been to an LDS building of any kind, you will notice that nowhere to be found is the symbol of the cross. Why aren’t there any crosses on Mormon assembly halls, wards, stakes or temples? There are plenty of other symbols including the sun, moon, stars, angels, traditional Masonic symbols, pentagrams, etc. The cross is not seen in the prolific amount of LDS art and is never displayed or worn as many Christians often do. Mormons instead wear CTR (choose the right) rings, the Angel Moroni, crowns and "Hold to the Rod" pins and pendants, but the cross is absent. In fact the LDS church seems to have an aversion to the cross.

When asked why there is no representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity on any LDS building, the late president Gordon B. Hinkley responded,

I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.

… the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

… no member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer, who gave His life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane, the bitter mockery of His trial, the vicious crown of thorns tearing at His flesh, the blood cry of the mob before Pilate, the lonely burden of His heavy walk along the way to Calvary, the terrifying pain as great nails pierced His hands and feet, the fevered torture of His body as He hung that tragic day, the Son of God crying out, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

This was the cross, the instrument of His torture, the terrible device designed to destroy the Man of Peace, the evil recompense for His miraculous work of healing the sick, of causing the blind to see, of raising the dead. This was the cross on which He hung and died on Golgotha’s lonely summit.

If no member must ever forget the terrible price paid by the Redeemer, then why avoid the cross at every turn? LDS believe that what Jesus accomplished on the cross was in fact a unconditional or “general salvation” for all. This means that if Christ had not risen from the dead, no one would be raised from the dead – we would all still be dead, buried or cremated, etc. and have no chance to be judged by our works. This is much different than what Christians believe according to God’s word regarding what Christ accomplished on the cross. When Hinkley says Jesus “gave His life that all men might live”, he is talking about this type of general salvation that applies to all and has nothing to do with spending eternity in Heaven with God except that we are then given the opportunity to be placed in one of three kingdoms based on our works. He continues,

...And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

As His followers, we cannot do a mean or shoddy or ungracious thing without tarnishing His image. Nor can we do a good and gracious and generous act without burnishing more brightly the symbol of Him whose name we have taken upon ourselves. And so our lives must become a meaningful expression, the symbol of our declaration of our testimony of the Living Christ, the Eternal Son of the Living God.

It only makes sense that if salvation is dependant on what LDS do, that the cross would be minimized and the role of the individual LDS saint be maximized to the point where the cross of Christ is non-existent and “the most meaningful expression of faith” and the “symbol of worship” for the LDS church is “the lives of [LDS] people”. Never has the “declaration of our testimony of the Living Christ” been the lives of those who follow Christ, but the life, death and resurrection of Christ himself. Notice that LDS want to glory in the living and resurrected Christ, skip over the death part. Why is that? I think that there are three reasons.

1) Death (especially death by torture) is yucky
2) LDS have a false gospel
3) LDS don’t understand the what the cross represents

I have often had discussions with animal lovers, vegans and those sensitive to the violence God requires about the necessity of animal sacrifices by God. God makes the first animal sacrifice in the Garden of Eden to cover Adam and Eve because of their sin and God chooses animal sacrifices as a measure of the price that needs to be paid for sin to be forgiven in the Old Testament. This is a foreshadowing of what will be done to Christ as the unblemished Lamb of God.
Anyone who has ever slaughtered an animal knows the impact of watching the life drain out of a living thing in sometimes horrible death throws and bloody release. It is terrible and I think it is supposed to be that way. That is what our sin requires; only the sacrifice was Christ who suffered and died in our place. It is difficult for the Mormon to see Christ as simply an elder brother who we are to follow by example when such a sacrifice is necessary. It is shocking for LDS to think that they will someday strive and reach perfection if each sin requires that kind of brutal payment.

The gospel (the good news) of Christ is found in 1 Cor 15:1-4,

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

We are saved by this gospel of grace, not to an unconditional resurrection, but to eternal life with God. The LDS gospel as described in the LDS Articles of Faith for this conditional or "individual salvation" is: "The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost". The difference being that rather than being solely about what Christ did, including His death, the LDS gospel is about what the LDS saint must do.

Remember what the cross represents:

After All, Only the Cross Reconciles (Pays) Our Debt
We cannot DO anything on our own that would earn us our salvation

Ephesians 2:14-16
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

After All, the Cross is Where God Does ALL the Work
The cross is important because it helps us to recognize that GOD does ALL the work in saving us.

Galatians 6:12-16
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

After All, the Cross Demonstrates the Power of God to Save Us
The cross is a symbol of GOD’s power that helps us to take the focus off of our own efforts

1 Corinthians 1:17-19
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

There are no crosses on Mormon buildings because the LDS church still teaches that the individual believer can save him or herself through a series of good works. The believer is then the source of salvation, not what Jesus did on the cross.

Continue to Full Post...

How To Raise A Pharisee

I commented in an earlier post about the legalism that can invade Christianity, specifically at the Ohio Christian school that suspended a student for going to a Prom at another school. What I did not address is the difficulty as parents to give our children boundaries without creating legalism or rebellion to authority in them. Carey Hardy, executive pastor at Grace Church and an adjunct professor at The Master's College and Seminary gives some great advice,

The Pharisees (along with the scribes) were the original legalists. Pharisee means “separated one.” They prided themselves in their denunciation of impure and ungodly elements.

Physical separation was of paramount importance. Practical holiness was considered evidence of personal piety. Leviticus 11:44–45 was a central passage.

