When President Bush announced in the State of the Union address his support for research on embryonic stem cells that are created without destroying life (by means of a new discovery), Republicans leapt to their feet and applauded.  Most Democrats sat with their hands folded.  Why?

Democrats have been criticizing President Bush for not using federal funds on stem cell research.  So why weren’t they applauding?  Is it because any admission that an embryo is alive hurts their case for abortion?  Back on November 30th, I agreed with others who predicted this would happen.  Click here:  Suppressing the Truth on Stem Cells.

I hate to put it this way, but it think it’s true:  the Democrat party seems more concerned with continuing to allow babies to be killed rather than finding new medical advances to help everyone live.

Last week I was taking questions during an “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” seminar on the campus of Olivet Nazarene University.  One question challenged the legitimacy of Christian Apologetics.  It was half question, half critique and it went something like, “Why are you trying to prove Christianity?  We just need to love one another!”   It sounds like something from the “emergent church” people.  Here is my response:

  1. It’s a false choice– we can and should do both.  We ought to show people why Christianity is true and love them as well.   The two are not mutually exclusive but complementary.  In fact, the Bible tells us to do both, which is my second point . . .
  2. Christian apologetics is commanded.  The greatest commandment contains both:  “Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  And love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22:37).  1 Pet. 3:15 tells us to “always be ready to give an answer but to do this with gentleness and respect.”  Apologetics is not an option for Christians, and we don’t get brownie points for being stupid.  We are commanded to know what we believe and why we believe it.   We are commanded to “demolish arguments” and “take every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
  3. Atheists have their own apologetics.  We’re losing 75% of our young adults from the church partially because they are the victims of atheistic apologetics in college.  Christian apologetics needs to exist if for no other reason than to counter the false arguments that atheists and apologists from other worldviews are making– and they are making those claims aggressively.  CrossExamined.org exists to counter those false claims with the truth.
  4. It works. While some people believe without knowing why, others need evidence before they can believe.  I know several people, myself included, who came to faith through apologetics.
  5. There’s a difference between belief that and belief in.  I am not suggesting that apologetics alone gets someone saved.  But it does provide evidence that Christianity is true so people can put their trust in Christ.  Knowing that Christ is savior is not the same as trusting in him.  Even the demons know that Christ is savior but they don’t put their trust in him (James 2:19).   Yet, both belief that and belief in are necessary.
  6. It equips you to be better ambassador.  Even if you don’t sense a need for apologetics for your own edification, you may need it to edify others.  We are called to be God’s ambassadors to minister to others.  In fact, God makes his appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20).  We can’t answer the questions of others without apologetics.  That’s why Paul tells us to study to show ourselves approved (2 Tim 2:15).
  7. It’s self-defeating to give an apologetic against apologetics.   Why do people give me reasons to stop using reasons?

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council points out in his January 9 email that so-called “hate-crime” laws are having a chilling effect on free speech in Canada (BTW, aren’t all crimes “hate” crimes?).  Mark Steyn is under attack for writing some unflattering things about Islam.  Notice, the issue isn’t whether Mark’s factually correct about what he wrote, but whether he hurt feelings!

The American and Canadian governments have several things in common, including, it appears, the pursuit of radical hate speech laws. As the U.S. braces for another round of hate crimes legislation this spring, our northern neighbors are already engaged in an all-out battle over free speech. The latest victim is popular author and columnist Mark Steyn, who wrote the best-seller America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Although the book was published by an American company, excerpts that later appeared in the Canadian press have become the subject of investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The book, which contrasts Islamic values with those of the West, was considered “a misrepresentation” of the Muslim religion by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). As a result of CIC’s complaint, Steyn finds himself at the center of a controversial debate over the limits of public expression. Using charges of “discrimination” as a means of silencing opposition, the CHRC’s investigation jeopardizes freedom in all of North America. During an interview with The Washington Times, Steyn said, “Offense is in the eye of the beholder. The commissions aren’t weighing facts but hurt feelings.” Ironically, when Christians or conservatives object to similar treatment, they usually find themselves on the losing side of the argument, or worse, completely overlooked. Unfortunately, this is just a preview of things to come if the U.S. House is successful when the battle over new federal hate crimes resumes. As Mark Steyn can attest, nothing less than our first freedoms are at stake.

America needs to understand something before we adopt hate crime laws here– we can either have the right to free speech or the right not to be offended, but we cannot have both.

As the presidential campaign heats up (Obama? Clinton? Guiliani? Edwards? McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Thompson?), the media is likely to show disdain for what they call “one-issue voters.”  The disdain will be for those who are pro-life and will not settle for a candidate who is anything but (of course, if your one issue is to keep abortion legal, the media is just fine with that).

Allow me to offer a clarification.  I don’t think being pro-life automatically qualifies you to be president.  You can be pro-life but be otherwise a disastrous President (for me, Jimmy Carter was that guy).  I just think being pro-abortion disqualifies you to be president.  In other words, being pro-life is a necessary quality for a candidate but it is not a sufficient quality for a candidate.

Are there other necessary qualities or policy positions for a president?  Of course.  For me, character, national security, and defending traditional marriage are also critical.  But why is life one of those necessary policy positions?  Because the right to life is the right to all other rights.  If you don’t have life you don’t have anything.  If a presidental candidate refuses to recognize that helpless unborn children are human beings worthy of protection– a truth that in vitro technology has made undeniable– then that candidate lacks either the judgment, compassion or honesty to hold the highest office in the land.

By this criteria, there are leaders in both parties who disqualify themselves because of their pro-abortion stance.  They include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Guiliani.   In fact, all four of these candidates have either voted for, or stated their support for, even partial-birth abortion–  that’s when a full-term baby is delivered nearly completely from the womb, a hole is drilled in the back of her skull, and her brains are sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.

