Gay Marriage: Aftermath

This is a screenshot from Yahoo, taken today. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't wish lice on anybody....

In the eighteen months since my last post on marriage, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-4 margin, that "gay marriage" is protected by the US Constitution. That decision, which up-ends 6000 years of traditional marriage, is putting many Christians in the awkward position of exercising their First Amendment rights to disobey the new "law" (court decisions are not really laws, but that's a topic for another day).

Case in point: Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week, you already know that Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, has been jailed for refusing a court order to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. Asserting her strong Christian belief that marriage was instituted by God to be only between a man and a woman, she has refused any and all offers for a compromise. Guessing that a mere fine would not be enough incentive to comply, the judge chided her for not performing her sworn duties as an elected official and sent her to jail, indefinitely.

The White House, lawyers, politicians, and "gay rights" activists have also said that her civic duty trumps her religious beliefs. They claim that no matter what, she must follow and uphold the law of the land and obey her superiors. But if the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't stand up, when it comes to committing atrocities, there must come a point where even this fallen world expects people to stand up against unjust laws and oppressive authorities. In fact, just last year, our country celebrated the 60th anniversary of the start of the Montgomery bus boycott, which started with a solitary, unassuming black woman, named Rosa Parks, who refused to follow the law and cede her seat to a white person.

The trouble is that as long as God is kept out of the limelight, our society has only popular opinion to base its moral code on. And unfortunately, "gay rights" have really picked up steam, over the past 12 years or so, simply because a very vocal minority had the gall to stand up to the status quo. Christians must now learn from those successful tactics and do the same.

When the decision was announced, "gay marriage" supporters, which had been protesting at the courthouse, shouted, "Love won! Love won!" Really? Did love really win? Does love send someone to jail for standing up for their Constitutionally protected rights? Does love rejoice at the suffering of others? Does love file lawsuits when things don't go their way? Does love go against God and His moral compass? People today have forgotten what love really is. They confuse it with lust. They confuse it with tolerance. They confuse it with greed.

Yahoo, Huffington Post, and most media outlets rejoice as well, unmercifully skewering Mrs. Davis for her "bigoted" stance. My son and I recently started reading the Book of Isaiah, for our nightly devotional. A couple nights ago, we read some very a propo verses:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! ...Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!" - Isaiah 5:20, 21, 23

Isaiah was bewailing Israel's fall from God's good graces. Let us pray that we, as children of God and followers of Christ, can help turn this nation around, or at least point the right way to as many of His lost sheep as we can.

Equal Footing: Not A Leg To Stand On

This is the sixth post in a series on marriage.

Let’s leave God, the Bible, and all religion out of the marriage debate for a minute. Let’s assume marriage is only a legal contract, subject solely to civil laws. Does anyone who still opposes “gay marriage” (or any other sort of non-traditional marriage) have any leg to stand on? Ultimately, the answer is no, because without God, there is no source of absolute morality. But then again, the proponents of “gay marriage” have nothing solid on which to base their argument, either. Any logic they try to apply will always be reduced to a subjective opinion, which has no more validity than the opposing opinion.

Let’s look at some things a “gay rights” advocate may say to a supporter of traditional marriage and how they break apart under scrutiny.

“We just want marriage equality.”
“Gay rights” activists are making great progress under the banner of “equality.” But as I’ve already discussed in a previous post, equality is relative, and many would argue that since traditional marriage laws apply to everyone, equality is a moot point. On the flip-side, there is no limit to how far you can take the concept of equality, to the point where marriage itself, in any form, actually produces inequality. If you really think about it, marriage grants married couples additional protections that singles do not have.

“Two people who love each other should be able to marry.”
I keep hearing how “gay marriage” is about allowing all loving couples the same benefits. But the fact is that, legally speaking, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love, or any real motive for wanting to get married. Is there a law that says that falling in love has to result in marriage? There are many in this world who get married by arrangement or for financial or political reasons. And conversely, there is an ever-growing number of couples that decide to live together, without getting married at all.

“You Christians need to be more tolerant of gays.”
On the surface, “tolerance” implies that we should all try to get along and respect each other’s differing opinions. However, when it comes to people’s rights, tolerance hits a brick wall. Our nation must tread a fine line, to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected, even if their values are diametrically opposed. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, many states have now made it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, but that trounces upon the rights of devout Christians whose consciences prevent them from conducting certain kinds of business with gays. It is now very evident that “gay rights” groups are quite intolerant of those who dare to oppose them. So who gets to decide which group has to be tolerant of the other?

“Don’t fight progress.”
For the first time in our nation’s history, polls indicate that more than half of Americans now support “gay marriage”. So the argument now becomes that we hard-headed Christians should get with the program and fall in line. But this is a stupid argument, because just a few years ago, the pro-gay activists were in the minority. And long before that, sodomy was illegal in many states. Why didn’t the gays get with the program and fall in line, way back then, even though they were the ones in the minority?

So what’s my point? The liberal media, advertisers, corporations, and Hollywood are doing their best to convince us Christians that we are on the wrong side of the debate. But even if there was no God, they would, at best, be on equal footing with us. But there is a God! And there is an absolute standard for right and wrong, well-established in the Bible, God’s inspired Word. So do not be afraid to speak out against the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”, and to teach your children God’s opinion on the matter.