The Pharisees had no greater task than to protect and propagate the laws of God. They had so much respect for the original set of Scriptures and wanted to protect them so desperately that they started adding to them. After a while, it seemed not only helpful to make additions, but also absolutely essential. These rules, as part of the oral law, became even more important to the Pharisees than God’s commandments.

The counterpart to the Pharisees today is the people who are afraid to allow Christians to live only with God’s Word. To biblical principles they add rules, regulations, and standards…and then come to the point of believing they are part of the Scriptures themselves.

This is the way it is for legalists—God lays down a principle, and then man reduces God’s great principle to a set of rules that may be burdensome but that certainly remove individual responsibility for making choices. Finally, man elevates rule-keeping to a mark of spirituality and judges himself and others by it.

Contrast this with Jim's current series on the creeds (here and here).

Hardey gives these examples of a sure-fire way to raise up Pharisees (and I would argue if not Pharisees, then rebels against all types of authority).

1. Majoring on external instead of internal issues
2. Excessive control
3. Overreacting to failure
4. Being unforgiving and impatient
5. Elevating preference over biblical principle
6. Unnecessary separatism
7. Judging others…other families
8. Being “belligerent”—a fighter
9. Favoritism
10. No humor
11. Building up their self-esteem
12. Lack of genuine spirituality

Some highlights include:

[M]ajoring on controlling the child’s behavior without using Scripture and prayer to deal with his heart...will produce a Pharisee—everything looks good on the outside, but inwardly he is corrupt.

Don’t seek to be the ultimate authority.

We need to model proper submission to authority and God, the ultimate authority, before our children.

There is nothing inherently wrong with maintaining some rules that flow out of personal preferences—house rules.

...But care must be taken to avoid equating them with biblical commands, or again, allowing them to become excessive (e.g., excessive in number).

...If you are enforcing too many of your preferences, or neglecting to teach biblical principles as the child matures, then preferential rules may be perceived as being the same as biblical commands and principles…and they grow up with this pharisaical mindset.

Be honest about views…and about what is and what is not Scripture.
Don’t try to spiritualize everything.

Contrary to modern culture that tells our kid that it is all about them, Hardy offers,

A “high self-esteem” is not a biblical concept. Nor is the need to learn to love yourself.

Emphasis on self-esteem encourages individuals to become like Pharisees; they are encouraged to delve into self, to be focused on self, to build up self.

And don’t model a self-focus.

Hardy reminds us to keep parenting simple

...don’t make it a complicated system of rules and regulations and micromanaging.

Basically, discipline when they clearly disobey, and give them a lot of love.

Live life with them, and live a life before them that exemplifies joy in the Lord, gratitude for life—and show a lot of patience and grace along the way.

HT: Tim Challies Continue to Full Post...

This Changes Everything?

It was announced yesterday at news conference in New York that a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey had been discovered. Skynews reported,

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.
Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.

Like all good science, the announcement of Ida, "The Missing Link" has a book available for purchase, documentary and content-rich website at the announcement of it's discovery.

In the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE, where the research article was published on the same day, there is absolutely no connections made to human evolution. The abstract conclusion states,

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

Apart from the name, Darwinius masillae, there is not a hint of the evolutionary impact that the fossil presents. The authors of the article present a much different view on the website,

"THIS FOSSIL WILL PROBABLY BE PICTURED IN ALL THE TEXT BOOKS FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS" Dr Jørn Hurum

"WHEN OUR RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED IT WILL BE JUST LIKE AN ASTEROID HITTING THE EARTH" Dr. Jens Lorenz Franzen

"THIS FOSSIL REWRITES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTION OF PRIMATES" Dr. Jörg Habersetzer

THE LINK UNCOVERING OUR EARLIEST ANCESTOR; HOW THE HISTORY OF IDA, A 47 MILLION YEAR OLD FOSSIL, IS REWRITING OUR HISTORY

This will remain to be seen but I think that it is significant that what other scientists are saying about the find, especially so soon. The Associated Press writes,

Experts praised the discovery for the level of detail it provided but said it was far from a breakthrough that would solve the puzzles of early evolution.

About the size of a small cat, the animal has four legs and a long tail. Nobody is claiming that it's a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but it provides a good indication of what a long-ago ancestor may have looked like, researchers said at a news conference.

...Experts not connected with the discovery said the finding was remarkably complete because of features like stomach contents. But they questioned the conclusions of Hurum and his colleagues about how closely it is related to ancestors of monkeys and humans.

"I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people," said K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate."

Rather than a long-ago aunt, "I would say it's more like a third cousin twice removed," he said. So it probably resembles ancestral creatures "only in a very peripheral way," he said.

Beard said scientists already have a fossil from China of about the same age that is widely accepted as coming from monkey-ape-human ancestral line, and it's much smaller than the new-found fossil and ate a different diet. "They are radically different animals," he said.

John Fleagle of the State University of New York at Stony Brook said the scientists' analysis provides only "a pretty weak link" between the new creature and higher primates, called anthropoids, that includes monkeys and man.

"It doesn't really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly," Fleagle said.

What is the debate Beard is talking about? This article in the Wall Street Journal sheds some light.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today's lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

Scientists won't necessarily agree about the details either. "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist."

It appears that this new information only adds to the controversy by giving evidence to the contrary of the commonly held position.

And finally what is the miraculous find that proves humans are related to the new find?

