Tag Archive for: Culture

Three Signs of the Church’s Spiritual Disorientation

Three Signs of the Church’s Spiritual Disorientation

By Bob Perry

It is a scary thing to be disoriented. At best, it means you’re headed in the wrong direction. But if you’re flying airplanes, it means you have no reference to the ground. You can’t navigate. You may not even know which way is up. In other words, being disoriented is not just an annoyance. It’s dangerous. But there is something even more dangerous than being disoriented — and that is not knowing you’re disoriented. I hate to say this, but I believe many people in the church are becoming spiritually disoriented. And many of them don’t even have a clue.

Let me explain what I mean.

Spatial Disorientation

On the evening of July 16, 1999, John F. Kennedy, Jr. crashed his private airplane into the Atlantic Ocean near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. I remember that night well because I was the First Officer on a Delta Boeing 767 descending into New York’s LaGuardia Airport at exactly the same time.

The visibility over the water that evening was horrible. The haze, humidity, and sun angle combined to turn the sky around us into a giant, yellow-gray blob. There was no horizon. No way to tell which was up. Between us, the Captain and I had nearly 40 years of combined flight experience. Even so, we were uncomfortable. New York air traffic control was allowing airplanes to use visual flight rules. But we insisted on using instrument procedures for our approach and landing.

John Kennedy, Jr. had no business flying in weather conditions like that. He was not an experienced pilot. Sadly, the plane he was flying did have the instrumentation he needed to operate in those kinds of conditions. But Kennedy wasn’t trained to use it. An investigation of the accident revealed the cause. JFK, Jr. had “failed to maintain control of the airplane … as a result of spatial disorientation.”

Unable to Recover

Spatial disorientation occurs when a pilot loses his reference to the ground. With no visible horizon, his inner ear and eyes begin fighting with each other. They give him conflicting signals. He gets the sensation he’s turning when he is actually flying straight. What he sees and feels don’t match. Making the correction that feels right actually exacerbates his problem.

Experienced pilots know how to recognize the symptoms of spatial disorientation. When they do, they are trained to trust their flight instruments. A failure to do so can quickly become a matter of life and death.

Kennedy didn’t understand what was happening to him. Inexperienced pilots rarely do. By the time he realized something was wrong, it was too late. His lack of training doomed him. His attempts to correct the situation only made it worse. Within a matter of seconds, he was plunging toward the ocean in a “death spiral.”

It probably went something like this…

Three Signs of Disorientation

There are three elements of spatial disorientation to be aware of:

  1. You can’t see the ground.
  2. Your sensations lie to you about your alignment with the world. You think everything is fine.
  3. When you realize something is wrong, your attempts to correct things make them worse.

Spiritual Disorientation

I share this story for a very specific reason. I believe that many in the church have become “spiritually disoriented.” They are flying through this life in a way very similar to the way JFK, Jr. was flying over Long Island Sound.

I don’t say this to be provocative. I say it because I have evidence to back it up.

Media research pollster George Barna makes a living studying the beliefs and behaviors of the Christian community. He has published several findings about how evangelical Christians think and act very much like the world around them. He also looks at their actual beliefs and attitudes. The parallels between spatial and spiritual disorientation are fascinating to see…

They Can’t See the Ground

What grounds the Christian worldview? What is our reference point? I submit that it is no different than what grounds reality itself.

The truth.

This is a topic for another discussion that I will engage more completely later. For now, let me say that for thousands of years, thinking humans have seen truth as an objective feature of the world. It is something external to us. We don’t invent it. We discover it. For that reason, truth is as real as the ground we walk on. And truth is what should ground our thinking.

But today, we have come to believe that truth is up to us to decide for ourselves. As one example, George Barna discovered that:

Only 59% of Christians said that there are moral truths that are unchanging, that truth is not relative to the circumstances.

In other words, we have lost sight of what should ground our thinking. We have no firm reference to the truth.

They Think Everything Is Fine

No longer grounded in the truth, most Christians think and act just like the world around them. For example:

At the same time, this little nugget ought to jump out of Barna’s data and grabbed you by the throat:

92% of self-described evangelical Christians view themselves as being “deeply spiritual.”

We think and act pretty much like the world around us. But we overwhelmingly believe ourselves to be “deeply spiritual.” How is that possible?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that society has lured us into redefining what it means to be “spiritual” by dissecting our heads from our hearts. We have let the culture convince us that the heart is the most important thing about us. Feelings and emotions guide us. When those feelings and emotions are positive, we are on the right track. Those who have perfected this search are considered society’s most “spiritual” people.

Their “Corrections” Make Things Worse

Once feelings and emotions replace truth as the most important point of reference, we use them as our primary means of engaging the world. In our efforts to avoid making people feel bad, we dodge the truth. Feelings become more important than reality itself.

Grace abounds, but truth is dying in the streets.

As an example, imagine an anorexic girl who is nothing but skin and bones. When she looks in the mirror, she thinks she is overweight. She diets and purges. Her weight continues to decline.

Would it be loving and kind of us to tell her she’s looking great? Should we encourage her to continue down the path she has chosen? After all, telling her, she looks like death warmed over would certainly hurt her feelings.

Obviously not. We have a duty to tell her the truth, no matter how much it hurts her feelings. Playing along with her delusion would only make things worse. And it wouldn’t be loving. It would be dangerous.

One doesn’t have to think very hard to see the parallels going on in our culture with all forms of sin and rebellion. Yet we have prominent church leaders and spokesmen demanding that we do just that. But a church that avoids the truth by honoring feelings above truth is a church that has lost sight of the meaning of love.

Sometimes the most loving thing we can do is tell someone the truth.