Civil Rights vs. Moral Character

This is the fifth post in a series on marriage.

“Gay rights” proponents often liken their plight to the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century. It is now almost universally accepted that that was a righteous cause, so naturally, if they can draw enough parallels to it, they will further validate their own cause. But are the two movements based on enough similarities, or is there a fundamental difference that cannot be reconciled?

In his famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” As a Christian minister, Dr. King was very well versed in the Bible and the moral principles set forth by God. By this quote, he demonstrates a good understanding of the New Testament teaching that skin color is irrelevant to God, but rather that He places very high importance on a person’s deeds, which are a reflection of their character.

In short, while skin color and other external attributes have no moral aspect, homosexual practices (along with most other things that people can choose to do or not do) have inherent moral implications. Pro-gay groups would like us to believe that sodomy is perfectly morally acceptable, homosexual relationships are totally normal, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a “homophobe” who needs to be rebuked and re-educated.

While many anti-gay sentiments are probably based simply on the “grossness factor” of same-sex intimacy, there are many of us who see it more importantly as an immoral practice that has deep implications upon a person’s character, especially if that person not only doesn’t think there is anything wrong with what they’re doing, but are actively encouraging others to “give it a try.”

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:26, 27, 32).

This is why we Christians need to continue to stand up against laws that not only sanction immorality, but aim to silence those of us who believe that God is the ultimate Authority on right and wrong.

Redefining Equality

This is the fourth post in a series on marriage.

Here are some of the latest developments in the fight over marriage:

• A judge put a halt on same-sex “marriages” in Utah, but the U.S. Attorney General has said that the federal government will recognize marriages that have already occurred during the brief time that they were allowed in the state.
• Indiana legislators are pushing a state constitutional amendment to formally define marriage as between one man and one woman.
• A Federal court has ruled Oklahoma’s state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional. But at least the judge had the sense to put a hold on gay “marriages” until the state has a chance to appeal.

The primary weapon the pro-gay alliance has been using to push their distorted version of “marriage” is the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection clause,” which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At first blush, it may look like “inequality” to allow only heterosexuals to marry. However, the word “equality” is pretty overloaded, and its meaning outside of mathematics is highly subjective.

Consider, for instance, the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the famous phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” When Thomas Jefferson penned these words, the application of the word “equal” was quite different from ours. Slavery, for instance, was heavily practiced in the New World. If white people really thought that God created them "equal" with black Africans, then how could they live with a practice that left them with no rights and barely a shred of humanity?

Fast-forward a century. Slavery was finally illegal in the entire U.S., and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution. The main purpose of the “equal protection clause” (found in Section 1) was to guarantee that all former slaves had “the same rights” as all free men. But in practice, it tolerated racial segregation in the South, and the use of the generic term "persons" did nothing for women’s right to vote.

So what about so-called “marriage equality”? Some will say that we already have that: everyone is free to marry whomever they like, as long as they are the opposite gender. But that's not the only typical exclusion. Most states impose restrictions based on age, familial relationship, current marital status, and even genetic incompatibility. The “gay rights movement” wants to expand the definition of marriage by removing only the gender requirement, but that will not result in true “marriage equality?”

Since gays cannot have their own children, for example, “incest” doesn’t really apply to them. Will states want to allow a gay man to “marry” his son, but not his daughter? Is that “more equality” or “less equality?” And what about the other restrictions? Is it not hypocritical for the gays to demand "equality," while leaving all the others in place? Unless all of those restrictions are lifted, rendering marriage virtually meaningless, certain people still will not be able to marry whomever they want.

The simple fact is that traditional marriage laws are already “equal,” because the same restrictions apply to everyone equally. The fact that a very small percentage of the population doesn’t like them the way they are is a totally separate issue. The use of the "equal protection clause" is merely legal wrangling to achieve an unrelated (and immoral) goal. I just hope there will be enough Supreme Court justices with enough sense to see it.

Bully Tactics: Name-Calling

This is the third post in a series on marriage.

Mostly everyone agrees that bullying is an unacceptable practice. In fact, much of the early pro-gay laws were written to combat this monster. Calling people names or threatening them in any way is wrong in the eyes of our society. I like to think this is due to our Christian heritage, whose lingering effects have not yet worn off from our culture.

Let me be crystal-clear here: as Christians, we are to speak out against the sin of sodomy and stand up to the wave of propaganda that is pushing for its acceptance in our society, but there is never any justification for name-calling or threats or physical harm to anyone who supports or practices it.

However, pro-gay groups such as GLAAD, as well as the liberal media, have resorted to the same tactics, in an effort to "normalize" homosexuality and demonize those who speak out against it. Whenever someone makes anti-gay remarks (which, as of this writing, are still protected by the First Amendment), they are almost always referred to as a "homophobe." As a recent example, several sources called Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's comments on the evil of homosexuality as "homophobic."

What exactly did he say that was so bad? "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus, whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?"

Mr. Robertson was ostracized (and temporarily suspended from the highly successful show) simply for expressing an opinion that is in-line with the Bible. It was not only his First Amendment right to do so, but also his duty as a Christian.

Calling people names is the age-old tactic of side-stepping logical arguments, in favor of ad hominem attacks. When done in public (or in the media), this effectively villifies the opposition and undermines the validity of their viewpoints. In this case, since phobias are commonly perceived as illogical and devoid of reason, the term "homophobe" presumes that Christians have no credible arguments against homosexuality.