...Although the creature looks like a lemur, there are some distinctive physical differences. Lemurs have a tooth comb (a tooth modified to help groom fur); a grooming claw; and a wet nose. Dr. Gingerich said that the adapid skeleton has neither a grooming claw nor a tooth comb. "We can't say whether it had a wet nose or not," he noted.

Since the fossilized creature found in Germany didn't have features like a tooth comb or grooming claw, it could be argued that it gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans, which don't have these features either.

Continue to Full Post...

Prom and Legalism

A friend of mine recently sent me an this article about a student in Ohio who was suspended and will miss his graduation ceremony because he went to prom. The article states,

A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.

Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost, who has never been to a dance before, said he plans to attend Findlay High School's prom Saturday.

Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said.

The teen, who is scheduled to receive his diploma May 24, would be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments, England said. Frost also would not be permitted to attend graduation but would get a diploma once he completes final exams. If Frost is involved with alcohol or sex at the prom, he will be expelled, England said.

I have to say that I agree with what the school did. They are a private school that has a policy that all the students, including Frost signed each year. Frost was warned of the consequences of breaking the contract and he chose to break it. He even says elsewhere that "It was worth it". While many will see this as unfair, including his parents who are now suing the school, there wouldn't be a problem if the policy was against say illegal drug use. Actually it doesn't matter if the school forbid wearing blue on Thursdays, this was an agreement between the students, parents and the school as part of the requirements for attending the school.

The part that bothered my friend was that we as Christians are marginalized because of what he sees as poor behavior by the school. Marginalization like this editorial from atheist Hugh Kramer regarding England's comments captured on YouTube,

"At a prom there will be many young ladies who will be dressed in the current styles, which will be low-cut dresses and things like that, that will be dancing. How does a young man protect his mind and not have wrong thoughts or lustful thoughts in a situation like that?

Would it be ok if they were wearing burkhas, Principal England? You know, some things are so ridiculous that no parody could make the tragicomical stupidity of them any clearer. This is one of them. Here we have a normal teenage boy doing on prom night nothing more (and probably less) than other normal teenage boys all across America. We also have a school and a principal that are living illustrations of H. L. Menckin's definition of Puritanism (IE: the haunting fear that someone somewhere might be having fun).

As Christians we want to avoid sin like sexual immorality. As mature Christians we will even put into place safeguards and measures of accountability to keep ourselves from venturing too far into areas where we know that we are weak. Though initially out of a desire to be obedient to God, these safeguards can become rules that are imposed on others regardless of their strengths or weaknesses. Our desire to please God can be substituted for following the rules. To be sure, Heritage Christian is being legalistic with regard to sexual immorality, making rules where God has not with regard to types of music, dancing, holding hands and kissing. Jesus confronted the Pharisees, the legalists of His day showing that their man made laws were contrary to God's will for man. This is why Jesus says "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Paul, a former Pharisee, wrote to the church in Rome; a mixed group of Christians with either Jewish or Gentile backgrounds. In Romans 14, Paul uses the controversy in Rome concerning eating meat to teach about how we are to treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with regard to issues that are not made explicit in scripture,

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Romans 14:1-3

The food issues were about whether or not to eat meat that had been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Some Jewish Christians were opposed to this and may have had other reservations due to Jewish dietary restrictions. Paul regards the weaker brother as the one who is more legalistic and Paul says to the stronger brother to accept him even with his "religious" and legalistic tendencies.

Are Christians marginalized in society? Absolutely. Should we be surprised by this? I think not. John 15:18-27 tells us that we will be hated because we are Christians, that when we tell about who Christ is, some will hate us. Let's not add to that by creating new ways to judge each other. The world already thinks that all religions are man made. Legalism is the evidence they are looking for.

If you are reading this blog, join the discussion. Let me know what you think. Continue to Full Post...

The Problem of Evil

Brett Kunkle has been thinking about the problem of evil and has a series of great posts over at his ConversantLife blog, Truth Never Gets Old.

C.S. Lewis on the Problem of Evil

Thinking Carefully About the Problem of Evil: Important Distinctions

The Logical Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil: Presupposing Good?

The Problem of Evil Solved: Thank You Alvin Plantinga

The Problem of Evil: Everyone's Problem

Kunkle reminds us,

British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell once commented, "No one can believe in a good God if they've sat at the bedside of a dying child." Now I agree that sitting beside a dying child is a heart-wrenching situation not to be treated simplistically or in a cavalier manner. Providing pat answers and quoting Romans 8:28 over and over will not suffice. But what of Russell's response? What can the atheist say to the dying child?

"In the grand scheme of the universe your suffering is utterly meaningless--life and all that comes with it has no transcendent meaning or value."

"Your suffering is completely pointless since there is no purpose to any of this anyway."

"Fortunately, you will soon die and return to dust."

"Take heart, you will soon pop out of existence forever and your suffering will be over."

"Stuff happens."

"Bummer."

And then asks the question to atheists on a recent trip to U.C. Berkeley. Warning - some profanity in the clip.



Continue to Full Post...

Are We Becoming Spiritually Mature?

What is spiritual maturity? What are the signs of growth? How would you describe a healthy, spiritually mature follower of Christ? How does your church/pastor/the Bible clearly define it? The Barna Group released the results of a recent poll on spiritual development.