Appalled?  Why would you vote for someone who isn’t?

Bill Hybels , the unofficial father of the seeker movement in the United States, recently admitted that seeker churches have done a very poor job of making disciples.  This is damning because making disciples is what Jesus commanded us to do!  Why has the seeker movement failed in the church’s central purpose?

I attended a seeker church this past weekend.  As I was sitting there watching the pastor perform his way through his presentation, props, film clips and all, the thought struck me that the seeker church is in many ways a Protestant form of Roman Catholicism (I grew up Roman Catholic and the Roman Catholic church is having the same problem).  I know the connection is not immediately obvious because of the major differences in liturgy, hierarchy and theology.  But there are several significant similarities:

  1. Time:  This won’t take long– 45 minutes to an hour, max.  You can set your watch by these services.  And if the pastor or priest goes just a wee bit longer, the congregation gets restless.
  2. The Bible:  Leave your Bible home– the folks on the stage or altar handle the Bible reading which is normally a mere sprinkling of verses yanked from their context.  Moreover, there is no attempt to teach you how to study the scriptures yourself.
  3. Worship:  Just watch– there is a performance up front.  You’re more of an observer than an active participant in worship.
  4. Message:  It’s groundhog day– you hear the same, short message repackaged every Sunday.  The sermon (or Homily) is to preaching what cotton candy is to nutrition.  Sweet but of little value.
  5. Outcome:  Low commitment and little life change.  A significant portion of Roman Catholics disagree with official church teachings, and Hybels’ own research shows the seeker movement has failed to produce disciples

Now before I get hate mail from my Roman Catholic and Seeker-oriented friends who can cite several exceptions, let me grant that there are exceptions, but they simply prove the rule.  We’ve got to stop defending our church practices if they are not doing what Jesus told us to do.  If you’re not making disciples, you’re not doing church the way Jesus commanded it.  As Jesus warned, we can’t let our traditions nullify the Word of God.

Unfortunately, most other denominations are not doing much better.  We’re loosing 75% of our young people because– instead of making disciples who are in awe of God and devoted to His purposes– a majority of churches from most  denominations are producing shallow narcisists obsessed with themselves and their own happiness.

We fail to realize that what we win them with we win them to.  If we win them with entertainment and low commitment, we win them to entertainment and low commitment.  Charles Spurgeon was way ahead of his time when he implored the church to start “feeding the sheep rather than amusing the goats.”

In disussing Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Sam Donaldson makes the common mistake of confusing religion and morality.  Donaldson seems to think that anyone with traditional moral views (such as Romney and Huckabee) is trying to set up a Christian “theocracy.”   But this is nonsense as pointed out in the post below (“You can’t legislate religion, but you must legislate morality!”).  No major candidate for President wants to impose the Old Testament law on the United States, have the Church run the government, or force U.S. citizens to obey religous rites and practices.  But every candidate for President (including every Democrat) wants to impose certain moral values into law (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape, etc.).   

In fact, all Democrats and some Republicans argue that abortion is a moral right. Rudy Giuliani goes so far as to say that since abortion is a constitutional right, the government ought to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them!  (I wonder if Rudy thinks the government ought to pay for the guns of those who can’t afford them.  After all, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right).  

But I digress.  The main point is that all this talk about theocracy is just plain wrong.  Yes, some candidates are Christians or Mormons, and some may have the religious worldview of an atheist.  But that doesn’t mean that their religious worldview (Christian, Mormon or Atheist) is going to be legislated on the country.   All laws legislate someone’s moral viewpoint, but that’s not the same as establishing a “theocracy.”  If you want to know what a theocracy is like Sam, take a trip to Iran.

If we could find a way to create embryotic stem cell lines without destroying human embryos, advocates of the old ESCR method would immediately embrace such new technology and the ethical debate would end, right?  One would think so– unless careers, money, and justification for abortion are connected to the old method.  Well, that’s exactly what some are predicting will happen.  A new discovery has been made, but advocates of the old method may refuse to embrace it.  Look at this fascinating exchange from Special Report with Brit Hume posted on the STR blog.

The Apostle Paul was right.  People are willing to “suppress the truth” if the truth will get in the way of something they covet (See Romans 1:28-32.).

After reading this proclamation from George Washington and those from subsequent Presidents, we should realize that mention of God by our government is perfectly constitutional (despite what the ACLU says).   Have a blessed thanksgiving everyone!

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

People on both sides of the abortion debate are frustrated with Rudy Giuliani (Giuliani vexes audiences with abortion views).  On one hand, he says he thinks abortion is wrong, but on the other hand, he thinks it should remain legal.  On still a third hand, he’d like to appoint the kind of judges that would likely overturn Roe vs. Wade.  (Why can’t we find– as Harry Truman once said– a one-handed politician?)

Let’s CrossExamine Giuliani’s position(s):

  1. Saying that you are “personally opposed” to abortion but think a woman has a “right to choose” tries to carve out a third alternative that does not and can not exist.  Either the unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no third alternative.  (BTW, this is a fundamental law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.)
  2. Mr. Giuliani is essentially saying that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” as President Clinton once said.  But that’s like saying that slavery should be “safe, legal and rare.” If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, then why should it be legal?  And if it doesn’t take the life of an innocent human being, then why should it be rare?
  3. Giuliani’s position is a logical mess because relativism is false– personal beliefs don’t change the nature of the baby.  A women’s choice (or anyone’s choice for that matter) does not change the status of an unborn child.  Unborn children are human beings regardless of what some people think of them, just like Jews are human beings regardless of what Hitler thought about them (for the scientific evidence regarding the humanity of the unborn see our book Legislating Morality Chapter 10).