Don't let the pro-gay community get away with this. Expose the name-calling for the logical fallacy that it is.

Sodomy: The Abominable Sin

This is the second post in a series on marriage.

I am going to have to be very blunt and very politically incorrect here. At the center of "same-sex marriage" (or any similar union) is sexual intercourse between two individuals of the same gender. This is traditionally referred to as "sodomy," a word derived from the well-known Genesis account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two exceedingly wicked cities, infamous for this practice.

While I do not expect this fact to carry any weight with atheists or those who subscribe to religions that do not view the Bible as God's inspired word, I am dumbfounded that there are any persons who claim to be Christian, and yet believe sodomy to be compatible with Christianity. I now wish to address that section of the population, in hopes that I may give them cause to rethink their theology.

Here are some scriptural proof-texts that indicate that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, God abhors sodomy, counting it on the same level as (if not worse than) murder.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev. 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13).

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deut. 23:17).

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:26-32).

The Bible unequivocably states that God does not change, so He still views all manner of sexual deviancy as sin. God requires us to repent of all sin; we cannot pick and choose. So how can any Christian practice or condone sodomy and still claim to be a child of God???

As a Christian, I must speak out against civil laws that legitimize sinful practices, particularly those that are actively promoted as "normal" and "acceptable".

The painting at the top of this post depicts Lot's family fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and his wife expressing horror as she looks back, moments before being turned into a pillar of salt. It was painted by Benjamin West, in 1810.

We Have Won!

Traditional marriage has suffered a flurry of defeats in the past few years. Several more states, including Washington, New Jersey, and Colorado now allow "gay marriage." This has opened up some high-profile lawsuits: a florist in Seattle has been sued for refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding, and a photographer in Colorado is being sued for refusing to take photos at a gay wedding.

The Defense of Marriage Act (one of the few laudable accomplishments from President Clinton's regrettable administration) has been all but completely done away with. Phil Robertson (of the uber-popular Duck Dynasty reality show) has been ostracized for anti-gay comments he recently made. A man is legally marrying a woman in a state that does not recognize his out-of-state marriage to another man. (Whaaat?!? I'm sure the liberals are hoping he's not claiming that he's been "cured" of his gay tendencies.) The media and school curriculums continue trying to convince us that same-sex families are just as "normal" as traditional ones. And just recently, an activist judge has ruled Utah's ban on "gay marriage" unconstitutional, ushering in a flood of marriage applications.

As Christians, we are clearly losing the battle for true marriage. So how can I claim that we've won?

The answer is simple: Jesus won the battle against sin and death when He gave Himself as a perfect sacrifice on the cross. The Bible promises us that when He returns, He will do so as a conquering King, who will carry out judgment against all the sinners of this world. So, we do not need to hang our heads in defeat. This world was lost when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, but Christ declared to Pontius Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

God's kingdom on this earth is the collection of born-again followers of Jesus Christ. Our duty is to continue to strive to lead individuals to repentance, and while that does include standing up against our culture's embrace of sins like sodomy, promiscuity, and greed, the end-goal is saving souls.

To this end, I will devote my next few posts to presenting logical arguments defending the Biblical view of traditional marriage. The results I leave up to God.

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).

Runaway Government, Part III

The Congressional game of Chicken is over, and the Republicans blinked.  I'm not blaming them for standing against the folly that is ObamaCare (aka The Affordable Care Act), but I am saddened that no one has learned anything from the experience.  Disaster has been averted, but only until February 7 of next year, at which time ObamaCare will have kicked in, and nothing short of an act of God will be able to stop it.  Well, OK, good old-fashioned common sense could work too, but that left Washington, DC long before I was born.

So how do I propose solving the country's financial issues?  As with everything else in life, Jesus is the answer.  If you go back to the Book of Acts in the Bible, you will read how the early Christians formed a close-knit community, sharing what they had with each other.  No one had more than they needed, and no one lacked anything.  People took care of each other willingly, because that's what Jesus taught and also because they could not rely on the government for help.  (Truth is that for the first three centuries, the Roman Empire was trying to destroy them.)

There was also accountability.  The Apostle Paul stressed to the nascent churches that while they were to help each other, layabouts should not be given handouts.  Lazyness is against Bibllical teachings, so it should not be sanctioned or encouraged.

There was also no Social Security or Medicare for the elderly.  Instead, if there was no family to help, the church would take on the responsibility to care for the widows, orphans, and others who had no means of self-support.

So how did we get where we are today?  Wasn't this country founded mainly by Christians who likewise had little support from their respective governments and had to learn to rely on each other?  True enough, but as our society became more and more secular, people abandoned their support systems right along with their Creator and Savior.  Who else could fill the gap, but a government prone to overstepping its Constitutional purpose?