An open-ended survey question asked churchgoers to describe how their church defined a “healthy, spiritually mature follower of Jesus.” Half of churchgoers simply said they were not sure, unable to venture a guess regarding the church’s definition. Even among born again Christians – that is, a smaller subset of believers who have made a profession of faith in Christ and confessed their sinful nature – two out of five were not able to identify how their church defines spiritual maturity. Among those who gave a substantive response, the most common responses were having a relationship with Jesus (16%), practicing spiritual disciplines like prayer and Bible study (9%), living according to the Bible (8%), being obedient (8%), being involved in church (7%), and having concern for others (6%)...A second open-ended question probed self-identified Christians’ personal definition of what it means to be a healthy, spiritually mature follower of Jesus, regardless of how they believe their church defines it. One-fifth of self-described Christians were unable to offer an opinion.

Two aspects of the study I found interesting were:

1) While unclear on what spiritual maturity was supposed to look like, the majority polled considered themselves spiritually healthy and satisfied "as is". Barna describes this as both a challenge and an opportunity.

The challenge is that most people’s satisfaction can lead to complacency. One opportunity is to connect with the 18 to 20 million Americans who describe themselves as spiritually unhealthy or as dissatisfied with their personal spiritual maturity. Still, a majority of adults say they are “completely” (14%) or “mostly” healthy when it comes to spirituality (40%); nearly two-thirds of Americans describe themselves as “completely” (22%) or “mostly” satisfied with their spirituality (43%). The opportunity among these individuals is to help them move beyond complacency and embrace a deeper understanding of spiritual growth.

I guess my question is, "Are we mature simply because we think/feel that we are? Shouldn't there be some outside reference or standard?"

2) Although the study showed that most Christians (81%) equated “trying hard to follow the rules described in the Bible” with spiritual maturity, even among those that believe that salvation is not earned through “good works", there were differences seen due to age.

...the generational difference over rule-following was striking: most Elders (ages 63+) and Boomers (44 to 62) strongly endorsed the spiritual metric of rule-following (66% and 56%, respectively); however, fewer than half of Busters (25 to 43) and Mosaics (18 to 24) embraced this view (45% and 33%). Among the young, this signals a dangerous propensity to rethink the Bible’s standards, but it also shows unique responsiveness to grace and forgiveness.

Combine this with the observation that Christians under the age of 40 were less satisfied spiritually, rating their spiritual health less favorably than those over 40 and we see the typical modern/postmodern divide. The Moderns are content in their rule following but may not be spiritually mature or developing spiritually mature disciples, only encouraging more "rule-followers". The reaction to this from Postmoderns is to abandon the rules in search of spiritual maturity. The missing component for both is the biblical guidelines for spiritual maturity described through the process of sanctification by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, through prayer, study of God's word, denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following Christ, trusting in the grace of God and loving others. If we can't describe spiritual maturity, how will we know if we are getting closer or farther away?

Owl photo by SteDigit Continue to Full Post...

Is Torture Okay?

To what extent of discomfort do we consider to be torture? Can we agree that extreme and permanent physical destruction to the point of even death is torture? Is it morally acceptable to torture another human being for any reason? Frank Turek asks,

Now, despite decades of its use on American service members, President Obama declares that waterboarding is torture when used on terrorists. Is it? Reasonable people cannot disagree whether scalding a person’s skin, dismembering him, or beheading him constitutes torture. Those are undeniably torturous acts that our enemies have inflicted on Americans. But since waterboarding leaves no permanent physical damage, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not it’s actually torture and should be used on terrorists. I’ll address that question in a future column.

What I’d like to address in this column is the shocking inconsistency of the President’s position. Despite being against waterboarding, President Obama does not seem to think that scalding, dismembering, or beheading is torture in all circumstances. In some circumstances, the President actually approves of such treatment, so much so that he is now exporting it to other countries with our tax dollars. He’s even thinking of forcing certain Americans to inflict it on the innocent.

Read the rest of the article here.

Are we willing to say that we would not torture, but "who are we to say" that other's should not torture? Continue to Full Post...

The Problem with Hate-Crime Laws

Being made in the image of God, we long for justice; we are angered by bigotry, prejudice, intimidation and harrassment. I want to believe that it is from a place of compassion that these hate-crime laws are created. The latest protected class includes homosexuals, but hate-crime legislation has suffered from flawed reasoning even before protections for sexual orientation were included.

John Whitehead explains why hate-crime legislation, even with the best intentions behind it, doesn't make sense.

First, hate-crime laws are shortsighted in that they favor a particular class of individuals for protection and seek to punish certain prejudices. As authors James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter ask in their book, Hate Crimes: Criminal Law & Identity Politics, “should all prejudices (ageism, anti-gay bias, bias against the physically and mentally disabled, etc.) be included in hate crime laws or only a select few (racism, ethnic bias, and religious bias)? Inevitably, if some groups are left out, they will resent the selective depreciation of their victimization.” For instance, the Hate Crimes Act singles gay people out for expanded protection from hate crimes, yet fails to address the thousands of crimes that occur each year against people who, while not gay, just don’t “fit in.” As one journalist asked, “Why not accord the same enhanced protection to kids who stutter, teenagers with bad acne, or adults who are overweight, homeless, or have unusually large ears?”

Second, the ramifications go far beyond the intended purpose of dissuading acts of violence against a protected class to actually chilling free speech. On the whole, hate-crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that any official in the echelons of government deems to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate-crime laws, well-meaning though they may seem, punish not just the act but the motive and open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes. In other words, when a crime is committed, hate-crime legislation adds additional penalties for the “motivation” (or thoughts) the individual had in carrying out the crime.