Overcoming Spiritual Disorientation

The culture has infiltrated the church. As a result, the church is becoming more and more spiritually disoriented. Many prominent church leaders deny the core principles of our faith. They promote a disoriented Christianity that allows the culture to critique the church instead of leading a biblical critique of the culture. And too many in the church have accepted what they’re saying.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2JNObfQ

/by
A Clarifying Journey of Intervention, Detox & Recovery

A Clarifying Journey of Intervention, Detox & Recovery

By Terrell Clemmons

Oh, joy, somebody selling something, I thought when my doorbell rang. It was getting dark, so I switched on the porch light before stepping out to a tall, spunky, clipboard-clutching brunette waiting ever so patiently for the homeowner to come to the door. Katie represented an organization that protected consumers from unreasonable utility charges, and she was collecting signatures on two bills pending in our state Senate. An admitted idealist, she was concerned about the “little old lady” who might lose her home if her power bills went up. She was also upset about corporate greed and believed that there was a need for more regulation. She became an activist because she cared about these matters.

I asked her if she had considered whether rising taxes might pose a threat to that little old lady. She answered honestly that she hadn’t. I wondered aloud about the possibility of regulator–regulatee collusion. She hadn’t thought about that either, but she did like the word “collusion.” We talked for something like 20 minutes.

I didn’t sign her petition or donate to the cause. But I did accept her literature and contact information. A quick visit to her organization’s website the next day turned up a job posting for a “Community Organizer Position” with the job description of educating, organizing, and empowering citizens in an exciting, progressive work environment. Applicants could apply for full-time work at $325+/week or part-time at $8/hour with opportunities for bonuses. Benefits included paid holidays, paid vacations, health insurance, and college credit.

I liked Katie. She was bright, confident, and to all appearances genuinely well-meaning. But I couldn’t help but wonder: Was she really an idealistic servant aiding the oppressed? Or was she the hired tool of a duplicitous political organization? She seemed to believe the former. I suspected the latter.

The Paradox of Progressivism

Katie is emblematic of many in her generation. She believes she’s doing good, but from all I could gather, she’s investing her precious young adult years working on the wrong side of progress. In his excellent primer, The KinderGarden of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks, Evan Sayet analyzes the mentality driving the progressive agenda with surgical precision. There are “two kinds of Modern Liberals,” he writes, “the True Believer and his Mindless Foot Soldier.” There’s a difference between them, but, as he continues, “there is absolutely no difference between the two when it comes to the policies they support.” Sayet predicts that the Modern Liberal will at every turn side with the evil over the good, the wrong over the right, the lesser over, the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the vulgar over the refined, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. A quick visit to Katie’s Facebook page showed her to be an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood, along with Occupy Wall Street and a few other groups that fit this prediction to a tee, including one devoted solely to mocking Evangelical Christians.

I didn’t like applying Sayet’s terminology to Katie. To all appearances, she’s anything but mindless. But sadly, she fits the characteristics of the Mindless Foot Soldier. Even more sad, she’s like a lot of people I know, young and old, blithely carrying out, according to Sayet’s model, “the progressive agenda of destroying all that is good, right, and successful [about] Western Civilization.” And all in the name of good intentions. If it seems convoluted, that’s because it is. But what can be done?

Coming Alongside

Dr. Mike Adams, of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, has produced an excellent example of how to go about engaging someone like Katie. Though more often known for biting sarcasm and barbed wit, with Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand, the professor provocateur takes on a markedly softer tone. At the center of the tale is Zach, a composite of countless bright students he’s known who enroll in universities but while there “become increasingly enraged at the world and disgusted with other people. This is unfortunate,” he observes, “because they are getting angry over things that aren’t even true.”

When Zach made a comment in class comparing TV personality Glenn Beck to serial murderer Charles Manson, Dr. Adams could have set the record straight right there on the spot. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he came alongside his student, so to speak, by means of a personal letter. “I haven’t written to scold you,” he starts off. “I don’t have the moral authority to do so. You see, I used to be like you. Let me explain.” Then, after telling Zach something of his personal backstory as a dysfunctional, angry pseudo-intellectual himself, he gets to the point.

Zach, you are so bright and have so much potential that I think it’s a shame you are so angry at such a young age. I also think it’s a shame because I know that so much of your anger stems from misinformation… If you’re interested, I’d be happy to write to you periodically over the summer to share some of what I learned on my journey from being a progressive atheist to becoming a conservative Christian.

Intellectual Detox

Then, over the course of 34 more letters brimming with factual data, watertight logic, common sense, and a generous sprinkling of stories from his own life, the teacher deconstructs for his protégé a plethora of progressive myths. He shows how the Social Security program disproportionately transfers income from the average black working man to his white counterpart, how race-based affirmative action hinders, rather than boosts, black upward mobility, and how campus speech codes, rather than helping the minorities they were enacted to “protect,” simply reinforce stereotypes of them as hypersensitive and emotionally volatile weaklings.

Although he foregoes the barbs, Adams’s wit is alive and well. In a letter called “Government Subsidies and Spousal Abuse,” he picks up on a common experience with a cell phone company. During his fifth visit to the store after four rate changes and four broken promises,

I lost my temper and let loose with something like the following: “You’re not really an Internet provider… You’re more like an abusive spouse. You treat me disrespectfully until I threaten to leave you, and then you promise to make things better. But they only get better for a while because you don’t change. You just lie to me to get me back because you can’t live without me.”

The story is comical because it’s so relatable, but “there is a serious point to be made here,” he continues.

When the government gets involved in trying to solve a problem, it invariably makes things worse. Your cell phone provider—my previous Internet provider—is subsidized by the federal government. For that one reason, and that one reason alone, you are unlikely to ever get good service from them. Because the federal government has built a safety net beneath it, it is not afraid of failing. That is why its employees behave so carelessly towards you… It’s basic human psychology.