Do you think the kind of system found in Acts cannot work in today's society?  Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, any attempt would be doomed to failure (look at the fall of socialism).  However, there is one shining example that's been growing strong for nearly 20 years, one that, coincidentally, is a wonderful alternative to ObamaCare: Samaritan Ministries.  This is a Christian ministry that enables its 25,000 members to provide for one another's medical needs, and encourages them to actively pray for those they financially assist.  In turn, each family knows that when there are medical bills, no matter the amount, the other members will step in and pay them.  According to their website, an individual family's cost never exceeeds $350 a month, and the money is sent directly from one family to another; it is never centrally collected, thereby reducing the risk of misuse.  Samaritan Ministries emphasizes Biblical accountability and regularly submits to external audits.  Here is what they have to say about the church:

Believers in Jesus Christ are responsible to first use the resources He has given us to meet the needs of ourselves and our families. When a need occurs that exceeds what He has provided, other members of the Body of Christ should show His love by using the resources God has given them to help in the same way they would want to be helped.

The local church should be the next “line of defense” to provide for the needs of its own members. SMI is intended to support and supplement this work of the local body, not replace it. We seek to avoid undermining what should be done locally. We also depend on the leaders of the local church to provide accountability for the SMI members under their care.

Supporting those who are in need is a deeply-rooted Christian principle, but so is accountability.  The Lord knows people's hearts, and only when His Holy Spirit is welcome inside, can we achieve a society that uses its God-given resources responsibly and that takes care of its truly needy members.

Runaway Government, Part II

As I write this, the Congressional debates, political posturing, and media coverage over the shutdown and upcoming debt default continue.  To try to understand where our money is coming from and where it is going, I referred to our 2012 1040 tax instructions, which contain the pie charts below.

Look at the Federal government's 2011 income, on the left. 36% is borrowed!!! How long could any of us manage to live by borrowing more than a third of our income??? Most of that is in the form of IOU's to domestic entities and savings bonds (probably), and some is borrowed from foreign nations. We owe China more than $1.25 TRILLION!!!

On the right side, of course, is the spending. Of that entire pie, 68% consists of various kinds of benefits programs, which a large percent of our population has come to expect from the government. The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) will make the problem even worse, adding to that percentage, while increasing our taxes, in a foolhardy attempt at making up for its costs. The rest of our annual spending consists of 24% alotted to the military and related expenses, 6% for interest on the $16 trillion national debt, and 2% for law enforcement and general government.

We all know there is a significant amount of waste, much of it a direct result of twisted politics, such as the practice of attaching money for pet projects to bills, in order to attract more votes. But there is also very little oversight in determining who should receive money, via the various benefit programs. While there are many who genuinely need the help, there are probably as many who take advantage. For example, people I know have told me they choose not to work, because their unemployment benefits pay as well as any job they can get. Others learn to work the system, continuing to receive money long after they're no longer eligible. There simply isn't enough oversight, but it's probably cheaper to suffer the abuse than to spend additional resources to stop it.

I'm not advocating leaving people in need out in the cold (what kind of Christian would I be???), but I do not believe it is the government's role to take care of them. My solution? You may have already guessed, but come on back for Part III....

Runaway Government, Part I

Photo courtesy Architect of the Capitol

As I type this, the U.S. is preparing to enter Day 8 of the government shutdown that has furloughed hundreds of thousands of government workers, shutttered offices and parks, and delayed or stopped benefits to millions.  Some folks are even being (temporarily) evicted from their vacation homes that are on Federal land.  What's worse, we're less than two weeks away from defaulting on debts, unless Congress passes a bill to extend the debt ceiling so we can pay those bills using money we don't have!  How did we ever get into this mess?  Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?

The reason we're running such an astronomical debt is that our government is spending way more than it is raking in. And then it pays its "credit card" debts with another "credit card." If the U.S. was a person, such fiscal practices would not be sustainable! Yet, we outspend our income an average of $30 billion a month! A previous generation of legislators had the sense to require a debt limit, presumably to reign in national borrowing, but that's just a paper ceiling, since all Congress does now is increase it whenever we need to borrow more. That's like me calling our bank every few months to ask for a credit line increase, even though I'm unable to keep up with payments.

This is a complex issue, with a very rich history.  While I do know some of the events that brought about the political practice of threatening to shut down government, as a tool for wrestling over bills and measures, this is not what I want to talk about.

What really irks me is how involved every level of our government has gotten into our lives.  One of the reasons this shutdown is making such big news is that so many people and services are affected.  When the Founding Fathers put the Constitution together, their intent was that the Federal goverment mainly provide for a national defense and represent our interests abroad.  Most of the day-to-day operation was left to the individual states, which were intended to be far more independent than they are now.  Congress met only a few weeks out of the year, leaving the states to handle their own affairs.

But over time, the Federal government took on more and more responsibility and collected more and more funds from the states, in exchange for additional services.  I have a theory on why this happened and what we can about it, so stay tuned for Part II....

By the way, the picture above has a very interesting connection to the current situation.  In preparation for this post, I decided to Google pictures of the Capitol Building in Washington DC.  When I saw this photo of the dome under construction, it surprised me, because I did not think photography was available that long ago.  But then I read the story behind it.  Turns out the original dome was made of wood.  In 1855, it was decided it was too much of a fire hazard, so it was torn down, and a new iron dome was commissioned.  When the Civil War broke out in 1860, the U.S. government warned the builders that they would not be able to pay them until after the war.  Surprisingly, the builders decided to continue construction anyway.  President Lincoln saw this as an encouraging sign that the nation would endure, due to the hard-working spirit of its citizens.  Ironically, Federal employees are now forbidden from working without pay.  Go figure!

Overcoming Temptation (Part III)

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12).