Third, this expanded hate-crime law creates a whole new class of investigative techniques by government agents and the police. Hate-crime laws create a bureaucratic nightmare that poses real threats to our constitutional rights. By providing millions of dollars in funding to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, hate-crime legislation incites prosecutors to further intimidate defendants by piling on the charges. Under the proposed federal hate-crime law, every crime would potentially be a hate crime now. If you happen to be charged with assault and battery against someone, under the law, the government will be looking to see if somewhere along the way you expressed views reflecting hatred for the victim’s class.

Fourth, hate-crime laws are redundant. There are already a host of stiff penalties on the books for those who commit acts of unspeakable horror, whether the crimes are based on an individual’s race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. Indeed, 45 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government, already have hate crime laws on their books. Under these statutes, hate speech tends to be defined as any form of expression that insults or provokes violence based on race, color, creed, religion or gender. These laws stiffen penalties for crimes committed because of a particular “bias.” However, hatred toward the victim often isn’t necessary in order to be charged with the crime. Under New York’s hate crime statute, for example, no actual hatred for the victim is necessary for a conviction. As one reporter pointed out, “The law requires only that they have singled out a person for a violent act because of some belief or stereotype about that person’s ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation.”

Continue to Full Post...

The Purpose of Marriage

Proponents of traditional marriage have argued that the approval of same-sex marriage will radically change the very nature of marriage and it's public purposes. Proponents of same-sex marriage have said that the acceptance of same-sex marriage will simply broaden the definition of marriage. The recent court decision in Iowa reveals the truth. Jennifer Roback Morse of The Ruth Institute explains in her article The Institution Formerly Known As Marriage,

With its decision, the Iowa Supreme Court covertly but profoundly changed the meaning of marriage. The Court abolished the essential public purpose of marriage, and replaced it with a new understanding of marriage that is neither essential nor public. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be an empty shell in Iowa. As the movement to redefine marriage spreads across the country, citizens should look to Iowa to see what this actually entails.

The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Absent this purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution. Human beings are not born as rational autonomous actors, they are the immature products of sexual relations between a man and a woman, and they need the assistance of adults to survive. Marriage exists, in all times and places, to solve this social problem. If our offspring were born as adults, ready to live independently, or if we reproduced through some form of asexual process, we would not need anything like marriage.

Perez Hilton on the Larry King Live show makes the distinction and claims that he wants the right to "civil marriage", not a "religious marriage". What he doesn't seem to understand is that this is why government is involved regardless of a religious foundation. Traditional marriage has a purpose. It is what is best for society. The problem for the Iowa Court is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not the same with respect to this purpose. They then must find the other ways in which same-sex couples are similarly situated.

The Court enumerated several purposes directly. Marriage provides an institutional basis for defining relational rights and responsibilities; marriage allows people to pool their resources; marriage recognizes people’s commitments; marriage provides comfort and happiness; marriage is a status, not a contract.

But these reasons do not explain why we need marriage in particular. I have a relationship with my next-door neighbor. My family pools resources with other members of a boat club. I have commitments to my employees and business associates. A pet brings me comfort and happiness. We do not need the unique relationship called marriage for any of these purposes.

...The Court does not seem to realize that if these purposes really exhaust the list of legitimate state purposes of marriage, then there is no reason to have marriage as a distinct legal structure in the first place. Moreover, these are all private purposes, not public purposes, of marriage.

The same-sex couples before the Court claim to be committed and to love each other. Why do we need marriage for that? I’m committed to my sister. I love my best friend. Are we second class citizens because we are not married to each other? There is no state purpose whatsoever to be served by my having some legal statement or affirmation attached to my love for my sister. Besides, who really wants the Court, or the state or anyone else saying that our love is important to the state? People’s feelings are none of the state’s business.

Although they want to distance themselves from anything that would show that same-sex marriage is somehow different from traditional marriage, the Court can not seem to get away from the true purpose of marriage. They write, “Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.” Morse asks, "But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is 'theirs'?"

This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.

...In sum, the Court has elevated the private, inessential purposes of marriage to the highest point in the hierarchy of values of marriage. Given this new understanding, neither the longevity of marriage, nor fidelity within marriage can remain as important values. By the time the opponents of conjugal marriage are finished with their redefinitions, marriage will be little more than a five-year renewable-term contract. The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage will be nothing but a couple of individuals, loosely stapled together by the state.

Advocates of natural marriage, as opposed to genderless marriage, believe that society needs marriage to be a child-centered, gender-based social institution. We have been arguing all along that same-sex “marriage” will be a gender-neutral institution, in which children are only a peripheral concern. When the Supreme Court of Iowa established same-sex “marriage” by judicial decree, they proved our point for us.

Continue to Full Post...

Life and Sex

Jim and I are a lot alike in many ways. One of the ways in which we are very different is that Jim was an atheist for 35 years while I have never really known a time when I did not believe in God. I have had times of doubt and have lived at times in rebellion to God, but never as an atheist. As someone who doesn't want to miss out on things in life, I love to take the road less traveled and the road well traveled and all the other short cuts and long cuts in between. Although atheism is not a road I can travel down at this point in my life with any kind of honest commitment, I find others' stories out of atheism compelling. Outspoken atheist blogger, the Raving Atheist (now the Raving Theist) posted his announcement that he had converted to Christianity late last year.

There also seems to be an intimate connection between understanding the pro-life position and conversion to Christianity for many. The most famous may be Norma McCorvey (AKA "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade). She wrote in her book, Won by Love,

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, Abortion - it brings out the kid in you! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.

Another atheism to Christianity blog is by Jennifer F. who tells how she became pro-life after her conversion. Like all these stories from our brothers and sisters in Christ, there is much to learn. I found most compelling the connection she makes between her view of sex growing up and how it distorted her view of life, choice and abortion.