Diagnosis: Statolatry

Much of what he relates to Zach is basic, but sadly, decades of progressive education have produced a preponderance of misguided Zachs and Katies, to whom, because they are unschooled in such basics, the government is, and always will be, all-benevolent. This is consistent with the progressive movement which, from the early years of the 20th century, has advanced on the premise that the government can and should solve every social and economic ill—that whatever the need of the day happens to be, the forces of an all-encompassing government should be retooled to meet it. In 1931 Fascist Italy, Pope Pius XI called this tendency “statolatry,” which literally means “worship of the state.” The idea is to look upon the state, rather than God, as the supreme benefactor.

Adams doesn’t use the same term, but he identifies this same inclination in academia. “In the so-called social sciences,” he tells Zach, “everything is a show. It is always a three-act play directed by progressive thinking. In the first act, man is born innocent. In the second act, man is corrupted by ‘society.’ In the third act, the progressive saves him.”

What has happened, in a century-long sleight of hand lost on most of us, is that the proper functions of politics and religion have been reversed. So today, having marginalized traditional religion, we find ourselves trying to achieve religious ends through political means. Witness Katie, for example, loving her (anonymous little old lady) neighbor via (paid) political activism, as if community organizing at $8/hour really qualifies as loving your neighbor.

But the thirsts of our souls will never be slaked by drinking from the fount of the fed. The state is ill-suited to fill the role of benefactor, and it is wholly incapable of ever being anyone’s savior. It’s no wonder so many activists are angry. They’re serving a false god, and false gods inevitably become cruel masters.

Recovery & Commission

Adams does a masterly job of unraveling the whole progressive ruse for Zach. Certainly, he educates Zach, causing him to reconsider his political views. Along the way, he also supplies him with bulletproof responses to some of the boilerplate invective progressive ideologues are sure to hurl at a defector. But more important, Adams draws the connection between one’s political affiliations and his underlying personal stance toward God, causing Zach to reconsider his commitment to his Maker. And gently, he points Zach back to the teachings of his upbringing.

What you learned in your father’s house might not be as enticing as some of the ideas you encounter in college. Indeed, the truth can sometimes seem like a rigid set of punitive commandments, but in reality, it is nothing less than a gift from God. It is His way of telling you what you really desire so that you can live a life that is worth living.

Helping Zach live a life worth living is the goal. “What I am asking you to do at this point is to take a definite stand on the side of the good, right, and true and against the ugliness that’s so apparent in some of the politics on our campus.” You’re ready for it, Adams seems to say, as Zach prepares to graduate. He has prepared his son in the faith for the fight worth having. I think I sense a gleam in his eye when he tells Zach, “I want you to become a lightning rod for the truth.”

As for me, I’ve learned a thing or two from reading over Dr. Adams’s shoulder. So if you’ll excuse me, I have a letter to write.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2XJcvlG

/by
Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

,

By Wintery Knight

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned.” And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.

The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.

There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:

I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.

However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:

Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.

On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.

The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.

I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter has censored voices critical of their allies in the Democrat Party. Remember when they refused to allow a pro-life election ad from (now Senator) Marsha Blackburn? Or when they censored pro-life ads from the well-known pro-life Susan B. Anthony List group? Or when they said that death threats against conservative Dana Loesch were permissible? They also allowed threats of violence to be made against the pro-life Covington students. They also blocked pro-life ads from Live Action. Basically, they censor anything that makes their pro-abortion allies in the Democrat Party look bad.

I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IbAy8l

/by
If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today

If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today?

,

By Natasha Crain

Christianity Today recently featured an article titled, “The Biggest Hindrance to Your Kids’ Faith Isn’t Doubt. It’s Silence.”

The article summarized the findings of researchers Kara Powell and Steven Argue on the faith of youth group graduates. They found that:

  • 70 percent of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about faith.
  • Less than half of those with doubt shared their struggle with an adult or friend.
  • Opportunities to express and explore doubts were correlated with greater faith maturity.

Powell and Argue concluded that, “It’s not doubt that’s toxic to faith; it’s silence.” They go on to explain how important it is for parents to regularly have conversations about faith with their kids, and I couldn’t agree more.

I saw this article shared a lot on social media, with people rightly encouraging one another to have more faith conversations with their kids. But each time I saw it, an underlying question glared at me:

If Christianity is true, why is there so much doubt to be addressed in the first place?

Quite frankly, if I were a skeptic, that’s the question I would be asking after reading this research.

Skeptics often claim that Christians believe what we do in the face of serious cognitive dissonance; that is, they say we have to hold contradictory beliefs in tension because the evidence is against us. This article at least seemed to support the idea that if there is so much doubt, it should make us think twice about the validity of our views.

I’m always happy to think twice, so let’s do it. This is such an important subject for parents to understand today, but I rarely see it addressed.

Why So Much Doubt?

People throughout history have had questions and doubts about their beliefs, and that includes Christians. Christians have long grappled with big theological issues like the problem of pain and suffering, the morality of hell, and why God is seemingly so hidden. These things have led many thoughtful people—adults and kids alike—to have doubts.

But I believe much of the doubt we see today among youth and young adults is very different in nature. It’s doubt that is specifically a product ofcultural factors—not doubt that has arisen after a deep grappling with theology.

Here are five key factors I see.

  1. Kids today have the expectation that knowledge requires absolute certainty.

A dad emailed me recently because he had started to work through my book, Talking with Your Kids about God, with his skeptical 9-year-old daughter. After reading the chapters on the evidence for God’s existence, he said his daughter concluded there’s no certainty in her belief in God, and the discouraged dad promptly put the book away. He felt that I wasn’t forceful enough in my presentation and that, as a parent, he needs to be a more authoritative instructor to share what he knows “with absolute certainty.”

This dad’s revised approach is a tragic conclusion that falls prey to the same common error his daughter made: believing “absolute certainty” is both possible and necessary when it comes to a person’s worldview. This is often the assumption of kids who are analytically-minded, and it’s reinforced by some popular misunderstandings of the role of science today.