Indeed, we are in the midst of a war, in which earthly weapons are rarely used.  It is a war of ideas and worldviews, and the stakes are much higher than money, resources, or lands; we fight for human souls, our own and of those around us.  This is why overcoming temptation and sin is so important.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin" (Heb. 12:1-4).

God calls for us to endure to the end of the race, and to avoid temptations, which can so easily ensnare and derail us from the mission that He has set before us.

"Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears" (Heb. 12:12-17).

As I was preparing for this message, the following acronym came to me, which I will share with you: SPAR.  It certainly reminds me of Eph. 6:12 (see above).

S = Submit
In thinking back on my own life, I had little trouble with temptation while I was still under my parents' roof, because I knew I would get in trouble if I disobeyed.  Being under their authority contributed greatly to my ability to resist a great variety of sin.  However, when I went to grad. school, I was out on my own for the first time and not under anyone's authority.  I neglected my studies and started going to bars with my friends.

God will hold all of us accountable for our actions in the Last Day, but it greatly helps if we have people we can trust here on earth, to whom we are also accountable.  This takes submission, not only to God, but to those around us: our parents, our pastors, our brothers and sisters in Christ, and our spouses.

P = Pray
All these acronyms are helpful, but ultimately, we are powerless against sin, unless we have a close relationship with the One who has already bruised Satan's head under His heel: Jesus Christ.  We get closer to Him through prayer and studying His Written Word.

A = Avoid
If you have a weakness for ice cream, don't keep it in your house!  Likewise, you need to analyze the things, people, or places that are a snare to you, and do your best to avoid them.  This may not be always possible, but it's a lot easier to avoid the quicksand, if you stay out of the swamp.

R = Rest
As a direct response to the T in HALT, you need to rest.  Physical rest is crucial, because you need a sharp mind and healthy body to withstand the firey darts of the enemy.  Just as important is spiritual rest in Jesus.  Remind yourself of Jesus' promise to take care of you, which is found in Matthew 6:25-34.

Finally, I leave you with what is perhaps the most famous verse on the subject, which needs no further comment from me: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Overcoming Temptation (Part II)

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it" (Rev. 2:17b).

Before we can overcome temptation, we need to know our enemy... that is to say, we need to know ourselves.  Think back to the times you gave in to temptation.  What sequence of events led up to your fall?  Is there a pattern that you can learn something from?

A few years ago, I happened to hear a portion of a radio program, in which the topic was temptation.  The speaker suggested an acronym to help us remember four common weaknesses in the Christian's armor: HALT.  It's catchy, because it reminds you that when you feel you're about to give in to temptation, you need to halt!  Here is what each letter stands for:

H = Hungry
You know what happens when you go grocery shopping on an empty stomach, right?  You often end up buying several items not on your list, which you either don't need or that are bad for you (or both!).  And who can forget poor Esau, who infamously sold his birthright for a bowl of lentils (Gen. 25:29-34).

But beyond literal hunger, we humans tend to lust after things.  God knows that, which is probably why He devoted three of the Ten Commandments (adultery, stealing, and coveting) to the problem.  But Jesus, when He was tried by Satan, at the end of His 40 days in the desert, had the stamina to refuse offers of bread and entire kingdoms.

The lesson for us is to learn to be content with what the Lord has provided us and to lean on Him when trials arise.

A = Angry
Paul tells us, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Eph. 4:26).  In-of-itself, anger is not always a sin, especially if it is for a good reason.  Jesus, for example, was clearly very angry at the merchants in the temple, because they were trying to profit from those who came to worship God. He overturned their tables and chased them out of the place with a whip He made Himself.  We can be angry at sin around us and those who wrong us, but we need to (1) be careful that you do not sin in your anger (i.e. saying or doing things you will later regret), and (2) that you quickly replace that anger with forgiveness, even if the person who wronged you does not apologize.

I believe that anger stems from things not turning out according to our plan, and people not behaving the way we want them to.  But we need to remember that we are not the ones in control.  God is still on the throne, and no one has ever or will ever interfere with His perfect plans.  Diffuse your anger before it gets out of hand, by remembering that God knew from before time began that you would face this trial, and He has had all eternity to work out the resolution.  All we need to do is trust Him and follow His plan.

L = Lonely
We are social creatures.  Most of us crave companionship, friendship, love, and approval.  Closely tied to hunger, this desire to belong and be loved can drive us to do things we would hardly consider otherwise.  Ugly examples abound, but a simple one is the peer pressure we feel when part of a group, to do things that group is doing, just to feel like we belong.

No man has ever been more lonely than Jesus on the cross.  "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34).  The accepted interpretation is that since Jesus had taken all the world's sins upon Himself, God the Father could not look upon Him.  He had been abandoned by his closest friends, shunned by His family, and tortured by those whom He came to save.  And yet, He also said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).  Even in His most desperate, loneliest hour, He thought of others first and sinned not.

In truth, we are never alone, because God has promised never to leave nor forsake us.  Nevertheless, surround yourself with other sincere Christians, who will encourage you and be encouraged by you.

T = Tired
This is an ironic one, because I am typing this at 3:15 in the morning!  LOL!  But I have certainly found that I do not think clearly when my body craves sleep.  My judgment is impaired, and my defenses against temptation are compromised.  But sleep improves not only our body's ability to stay healthy, but also the toughness of our Godly armor.