Sex could not have been more disconnected from the concept of creating life.

The message I'd heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether. This mindset laid the foundation of my views on abortion. Because I saw sex as being closed to the possibility to life by default, I thought of pregnancies that weren't planned as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street -- something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives.

Being pro-choice for me (and I'd imagine with many others) was actually motivated out of love and caring: I just didn't want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Because it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with "hang-ups" eventually has sex and sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I got lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: to dehumanize the enemy. Babies had become the enemy because of their tendencies to pop up and ruin everything; and just as societies are tempted to dehumanize the fellow human beings who are on the other side of the lines in wartime, so had I, and we as a society, dehumanized the enemy of sex.

It was when I was reading up on the Catholic Church's view of sex, marriage and contraception that everything changed.

I'd always thought that those archaic teachings about not using contraception were because the Church wanted to oppress people by telling them to have as many kids as possible, or something like that. What I found, however, was that their views expressed a fundamentally different understanding of what sex is, and once I heard it I never saw the world the same way again. The way I'd always seen it, the standard position was that babies were a horrible burden, except for a couple times in life when everything is perfect enough that a couple might temporarily see new life as a good thing; the Catholic view is that the standard position is that babies are a blessing and a good thing, and while it's fine to attempt to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, if we go so far as to adopt a "contraceptive mentality," feeling entitled to the pleasure of sex while loathing (and perhaps trying to forget all about) its life-giving properties, we not only disrespect this most sacred of acts, but we begin to see new life as the enemy.

To use a rough analogy, the Catholic Church was saying that loaded guns are not toys, that while they can perhaps be used for certain recreational activities, they are always to be handled with grave respect; my viewpoint, coming from contraceptive culture, was that it's fine to use loaded guns as toys as long as you put blanks in the chamber. Thinking of that analogy, expecting to be able to use something with incredible power nonchalantly, as a toy, I could see how that worldview had set us up for disaster.

I came to see that our culture's widespread use and acceptance of contraception had led to the "contraceptive mentality" toward sex being the default position. As a society, we'd come to take it for granted that we're entitled to the pleasurable and bonding aspects of sex even when we're in a state of being vehemently opposed to the new life it might produce. The option of abstaining from the act that creates babies if we're in a state of seeing babies as a huge burden had been removed from our cultural lexicon: even if it would be a huge crisis to get pregnant, we have a right to go ahead and have sex anyway. If this were true, if it was indeed a fact that it was morally OK for people to have sex even when they believed that a new baby could ruin their lives, in my mind, then, abortion had to be OK.

I realize that ideally I would have taken an objective look at when human life begins and based my views on that alone...but the lie was just too tempting. I didn't want to hear too much about heartbeats or souls or brain activity...terminating pregnancies just had to be OK, because carrying a baby to term and becoming a parent is a huge deal...and society had made it very clear that sex is not a huge deal. As long as I accepted that for people to engage in sex in a contraceptive mentality was morally OK, I could not bring myself to even consider that abortion might not be OK. It just seemed too inhumane to make women deal with life-altering consequences for an act that was not supposed to have life-altering consequences.

So this idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we're vehemently opposed to its life-giving potential, was a totally new and different message. For me, being able to honestly consider when life begins, opening my heart and my mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.

At the time, I thought my dad gave a somewhat clumsy "birds and the bees" talk, but looking back, I think that he did a great job in connecting life and sex. I worry about my own children growing up in a culture that will say the opposite of what I will teach them about these same issues.

While my pro-life position coincides with the idea that we are all created in the image of God, I would not say that it is a religious position for me. I know that there is a biblical case to be made, but have never looked into it. I have never needed to. My position is that the murder of innocent human beings is wrong. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that statement. I had to at one time argue that embryos were human beings, but advances in science have made that reality abundantly clear. There was a time when I would have argued that although I thought that abortion was wrong, "who was I to impose that view on others?" Reason has since taken over. If abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, then why would I think that it was all right for others to murder an innocent human being? Continue to Full Post...

Truth in Love

Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church - Ephesians 4:15

The church these days seems to be divided over the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Albert Mohler reminds us how we are to respond to homosexuals with regard to Paul's message to the Ephesians about spiritual maturity, love and truth.

Evangelical Christians must ask ourselves some very hard questions, but the hardest may be this: Why is it that we have been so ineffective in reaching persons trapped in this particular pattern of sin? The Gospel is for sinners--and for homosexual sinners just as much as for heterosexual sinners. As Paul explained to the Corinthian church, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11].

I believe that we are failing the test of compassion. If the first requirement of compassion is that we tell the truth, the second requirement must surely be that we reach out to homosexuals with the Gospel. This means that we must develop caring ministries to make that concern concrete, and learn how to help homosexuals escape the powerful bonds of that sin--even as we help others to escape their own bonds by grace.

Mohler challenges the church to reach out with the Good News that Christ has died for all sinners who trust in the sacrifice of God. But in order to know what they are being saved from, we must be compassionate and courageous enough to tell the truth of God's purpose for us in our relationships with each other and our creator.

Homosexual rights activists try to isolate the evangelical church, forcing change by political action and cultural pressure against a cultural tide of moral relativism that promotes personal feelings as the highest value. With evidence of young Christians ascribing less and less to a biblical worldview, Mohler implores our churches to

...teach the basics of biblical morality to Christians who will otherwise never know that the Bible prescribes a model for sexual relationships. Young people must be told the truth about homosexuality--and taught to esteem marriage as God's intention for human sexual relatedness.