As a matter of definition, “absolute certainty” is something reserved for mathematics and logic. Even science—often heralded today as the way of knowing what’s true—does not provide “certain” conclusions. As (atheist) philosopher Walter Kaufmann put it, “What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence.” There is almost nothing we are “absolutely certain” about in life. If that’s what our kids believe the standard is for evaluating the evidence for the truth of Christianity (or any worldview), they have a dangerous misunderstanding. They’ll have a standard of proof that we don’t use for anything else in our daily lives and our bound to conclude they have too many doubts to believe in God just because uncertainties exist.

This dad’s “authoritative” doubling down on teaching with absolute certainty will likely only serve to push his daughter further away from God because he is setting her up to accept his conviction of certainty rather than help her evaluate the evidence herself. Had I concluded in my chapters that the evidence in nature points to God with absolute certainty, as I think the dad wanted, I would have mischaracterized the nature of evidence. That helps no one, but rather sets kids up to have unreasonable expectations.

Remember: Biblical faith is trusting in what you have good reason—evidence—to believe is true. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” The reason we can have confidence and assurance in our beliefs is because of the strong evidence God has given us for their truth.

  1. Today’s culture validates feelings as objective truth.

At the other end of the spectrum, many kids today completely throw out the idea of evidence and buy into the secular narrative that our feelingsdetermine truth.

If you feel you’ve been wronged, you’ve been wronged.

If you feel something isn’t true, it isn’t true.

If you feel you should have the right to do something, you should.

So what happens if I don’t feel anything during prayer? Or I don’t feel like God was loving enough for my personal standards in the Old Testament? Or I don’t feel like God’s moral commands are fair? Or I don’t feel hell is reasonable?

I then feel the Bible must not be true—without ever looking at the evidence.

Kids who haven’t been shown the weakness of feelings as the arbiter of truth may apply the “feelings test” to their faith and end up struggling with doubt because they haven’t learned to think more deeply about these questions.

  1. When you’re in an ideological minority, it’s human nature to question your views.

Last year, new research showed that committed Christians are now a minority. (I wrote a post about the implications of that for parents here.) When you believe something that is vastly different than what the majority believes, it’s simply natural to question it. Questioning, to some degree, is a function of which side of the numbers you’re on. Though the number of people who hold a worldview doesn’t have any bearing on what’s actually true, it’s human nature to give weight to what more people believe.

Those who hold majority views sometimes don’t question enough, while those who hold minority views sometimes question more than what may be warranted.

  1. The secular viewpoint is quickly becoming the only viewpoint taught in public schools.

This is related to the previous point because the primary place many kids experience the feeling of being in an ideological minority is in the public school system.

Every day, millions of kids head to school, only to be taught a worldview that is directly in conflict with that of Christianity. The breadth of that conflict is rapidly growing as states like California make sweeping revisions to curricula that affirms unbiblical views as the only acceptable views in multiple subject areas. Many people are championing the changes as being inclusive and diverse, but do not be fooled: There is only one view being taught, and it’s not the one held by millions of Christians. Sean McDowell recently wrote an excellent piece on this here. I encourage every parent to read it (not just Californians).

When we send kids to school for an education, they assume they should trust their teachers as authorities. We shouldn’t be surprised when their “authoritative” secular curriculum causes them to doubt what they learn at home.

[Please note that this is not to suggest that all Christians should pull their kids out of public school. There are many factors that go into educational decisions and I don’t believe one solution fits everyone.]

  1. Our culture raises questions about the religious worldview while ignoring the questions raised by a secular worldview.

Having read the many studies done on kids abandoning a belief in God, I’m fully convinced that they’re only thinking through the reasons they’re walking away from Christianity but not the reasons they’re walking toward atheism.

You see, it’s not just a Christian worldview that leaves questions unanswered. There is room for doubt in every worldview because no worldview answers every question. This is why I spent the last six chapters in Talking with Your Kids about God explaining the logical implications of an atheistic worldview, and how that compares with a Christian worldview. I show, for example, that in an atheistic world:

  • There can be no objective meaning of life;
  • There is little reason to believe free will (in any meaningful sense) is possible;
  • There can be no moral obligation to live in or treat others in any particular way; and
  • There can be no “right” or “wrong” in any objective sense (everything can only be a matter of personal opinion because there’s no higher-than-human moral authority).

All of these things are granted by many atheist philosophers—this isn’t my personal “criticism” of an atheistic worldview; it’s the logical outworking of the implications of a godless world.

An honest person should rightly have doubts about a worldview that implies these conclusions.

They go against our most basic intuitions.

But the secular world only questions the religious worldview. Popular culture rarely raises the questions inherent in atheism. This leads kids to a false sense that doubt is specific to religion, or that doubt in itself is a cognitive warning of falsehood. It’s not. When we’re honest, doubt is part of being human. It’s part of how we process the world.

It shouldn’t surprise us at all that so many kids doubt Christianity today, given these and other cultural factors.

It just means we, as parents, undoubtedly have work to do.

If you’re interested in the subject of doubt, I highly recommend Bobby Conway’s book “Doubting Toward Faith” and Travis Dickinson’s blog, where he writes often on these subjects.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O2W7cp

/by
What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children’s lives, your grandchildren’s lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the “pro-choice” position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the “pro-life” position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child.

The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Is Abortion a Matter of Opinion?

I take the position of being pro-life. I do not hold this position to be merely my opinion that is only “true for me;” I hold this position to be objectively true, whether anyone believes it or not, and that it applies to all people in all cultures at all times. Not only is this a matter of fact position; I have the evidence to establish that this position accurately reflects reality and should be held by others as well.