Yup!  Time for bed!

Next, I will introduce my own four-letter acronym...

Overcoming Temptation (Part I)

The New Year is usually a time of reflection and new beginnings, a time when many are inspired to better themselves.  A very appropriate time, I think, for me to address an issue that plagues us all.

We recently watched the new Narnia movie, Voyage of the Dawntreader. Each Narnia story has a spiritual theme at its core.  The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe presented sin, Jesus' atoning self-sacrifice, and Satan's defeat at His hands. Prince Caspian taught us that it's far better to trust in God's plan, than to go it alone.  This time around, Narnia addresses the problem of temptation. I won't spoil it for you, in case you haven't seen it yet, but during a climactic moment, the Winter Witch rears her ugly head again to tempt Edmund away from doing what's right.  In fact, temptation is a problem for most of the main characters, throughout the movie, sending us home with the reminder that its consequences carry a great price.  Of course, there is an even greater reward for resisting it and doing what's right.

"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (James 1:12-15).

By definition, temptation is an exploitation of our weaknesses, which boil down into a cornucopia of flavors of selfishness.  These are chinks in our Godly armor (Eph. 6:10-17), that the enemy needs no help penetrating; we are experts at exposing ourselves to temptation on our own.

Empowered by the Holy Spirit and educated by God's Word, the mature Christian generally manages to put Christ ahead of self.  However, it is almost unavoidable that he will eventually stumble.  God calls us to be holy as He is holy, perfect as He is perfect, to "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus"(Phil. 3:14).  Being truly born again means receiving God's nature, which does not tolerate sin, in any form.  Therefore we should want to continue pressing toward that goal and ask the Master Blacksmith to fix any and all imperfections in our armor.

To be continued...

No Power Behind Greg's Word

I'm really sorry to have left you hanging with my previous post!  I really did preach that day, and I really do have the video to prove it, but not only have I been having issues editing videos lately, but I don't feel the video is up to snuff for public viewing.  Good thing we have a really small congregation, and nearly everyone was absent that day!  I hope to provide some detailed notes or video highlights sometime in the future, but for now, I would like to simply move on to other topics.

The Power Behind the Word (Sneak Preview)

William Tyndale (c. 1494 – 1536) was a Protestant Reformer, who was the first to translate a large portion of the Bible into English, against the will of the established church and king. For his loyal defiance, he was strangled to death and burned at the stake. But his martyrdom bore much fruit, because the same king who ordered his execution (Henry VIII) commissioned the publishing of English Bibles. This eventually led to the Authorized King James version, more than three quarters of which is estimated to be Tyndale's work. You can read more about this powerful instrument of God at Wikipedia.

But what did Tyndale and so many others sacrifice their very lives for? "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). He died because he believed in the transforming power of God, and in His Holy Word, which he wanted everyone to be able to read for themselves. Until Tyndale's time, the church leadership believed that the Bible could only be translated into Latin and that only clergy had the right to read it. But this led to horrendous abuses of power and gross misinterpretations. How quickly man put himself in God's place! But if Jesus Christ bought each one of us all-access backstage passes to the Holy of Holies – to God Himself – then it stands to reason that He gave us all the right to read His precious Word for ourselves.

But why is that important? What am I getting at? "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:16-21).

The Bible is not just another book, but the inspired Word of God, our Lord and Creator. Its contents come with a surety and factuality unmatched in any other written work today. Scoffers may scoff, but that does not diminish its credibility. Is the sky any less blue, if I rant and rave 24/7 about how green it is??

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

In old English, "quick" meant "alive." The Word of God, whether spoken or written, is unique in the world and even has supernatural properties. So how do we unlock its power? By faith and by "eating" the Word, internalizing it, until we understand what it means and can apply it in our lives.

So how do we apply it? For that, you'll have to wait a little longer.... You see, this is my topic for a message I am giving Sunday, Sep. 26, at the new church that we have recently started to fellowship at. Video is on the way....

P.S. Yes, I am back to blogging, for at least a while! I've been very blessed with a new job and plenty of things to keep me busy, which is why I've been away. I will try to keep this and my other blogs fresher, as well as stop by your blogs and comment.

The Abortion Debate (Part 5)

We wrap up this series with some common arguments you’ll hear in abortion debates and how to totally discredit them.

“If you force women to have their babies, their children will be unloved and abused.”

There are abused and unloved children all over the world; ending abortions would not contribute much to that number. Besides, the decisions to abort are usually emotion-based (whatever the reason, the woman doesn’t WANT the baby), and emotions can greatly change over time. Again, we can trot out the toddler and ask, “If you decide you no longer love your 2-year-old (I can’t imagine why!), is that justification to kill it?”

“If you don’t want me to have an abortion, then adopt my child!”

This is like saying, “If you want me to lose weight, you have to eat my food.” Or, “If you don’t want me to kill my no-good husband, you have to marry him.” This is another tactic to change the venue and shut down the pro-lifers, but it’s only a red herring. The morality of a given action does not depend on outside conditions.

“Of course YOU are against abortion; you’re a MAN and will never have to make that choice!”

This is similar to the “adopt my child” ruse. Even if you’ve never been robbed, you still have the authority to say theft is immoral. There are many insensitive things a man can say to a woman, just because he doesn’t have her feminine insights, but this is not one of them.