The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight.

Not losing sight of the call from Ephesians,

And yet, even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.

But Mohler says that compassion does not mean that we need to change the message of sin. Telling a homosexual that he is a sinner is neither callous nor intolerant. We never think that a doctor is intolerant because they tell a patient that they have cancer.

Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception. True compassion demands speaking the truth in love--and there is the problem. Far too often, our courage is more evident than our compassion.

...We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.

HT: The Pugancious Irishman Continue to Full Post...

From Drama to Discussion

Finally, some discussion about same-sex marriage, rather than the shouting of gay rights protestors and the stereotyping of those who defend marriage. Who would have thought that thanks to Carrie Prejean's convictions and character, a Miss USA Pageant would open this kind of exchange? Dennis Prager defends traditional marriage in a discussion on Larry King Live with Miss USA judge Perez Hilton.


In the interview Prager addresses Hilton’s comment that he is “talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.”

Well, first of all, the civil marriage is the way we define marriage in society. What religions do is their business.

And what does a secular person do?

So the -- you can't separate them. There is a -- there is a marriage that is done in churches which is totally a church matter. The society doesn't recognize church marriages, necessarily.

I got married in a synagogue. The society doesn't recognize that marriage. It recognizes it as a civil marriage because the rabbi was confirmed by the State of California as one who could do a marriage.

Religious marriage is entirely a separate issue, as it should be in a country that separates church and state.

Hilton interjects,

I agree. I agree. I'm not talking about religious marriage. I'm talking about equality. The principals that this country were founded on, that we all should be treated equal.

But I don’t think that he gets it. As a society, we have certain restrictions that come with marriage. Marriage is not a right. For what other right do you need to apply for (and complete the requirements of) a license? You can’t marry someone who is already married, is under the age of consent, is closely related or is of the same sex. Hilton sees these restrictions as “religious” prohibitions. While they may coincide with Judeo-Christian values, they are boundaries determined by “civil” society for the benefit of children and families. In fact, these restrictions overrule "religious" mandates for polygamy in Islam and the early LDS and some current FLDS churches to mention just one example. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same restrictions. What gays are asking for are special permission to change these restrictions.

The comparison of same-sex marriage and race is brought up immediately by Hilton and I think that Prager handled it well.

That is absolutely right. And that was never the value of any religious tradition or any non-religious tradition. That was racism. And there's no comparison between the two for one incredibly important reason -- there is no difference between people of different races. There are immense differences between people of the two sexes.

The notion that sex and race or gender and race are parallel is -- is invalid. There is no difference between a black human and a white human. There are enormous differences between a male human and a female human.

Hilton thinks that there is no difference between males and females except for their body parts. He mentions intellect and contributions to society which of course is not in question. Prager continues,

Yes, treated equal, but not the same. We're not the same. Male and female aren't the same.

…Perez, I actually respect your intellectual honesty here. See, a lot of people I debate on this acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different. Perez thinks that we are, except for body parts, identical. If you believe that, then it doesn't matter what gender you marry.

But if you acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different, that a mother can give something to a child that no two men can give, that a man can give to a child something no two women can give, then you want to retain marriage as specifically male/female.

I wish that Dennis Prager would have asked Perez Hilton, “if there is no difference between men and women, should men be allowed to enter the Miss USA Pageant?” The problem is that Hilton can claim that men and women are the same, but he is homosexual, not bisexual. The difference between men and women IS important to Hilton. He isn’t ambivalent about who he has relations with. He likes men and the ways in which men are different. Continue to Full Post...

Does Politically Correct Really Mean Lie?

I have hesitated in writing anything about the controversy surrounding the Miss USA 2009 pageant because well, it is ultimately a popularity contest and Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said something unpopular and so she lost. No big surprise. A couple of things...

If you don't know what I'm talking about go here. You can search around on YouTube for Perez Hilton's many rants and interviews (profanity warning) where he says among other things,

She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb (expletive deleted). She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people. And Miss California, Miss USA - she doesn’t alienate. She unites. She inspires.

and

I didn’t disagree with her not believing in the right for gays and lesbians to be equal under the law. I disagree with how she answered the question because Miss USA should be all inclusive. She should be my Miss USA. And when she answered the question that way, it was instantly divisive and alienated gays and lesbians and friends and supporters.

When asked how he would have answered the question, Hilton said,

"You know what, Perez, that’s a great question, very relevant right now. However, I think as the future Miss USA, I should represent all Americans and I’m not here to talk about politics. I’m here to inspire people. And I think it’s a great thing that the states are currently making these decisions and the states should continue to decide for themselves," something along those lines.

She could have stayed true to herself and not alienated anyone. Miss USA should represent me and everyone.

I think he would have also accepted "I think that it is unfair the way that gays are treated unequally and gay marriage should be legalized in all states!"

So let me get this straight, in response to Hilton's question,

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Hilton says he expected her to say something politically correct like,

I think it’s a great thing that the states are currently making these decisions and the states should continue to decide for themselves.

While that seems like a fair compromise to Hilton, a) it in no way answers the question and b) it would go against what she believes as well, especially when in California, if the state decides to legalize same-sex marriage it will be against the will of the majority of voters. Notice that in his response he does not allow for a statement about Prejean's belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman even though he says he didn’t disagree with her for "not believing in the right for gays and lesbians to be equal under the law." Essentially any response in line with her Christian beliefs would have lost her the pageant because of Hilton.