In my discussions with pro-choice advocates, they will present any and every way they think may get them past the pro-life conclusion. Many of them believe that they can choose (true to their label) any number of ways to escape the pro-life position. Do they succeed? I believe they do, but it comes at a steep price. Today I want to present four options that the pro-choice advocate has to choose from in their effort to maintain their position in opposition to mine (the pro-life position), but I wish to also show that the cost is too high for any of the options to be reasonable or desirable.

Faithful Thinkers

Examining the Pro-Life Argument

To see what these options are, let us examine the pro-life argument:
If the unborn are human and if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human, then it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (abortion).
There are three components to this argument that may be attacked by the pro-choice advocate. If one or more of those components are successfully defeated, then the conclusion fails. These three components are addressed throughout the book “The Case for Life” by Scott Klusendorf, but here is a video that gives an overview:

Simply stated, the unborn are human (component #1 is established by science), and it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human (most people agree with component #2 and evidence it in numerous ways), thus it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (the conclusion). This is a valid, logical argument (component #3- modus ponens).

The Options

If the pro-choice advocate wishes to deny its conclusion (“it is immoral to take the life of the unborn”), then he/she must deny that the unborn are human (which would be anti-science), deny that murder is immoral (which would be anti-human), or deny the validity of the argument (which would be illogical). The pro-choice advocate, indeed, has multiple options to choose from in their support of abortion:
A. Be immoral (accept the conclusion)

  1. Be anti-science (deny unborn are human)
  2. Be anti-human (deny immorality of murder)
  3. Be illogical (deny logic and reason)

Every one of those options denies some feature of the world we live in; they violate the reality we all experience. The first violates what we know to be objectively good. The second violates nature. The third violates humanity. And the fourth violates logic.

Of course, none of those options is mutually exclusive (more than one can be chosen), but is any combination of those options really desirable?
I mean, who wants to be immoral? Who wants to be anti-science? Who wants to be anti-human? Who wants to be illogical? And who wants to be more than one of those, much less all four? The reality is that no one really wants to be any of those.

Avoiding The Options?

In an effort to ignore this argument and avoid those options, many abortion advocates will raise emotionally charged issues like financial hardships, career and life ambitions, future potential suffering of the child, the mother’s bodily autonomy, rape, incest, and many others. However, unless what they appeal to can successfully undermine the humanity of the unborn, the immorality of murder, or the validity of logic, the conclusion stands, and the abortion advocate is still stuck with at least one of the undesirable options. Some pro-choice advocates even appeal to the health of the mother to avoid these options; however, when further investigated we find that the conditions they say necessarily “medically indicate” abortion have alternatives (see this thorough analysis of this challenge by Clinton Wilcox of the Life Training Institute: “Are Late-Term Abortions Ever Medically Indicated?“)

For The Love of Truth, Is there Another Option?!

The emotional, financial, and physical difficulties, pain and other challenges are enormous, yet as we contemplate the intellectual and moral sacrifices that must be made, a struggle ensues between the head and the heart. This struggle is not to minimize, invalidate, or deny the difficulties, pain, challenges of these issues; rather it is to recognize the reality of those and the denials of reality that they push us towards. Perhaps abortion is not the only solution and remedy to the difficulties, pain and challenges. As we engage in this struggle, another option that can reconcile the head and the heart, reality and our challenges, does seem to emerge:

  1. None of the above (Be Pro-Life)

True to Reality

Being pro-life is the only moral, pro-science, pro-human, and logical option available. Further, the pro-life position, contrary to the pro-choice position, is the only option that preserves the right of the little woman in the womb to make her own choices and exercise her own bodily autonomy in her life. This is precisely what the pro-choice position aims to do but ironically fails to accomplish every time an abortion is executed. The pro-choice position cannot avoid violating the right to choose of the women in the womb.

Many pro-choice advocates will accuse pro-life advocates at this point of being “anti-woman.” However, I must ask this question: if limiting the liberty of a woman is “anti-woman,” then what is killing a woman before she even has a chance to taste liberty?

The pro-choice position is self-defeating and self-destructs no matter which direction its advocates attempt to argue and no matter which of the previous options is chosen.

True to the Real Challenges

No one has ever claimed that choosing life is easy. In fact, it can be down-right difficult emotionally, financially, and physically. Being on the side of truth is rarely easy. False views must be easier, relatively speaking, than the true view; otherwise, they have no appeal. Those who value truth over increased difficulty and are willing to deal with increased difficulty for the sake of truth have a daunting task on their hands when the difficult situations arise regarding pregnancy and an uncertain future for both parents and child.

For those who are pregnant and are willing to accept difficulty for the sake of truth, numerous options exist to help with the various difficulties that will arise. I go through just a few of them in my post “Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion.” I encourage you to investigate the options and choose which ones best fit your needs and goals. Talk with friends and family, who also value truth, so that they can help share the burdens and carry you through.
For those who have had an abortion and feel the weight of what has happened (whether chosen or coerced), there is healing, there is forgiveness, and there is redemption. I highlighted the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” in a recent post because of their ministry to post-abortive mothers and families.

They, themselves, have been wounded by abortion and have become “wounded healers” for you. As emphasized by this ministry, the only hope offered through healing, forgiveness, and redemption for the post-abortive mother is obtainable because of the most important event in the history of the world: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. From the words of the Apostle Paul:

Faithful Thinkers 1

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, there is no forgiveness for any sin, including abortion, and there is no healing from it. The Apostle Paul had committed murder before he met the risen Jesus, yet Paul was granted forgiveness for his sin by Christ. Jesus’ resurrection, as with the pro-life position discussed throughout this post, is not a matter of opinion; this historical event has been established as a real event through the evidence (see “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” by Gary Habermas). Because of the evidence, you can be confident that Jesus’ Resurrection, and the promises of forgiveness, redemption, and healing are not mere platitudes to give false hope but that they are real and are offered to you by the Creator of life, Himself.