“It would be unfair or discrimination for women to not be allowed to have a medical procedure, when men are allowed to have ANY medical procedure!”

I’ve actually read Senator Barbara Boxer say something very close to this, recently. She is reducing the ending of a life to a simple medical procedure. Again, that’s just another attempt to change the venue of the debate, maybe by rolling it into the floundering healthcare reform negotiations. Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a very unique physical process, by which a new life is preparing to enter this world. This puts it in a class by itself, in the medical field. It’s “unfortunate” for Senator “Don’t call me Ma’am” Boxer that (as of yet) only women can suffer from this particular medical condition, but that’s life. No pun intended.

“I’m personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

President Obama and other politicians have used this phrase more times that anybody can count, especially if you count their positions on other ethical issue of the day (same-sex marriage, marihuana, euthanasia, etc…). These kinds of statements confuse a moral dilemma with a personal preference. “I’m personally against going 100 MPH on the interstate, but I think it should be legal.” In fact, the implication to the listener (whether it’s true or not) is that you believe the issue to be objectively morally acceptable. This is what concerned us about most of 2008’s presidential candidates.

“If you outlaw abortion again, there will be an increase in back-alley abortions, which will greatly endanger the health of countless women.”

Now that abortion is legal, there are FAR more fetuses being killed and mothers suffering from the physical and psychological repercussions. For most, the simple illegality of an act will prevent it from being committed, and will encourage alternatives (such as adoption). Besides, there are consequences to every action; we cannot legalize something, just because there are those who refuse to consider the potential effects. If we repeal speed limits, and no longer require motorists to wear seat belts or helmets, would traffic fatalities increase or decrease?

“Abortions should be allowed, in the case where the mother’s life is in danger.”

Mr. Klunsendorf points out that the only case where a mother’s life is truly endangered by a pregnancy is when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if allowed to continue, results in the death of both mother and baby. In this one case, the only way to prevent two persons from dying is to remove the fetus. Either way, the fetus is doomed (at least with current medical science), and it makes sense to at least save the mother. Most, if not all, other medical complications occur late enough in the pregnancy, that a C-section will give both mother and child terrific chances of survival.

I’m not necessarily promoting open protest, but I hope this series has opened some eyes and/or equipped you to defend your pro-life position. Thank you for reading!

The Abortion Debate (Part 4)

Remember that the abortionists do not want a debate on the sanctity of life, because they know society in general (thankfully) still puts great value to all human life; they would lose. So they borrow from the “gay rights” groups’ playbook and try to steer the discussion toward human rights. But we cannot allow their sneaky tactics to change the venue. The debate is really about what a fetus is. If they can prove that a fetus is NOT human, then clearly a mother’s right trumps any rights it might be otherwise entitled to. But they will avoid that debate at all costs and simply make the implicit or explicit assertion that a fetus is merely a mass of cells, not much different from a tumor.

Trot Out the Toddler

Mr. Klusendorf proposes a very effective approach to putting the focus back on the sanctity of life. He calls it “Trot out the toddler.” When someone argues with you that reason X justifies an abortion, you ask, “If it was a two-year-old, would it still be reasonable to have it killed?”

One common justification for abortion is in the case of rape. No doubt, rape is a heinous crime that violates a woman’s body, her individual rights, and maybe even her very humanity. Her choice was taken from her, and if it results in pregnancy, it might be tempting to redeem some of that lost choice by choosing to abort the unborn child. What’s more, even if she does decide to have the baby, it will serve as a constant reminder of her harrowing ordeal and the man who violated her. Surely, the woman’s mental well-being is enough of a reason here to justify abortion.

So, let’s trot out the toddler. Say, for whatever reason, she carries the baby to term and then realizes that the mental anguish is too much to bear. Is there anyone on this planet who would agree that she has the right to end its life, after it was already born?

The question is not whether it would be illegal, under criminal or civil laws, (it obviously is, in the entire civilized world) but rather if it would be moral and ethical. Remember that most (if not all) laws originate from the lawmakers’ moral and ethical values. The morality debates on issues like abortion and same-sex “marriage” drive the laws of the land.

We will trot out the toddler again, in the next (and last!) post.

The Abortion Debate (Part 3)

Functionality

Aside from merely being alive, many additional requirements are often made, to declare one a human. After all, a liver cell has all the DNA of the full human being, but it is not itself human, nor will it ever be, even if it is perfectly alive and growing. Indeed, there is a cornucopia of criteria we generally use, to declare a lifeform as “human”. Let’s pick four essential characteristics (out of the many), that science believes are unique to humans, and show that there are easily humans that do not have any of these, and yet we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would not call them “human”.

Human beings have (1) distinctive facial features, (2) walk upright, (3) possess a consciousness, and (4) have an intellect far above any other known creature. Now, suppose we see a “person” sleeping in a hospital bed, whose face is severely burned, has had the legs amputated at the waist, and suffers from severe brain damage. And yet, we would still call this person “human”, because he possessed all four required qualities at some time (he will even regain one, consciousness, as soon as he awakes) and still possesses countless other characteristics that unquestioningly categorize him as human. In fact, one may argue that a perfectly healthy fetus is more human than the tragically injured being on that hospital bed.

So, where can you draw the line and say that beyond a certain point, any living thing (even a deformed fetus), whose DNA is decidedly human, is NOT a human being?