Hilton gave Prejean a zero score and she ended up receiving second place in the competition. The winner, Miss North Carolina, Kristin Dalten's question (from a different judge) was

Do you believe that taxpayers' money should be used to bailout struggling U.S. companies? Why and/or why not?

She answered,

That's a tough one. Um, no, I don't think that U.S. taxpayers' money should be used to bail out companies. Taxpayers' money should go towards bettering our education and our school systems and, and welfare and the healthcare systems and that's what our taxpayers' money should go to. Absolutely.

It seems that she was able to give her opinion and not have to give a politically correct non-answer. What about all the workers and families of the companies that have been bailed out? What about those officials and their supporters that thought it was in the best interest of the United States? Won't they feel alienated? Wasn't her response divisive?

Carrie Prejean didn't compromise and has received more publicity because of her stance, her character and of course Perez Hilton's lack thereof. That being said, can we armchair quarterback a bit and develop our position for traditional marriage? What would you say in response to Perez Hilton's question (contestants are given 30 seconds)?

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how I was raised is not a great answer with little persuasive power. Simply substitute 'I believe that racial discrimination, torturing babies or littering is acceptable' for 'marriage between a man and a woman' and you can see why.

How about "No. Although I believe that all people are created equal and should have the same rights, marriage is not a right and so I think that we have to admit that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. Gays certainly have the right to commit themselves in civil union to someone of the same sex and have an elaborate ceremony that can be attended by friends and family without changing what marriage means. In California, civil unions are afforded all the same rights and privileges that marriages are given, so it would seem that the redefining of marriage for the purpose of attaining rights doesn't seem to make much sense. In the same way, I would oppose a movement by heterosexuals who wanted to be a part of the gay community by lobbying to change the definition of homosexual or gay to also include those who do not have homosexual attractions/desires/behaviors?"

Too direct? I guess it's probably a good thing that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests. Continue to Full Post...

Rock Star Apologetics

I ran across this excerpt from, Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas while looking for an article on Karma.

Assayas is a friend of Bono's and a journalist. This is part of their conversation.

Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

HT: Strange Herring Continue to Full Post...

LDS Core Beliefs

FAIR, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, the apologetics group for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), has recently released their monthly Journal and it contains a message from Scott Gordon, the president of FAIR.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

One of the great difficulties we have as Latter-days Saints is explaining to others what we believe. As others try to pin us down in our beliefs, they frequently run into comments such as, "that's not what I believe," or "I wouldn't put it that way." Some of our critics shake their heads in exasperation. What do Mormons really believe? Some say that pinning down LDS beliefs is as difficult as nailing Jell-O to the wall. That's because many critics are looking for a list of our beliefs. They are familiar with the idea of a systematic theology, which is common in their own faith tradition, and when they don't find it, they search books looking for the truth of what Mormons believe.

As they search those books, they come up with comments that they piece together to define what they think must be LDS beliefs. But they are typically spectacularly wrong and often focus on the unimportant things.

There is a diversity of thought within the LDS community on many issues. But there is a set of core LDS beliefs. Some of those core beliefs are as follows: We believe that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ. We believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the Word of God. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet today. We believe we should do our best to follow what God wants us to do.

Outside of these core beliefs, there are many other issues that we talk about which we may or may not know. These are things we are studying and learning. We may differ from one another in many of these areas. The important thing is that one can remain a good and faithful member of the Church so long as we hold to those aforementioned core beliefs...

Except for believing that Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson are prophets of God, we as Christians would agree with pretty much everything else in the "core beliefs" as described above. The problem is that much is intentionally left out.

LDS may believe that God lives, but in Mormonism, God is but one of many gods who was once a man and earned His way to godhood. They may believe that Jesus is the Christ, but He is our brother and the brother of Satan, a created , non-eternal being (God the Father as well) who can not save us in our sins and died so that we would be resurrected to be judged on our good works and help us out if we don't become quite perfect. They believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the word of God although the Bible has lost many important truths and can't be entirely trusted due to mistranslations. Even the combination of the Bible and Book of Mormon is not sufficient to explain all that God wants to and so continued revelation is necessary. They believe that Joseph Smith was necessary to restore the truth of God's plan and that includes modern day prophets. Not only do LDS believe that we should do our best, but that following all the commandments and ordinances is how we will become exalted to godhood, becoming gods of our own worlds.

Does this seem extremely deceptive to anyone else? Imagine you bought a car that claimed to have air-conditioning, low mileage, and no accidents. After purchasing the car you found out that none of the claims were true. You return to the person who sold you the car and they explain that the air-conditioning requires that you roll down the windows, the low mileage was achieved by rolling back the odometer and that the previous owner did crash the car, but they intended to do so, therefore it was not "an accident". You would be furious. You would have been lied to and you would demand your money back or take legal action against them.

It also is not true that one can remain a good and faithful member of the Church so long as they hold to those aforementioned core beliefs as they are simply stated. God MUST have a body of flesh and bones and CAN NOT be a Trinity; faith in Christ alone WILL NOT save you; the Bible CAN NOT be trusted over your own testimony and Joseph Smith was NECESSARY in restoring priesthood authority. You MUST obey the Word of Wisdom, be MARRIED in the temple, etc. to remain a good and faithful member of the Church.

I love Mormons, but I think this is a horrible apologetic. Their scholars and apologists are encouraging dishonesty and deceit in faithful LDS believers. Conmen have a term for this, it's called a "bait and switch". Continue to Full Post...