Conclusion- Pro-Life Eternally

No matter where you are, if you were once pro-choice but have now chosen to take the pro-life position, it not only leads to truth and life for the unborn, it leads you to the Giver of Life and eternal Life through Jesus Christ. It is pro-Life to the fullest extent.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2V51JoT

/by
Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

,

By Brian Chilton

While I am intentionally not one of the political voices of the day, I do find that many times politics crosses over into theology and vice versa. One of the more troubling news I have read is that states like New York and Virginia have either passed or considered passing legislation to permit a baby to be aborted even if it is the day of the child’s birth. I have always been a pro-life advocate. Proponents for abortion have noted that the practice should be allowed in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the child is a product of rape. However, it is extremely difficult to imagine how even the best of Planned Parenthood’s apologists could defend the blatant murder of a child on the day of its birth.

The core root behind this issue is a theological one. Where does a person find purpose in life? The reality is that without God there is no purpose. If God does not exist, then everything is nothing more than a cosmic accident. This extreme version of abortion shows deep-rooted purposelessness in those who advocate such practices and the ones who participate in such murder in three ways.

  1. Purposelessness in the Theology of Life. If there is no God, then life has no purpose. For one to uphold extreme partial-birth abortion, one must think that the child’s life has no value. Some will claim that the child is nothing more than a clump of cells. This is far more difficult to defend when a child has reached the point of birth. However, for the one who accepts a fair rendering of the atheistic worldview, no life ultimately finds any meaning. Your life doesn’t matter. My life doesn’t matter. No life matters. Atheism leads to bad ends when it comes to upholding the value of life. However, if God does exist, then every life matters, including the child in the womb.
  2. Purposelessness in the Theology of Ethics. I am not a professional political analyst… and I don’t even play one on television. However, it doesn’t take a professional political analyst to know that something is driving this push for abortion. If I were to take a guess, I would say that money is the driving force behind the legislation. How ethical is it to kill an innocent child for the sake of financial security? How ethical is it to sacrifice children for the sake of research? The answer depends on your theological underpinning. If God exists, then everything has a purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then nothing does. Thus, everything is left as a free for all in a godless universe. Even legislature itself loses meaning. Why obey the law of the land if nothing matters? Yet, if God does exist, our lives not only hold great purpose but how we treat one another has immense value especially if God is a loving Being as noted by the apostle John (1 Jn. 4:16).
  3. Purposelessness in the Theology of God. This final point may seem a bit redundant especially since purpose and value demand God’s existence. The point here is that devaluing life’s value comes from a rebellion against God. Atheists like Richard Dawkins claim that they do not have a problem with intelligent design, just the concept of God (see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Why is that? Most likely, the problem is with the thought that we are not the owners of our own domain. We desire freedom to the point that we do not want anyone or anything overseeing us. Human beings do not like the idea that there might be Someone greater than ourselves who will ultimately hold us accountable even if that Someone is a loving Being. Arguments such as, “My body, my decision,” illustrates an inherent desire to be the sole master and commander of one’s body. Yet, if there is a God, then each of us will be held accountable for what we do (Rm. 14:12) which is unsettling for some.

My life, my ministry, and my writings are devoted to providing a defense for the existence of God and for the authenticity of the Christian faith. If I am wrong, then it doesn’t really matter because nothing matters. If I am wrong, then abortion isn’t wrong because nothing is wrong or right. But if I and my Christian apologist colleagues are right, then God does exist, Christ is the Savior, life has value, and abortion is the unjustified murder of innocent children. Not only does each person’s life matter in a world governed by God, but the lives of each child in his or her mother’s womb also holds substantial value as well. The abortion problem is not a political issue, it is a deeply rooted theological one.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TR0wBk

/by
What the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Means for Christian Parents

What the Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Means for Christian Parents

,

By Natasha Crain

I was tempted to not write anything at all about the same-sex marriage ruling.

So much has been written on this in the last week that I don’t see how one more person’s take could possibly be valuable [Note: this post first appeared in 2015, but it’s evergreen…. keep reading!].

And, valuable or not, no matter what I say, I won’t be fired up enough for some people and I’ll be too fired up for others.

But then I started getting messages from people asking how parents should respond; what they should tell their kids; what it means for the future. I realized that to not comment would be sheepish avoidance of a topic that’s important right now to so many readers of this blog.

So, for those who would like to know what I think the same-sex marriage ruling means for Christian parents, I humbly offer these thoughts.

Getting Back to Basics

I have many wonderful memories of lake fishing when I was a kid. I loved sitting on the shore watching my big red cork out on the water, anxiously awaiting the moment when it would suddenly plunge under—a sign that a fish had grabbed the bait.

But the cork can also go under if the hook suddenly gets stuck on an underwater rock. When that happens, you end up reeling in weeds instead of a fish. As a kid, that was horribly disheartening. I remember crying to my grandpa one day, “BUT THE CORK WENT UNDER! That means there should be a fish!”

He patiently explained that the cork only suggests what is going on below the water, but you can’t count on it. You have to reel in the line to see what the cork is actually tethered to: the desired fish or a pile of weeds. Ultimately, that’s what mattered… not that the cork made you think there was a fish.

Our kids’ view of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is a lot like this. There are a lot of parents really concerned right now about how to manage the cork—their kids’ view on these questions—but still not thinking deeply about how to ensure the cork is actually tethered to the right thing—a robust understanding of their faith.

How do I know that? Research shows that fewer than 1 in 10 families read the Bible or pray together outside of meal times in a given week and that only 12% of kids have regular conversations about faith with their mom.

Maybe if I flip those statistics around, you’ll feel the greater force of it: About 90% of Christian parents are not even studying the Bible with their kids, praying with them outside of meal times, or having conversations about faith.

Does it really matter what your kids think about same-sex marriage if you’re not putting in the work to tether that view to a deep understanding of their faith? How effective can you be in discussing individual issues if your kids don’t have a strong worldview foundation to guide that thinking?