Dependence

Many who support abortion argue that an early-term fetus is not human, because it cannot survive outside the womb at all, or would at least require medical support. They argue that since it is dependent on its maternal host, it does not meet the necessary requirement. This argument falls flat on its face rather quickly. Can a newborn survive on its own? It is entirely dependent on others, for its food, warmth, and security. Or what about people on dialysis, oxygen, or insulin? Or those with pacemakers or transplanted organs? Are any of them any less human, for requiring medical assistance, in order to live? To take the argument to its extreme, the entire human race resides in a planetary womb, outside of which we cannot survive, at least not without serious astronaut gear. So you see, we all require favorable environmental conditions (some more than others), in order to thrive.

To be continued...

The Abortion Debate (Part 2)

To show that a fetus is indeed just as human as a newborn or toddler, we can apply several criteria. These arguments are only a summary, but are enough to demonstrate this point, in most casual debates.

Genetics

Genetically, from the very first, single-celled zygote, the fetus possesses the same DNA sequence as it would for the rest of its existence. Furthermore, it is a biological fact that the offspring of species X can only be of the same species. A pair of humans cannot produce a cat, zebra, quail, or anything other than a human being. Therefore, every fetus is genetically a human being.

Size

Humans come in all sizes. Would we ever consider a person “more human” than another, just because he’s bigger than the other? Even more importantly, were you any less human as a newborn, than you are now, as an adult? So if a person’s “degree of humanity” does not scale with size, then it makes no sense to define an arbitrary size threshold, below which we declare a fetus “non-human”. In fact, if we (morbidly) decrease my size by lopping off parts, I retain my humanity, as long as I am still alive. Likewise, a fetus, no matter how undeveloped, is arguably still human, as long there is life in it. Ick… moving on….

By the way, the picture above was taken last month and shows the current Guinness World's Shortest Man (about 2 feet tall), standing next to the World's Tallest Man (about 8 feet tall).

Location

Abortion proponents often argue that as long as the unborn fetus is inside the womb, it is part of the mother’s body and not an independent human being. However, we can make a strong case against this reasoning, by considering whether the location of a given mass (alive or not) affects its fundamental state. A few seconds of thought reveals the fallacy of the “still in the womb” argument. You are no less a human being, wherever you go, as long as you are alive. A paper clip is still a paper clip, no matter where it travels. Of course, if you toss it into molten lava, it will melt, but that’s because something else in that location (not the physical coordinates themselves) acts upon it, to change its state. The mother’s body does nothing harmful to the fetus; quite to the contrary, it provides nourishment and warmth, so that it can grow, as it was meant to.

To add another supportive truth, our courts will try murders of pregnant women as double-homicides. But if just the smaller of the two is killed in a medical facility, it’s called a "choice".

To be continued…

The Abortion Debate (Part 1)

For the past year’s Bible study, we’ve been watching a series of videos from Summit Ministries, on defending our faith and understanding the major types of worldviews that are out there. The series is part of a curriculum that is based on David Noebel’s book: Understanding the Times. I highly recommend it.

As part of this, we recently watched a presentation on abortion, by bio-ethicist Scott Klusendorf. Although abortion is one of the hot-button issues of our age (right up there with same-sex "marriage" and euthanasia), I’ve generally had little interest in thinking and debating about it. In fact, the only time I ever did, was when I got into it with a family member, while my wife was pregnant with our son.

From my understanding, the correct Christian viewpoint should be that life begins at conception, and abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the same as murder. But as defenders of the faith and of the unborn, we should educate ourselves to best defend our position against the “pro-choice” movement.

This is what the goal of this series shall be, and I will borrow a lot of the arguments that Mr. Klusendorf put forth, which all depend on simple logic. Although Scott is a Christian, he feels that logic is much more effective against atheists and lukewarm “Christians”. And I believe he’s right. We serve a logical and reasonable God, who put the universe in motion, to follow certain rules. We need to have confidence that logic and science, even philosophy and psychology, ultimately lead back to Him.

What’s the Real Issue?

Think about the main arguments that the two sides are making. “Pro-lifers” state with vigor that abortion is murder, because a fetus, at any stage, is a human being. “Pro-choice” groups argue that the real issue is a woman’s rights over her own body. In fact, the names “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are very appropriate, when you think about it.

But abortion is NOT a human rights issue. When you analyze the worldviews professed by both sides, it all boils down to one question: “What is the unborn?” Pretty much everyone agrees that human life is sacred and that it’s wrong to ever end it, except maybe in extreme circumstances. People who are against abortion believe that a human fetus is a human being, whose life is just as sacred as yours and mine. Therefore, abortion is tantamount to murder and should be illegal. Abortion supporters, on the other hand, fundamentally believe that either the fetus is not fully human until a certain point in its development, or that a woman’s rights trump that of the fetus.

With Mr. Klusendorf’s help, we will prove that (1) a fetus is human from conception, and that (2) the mother has no ethical right to end its life.

To be continued...

The picture above was taken from a fetal development slideshow at medicinenet.com. It shows a 16-week-old fetus. "The fetus now measures about 4.3 to 4.6 inches and weighs about 2.8 ounces. The baby's eyes can blink and the heart and blood vessels are fully formed. The baby's fingers and toes should have fingerprints."