My honest answer to the question, “What does the same-sex marriage ruling mean for parents?” is this: It’s just another wake-up call that Christian parents need to get “back to basics” if they want their kids to have a lasting faith in a challenging secular world.

What Are the Basics?

By “basics,” I don’t just mean the things that kids learn by default after a few Sunday school exposures—that God exists, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, and the Bible is God’s word.

Those are just a bunch of assertions.

When you live in a world that is hostile to your assertions, the “basics” have to start looking very different. The basics now have to include (1) the evidence for your assertions, and (2) a deep understanding of why those assertions even matter (application).

Here are the six basics I believe every parent today should be working on with their kids.

  1. There is a good reason to believe God exists (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “There’s no evidence for God!” would your kids (1) know that strong evidence (outside the Bible) does exist, (2) understand that evidence, and (3) be able to articulate that evidence? (For example, see my posts on three of the most significant arguments for God’s existence: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the moral argument.)

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Lee Strobel’s The Case For A Creator is a great introduction. There’s even a kids’ version. Get both and study together.

  1. If God exists, that matters (application).

Many people believe God exists but don’t have a deep understanding of why that fundamentally matters to our view of the world.

Here’s the thing. If a moral law-giving God exists, He is the objective standard of morality. The existence of divine laws means it’s possible to break them—to sin. That means our actions can be right or wrong, regardless of our personal opinions.

If God does not exist, there are no objective standards of morality (no divine law-giver). With no moral laws to break, sin is a meaningless concept. Nothing can be absolutely right or wrong, and everything is a matter of personal opinion.

The question of whether or not sin is a real concept is the foundational divider on moral issues, and at its most basic level, it’s a question of whether or not God exists. If a moral law-giving God exists, it matters tremendously, as sin becomes real, and sin becomes a problem that must be dealt with.

  1. There is a good reason to believe Jesus was resurrected (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “There’s no evidence that Jesus ever lived, and even if he did, science conclusively shows he could not have come back to life. In addition, it’s clear the resurrection was just a story copied from pagan myths?” would your kids be able to respond?

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Read The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona to understand the historical evidence for the resurrection and discuss with your kids. Here is an article on the evidence for Jesus’ existence, and here is everything you need to know about pagan copycat claims.

  1. If Jesus was resurrected, that matters (application).

First Corinthians 15:14 says that if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain. It all comes down to that. Throw it all away if the resurrection didn’t actually happen. If it did, it confirmed that Jesus was God, and that means we need to hang on His every word and those words must define our lives (see number 5 for why we should trust the Bible as a reliable record of what He said).

In other words, if our creator actually lived on Earth, it should automatically be the most important thing in our lives to know Him and live for Him. I went to church every week growing up and believed that Jesus was resurrected, but really couldn’t have told you why that mattered to my life so much. Don’t take it for granted that your kids get this. Understanding why the resurrection matters changes everything.

  1. There is a good reason to believe the Bible is God’s word (evidence).

If someone said to your kids tomorrow, “The Bible is a book of fairy tales written by ancient people who didn’t know how else to explain their world…” would your kids be able to confidently explain why there is a good reason to believe it’s actually the reliable word of God?

If not, do you want to start working on that this week? Read Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace as a starting point to learn about the reliability of the Gospels specifically.

  1. If the Bible is God’s word, that matters (application).

If I had to name a single takeaway I’ve had from watching the online comments from the week, it would be this: Many Christians and nonbelievers have a profoundly limited understanding of the Bible.

I’m not a Bible scholar and have much to learn, but there are some basic things every Christian should know.

For example, how many times have you seen someone comment this week, “But God loves EVERYONE!”? (usually with 48 exclamation points and even more caps for emphasis). Of course God loves everyone. No one (except crazy fringe groups like Westboro Baptist) is saying otherwise. However, it’s really Bible 101 to understand that God loves everyone but hates sin…and that the Bible identifies what sins there are.

Or how about the nonbelievers posting verses from the Old Testament that only applied to the theocracy of Israel and asking why Christians don’t follow those laws (as if that’s a big “gotcha”)?

Or how about Christians saying “who are we to judge others?” Christians are to judge! (If you’re unclear about what the Bible says on judging others, here is a brief article.)

If the Bible is God’s word, it’s really, really important that kids know how to study and use it appropriately.

But how is that possible if 90% of Christian parents don’t study the Bible with their kids on a regular basis? What good does it do to point out verses on various aspects of morality if your kids have no passionate conviction that the Bible is actually God’s word?

In my opinion, those are the basics. Does it look like a lot? No one ever said basics are easy. They’re just fundamental.

But What About Same-Sex Marriage?

This post is not meant to trivialize the need to discuss same-sex marriage with your kids. It’s a big deal and has the potential to fundamentally change the social structure. It is something to discuss with your kids.

But how our kids develop their views on any question of morality—premarital sex, adultery, pornography, or anything else—should be the outcome of what is already a deeply held Christian worldview. 

How you should talk to your kids about same sex-marriage is really no different than how you should be talking to them about any other moral issue…

There is a good reason to believe God exists.

If God exists, that matters.

There is a good reason to believe Jesus was resurrected.

If Jesus was resurrected, that matters.

There is a good reason to believe the Bible is God’s word.

If the Bible is God’s word, that matters.

 …And here’s what the Bible says about (x, y, and z).

…And here’s where our society (legally and/or culturally) differs with the biblical worldview.

If you’re jumping straight to what the Bible says on something—without having done the foundational work of the basics above—you’re managing the cork without caring if there’s actually a fish underneath.

Imagine how much our world would change if every Christian had a deep understanding of these “basics” and could engage nonbelievers at the foundational worldview level, rather than one cork issue at a time.

It can.

It starts with you: The parents raising the next generation.

May we all help our kids become true fishers of men.

What conversations have you had with your kids about the ruling? What struggles do you have in addressing it?

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GfBmJw

/by
Abortion and The God Molech

Abortion and The God Molech

By Ryan Leasure

History is filled with barbaric cultures. One of the worst, though, has to be the ancient Canaanites. As was customary in that culture, parents offered their newborn children as sacrifices to their god Molech. Most depictions of Molech include large metal statues of a man with a bull’s head. Usually these statues had outstretched arms to hold the baby sacrifices.

During the sacrificial process, the Canaanites would light a fire inside or around the statue to heat up the statue as hot as they could. Then they would place their newborns into the red-hot arms of Molech and watch the children sizzle to death.

During this gruesome event, the Canaanites would play flutes and bang on drums to drown out the sound of their shrieking children. It’s truly awful stuff. No wonder God ordered the Israelites to destroy them.

Molech in The Bible

The Bible mentions Molech or at least references him about ten times. Here are a couple examples:

“Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molech is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him.” — Leviticus 20:2

“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded — nor did it enter my mind — that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” — Jeremiah 32:35

You might wonder why the Israelites would be tempted to sacrifice their children to Molech. As was the case with other ancient gods, Molech offered them some kind of benefit in exchange for their devotion. By offering up their children to be burned on the golden statue, the Canaanites believed Molech would cause them and their future children to prosper.

Our Molech Today

I don’t know a single person who hears about the horrors of Molech and doesn’t cringe at the gruesomeness. Brutally murdering babies in the name of Molech for future benefits is evil in the truest sense of the word.

Yet, at the same time, a large number of people today believe this ancient practice would be fine, so long as the baby was still in the womb. Just yesterday, New York legislators passed a law that allows for abortions up until birth. After the vote, this video circulated the internet showing hundreds of people cheering loudly in favor of this decision. It’s honestly one of the most disgusting scenes I’ve ever witnessed.

What kind of sick and twisted mind does one have to have to applaud the killing of unborn babies? These are babies after all. As I watched the video, I couldn’t help but think about the loud drums drowning out the babies’ screams.

“It’s Not as Bad as You Say It Is”

Since this new law allows women to abort their babies right before they go into labor, a woman can literally kill her baby one day and have people cheer for her, but if she kills her baby less than twenty-four hours later when it’s made it outside her womb, she’ll go to prison. It’s mind-blowing.

And let’s not pretend like the babies don’t feel a thing either. More studies than I can count demonstrate that babies at a very early stage can feel pain, not to mention taste food, hiccup, smile, dream, kick, and bond with their mother. So, when the abortion “doctor” injects the baby’s head with poison, know for sure the baby feels it and dies a horrifying death.

But they say, the law doesn’t allow for “any old abortion.” After all, the law says that only if the woman’s “life and health” are in jeopardy may she have an abortion up until birth.

The problem with this is that “health” could qualify for almost anything. It could mean physical health, but it could also mean psychological, mental, or financial health. In other words, it’s so vague that someone could get a late-term abortion for almost any reason. All the woman needs to say is that the baby would cause too much stress in her life because of added financial responsibilities, and she’s got her ticket to an abortion. Plain and simple.

Unborn Babies in The Old Testament

Though anyone with a first-grade knowledge of biology can see that a newborn and a full-term baby are scientifically the same, Christians have extra motivation to reject abortion because of Scripture’s clear teaching on the issue. Take Exodus 21:22-25 for example:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In short, no one should ever harm an unborn baby. If they do, the law calls for a strict penalty (life for life, eye for eye, etc.).

It’s interesting to note, that according to Old Testament law, accidentally killing someone did not result in “life for life.” Instead, accidental killers were sent to a city of refuge to stay away from the rest of the population (Num. 35:9-15). Meaning, God had an even stricter warning for accidentally killing unborn babies than people outside the womb.

Are you following the logic? If God had strict warnings against accidentally killing unborn babies, he must despise the fact that we kill them intentionally and then celebrate it to boot. So, when the mayor of New York lit up the World Trade Center in pink to celebrate more murder, we can rest assured that God doesn’t take it kindly. I mean, if that’s not a symbolic middle finger to God, I don’t know what is.

The Unborn Jesus

The birth of Jesus is a familiar one. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary and says that she’s going to conceive and give birth to a son. During her pregnancy, she visits her sister Elizabeth who was also pregnant at the time. Luke 1:41-44 reports:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice, she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

First, we notice that the text refers to the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb as a baby (Greek, brephos). It’s the same Greek word used to describe children outside the womb (Lk. 18:15). And we see that this same baby was already able to recognize Jesus’ presence. In other words, he’s not just a lump of tissue.

Furthermore, Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, recognizes that Mary is the “mother of my Lord.” That is, she recognized Mary’s status as a mother despite the fact that Jesus was still in the womb.

While commenting on this text, Christian ethicist John Jefferson Davis writes:

The significant point is that God chose to begin the process of incarnation [in the womb], rather than at some other point, thus affirming the significance of that starting point for human life.1

Davis makes a good point. Since Jesus’ birth was miraculous, God could have chosen to start Jesus’ life at any point. He could have dropped him down from the sky and left him at someone’s doorstep. But instead, God chose to begin Jesus’ life in Mary’s womb demonstrating the value of unborn babies. I think we can all be glad that Mary didn’t have an abortion.

The Irony of Abortion

To date, Americans have slaughtered millions upon millions of unborn babies. Think about all those little innocent, vulnerable people, killed before they were even given a chance. And at the same time, we judge other nations for their less than humane practices. Who are we to talk?

But the greatest amount of irony is that every person in favor of abortion made it out of the womb alive. Every. Single. One. I dare say, they’re all grateful too.

Abortion and The God Molech

Truth is, we aren’t any better than the ancient Canaanites. Instead of sacrificing our children to the god Molech in exchange for future prosperity, we sacrifice our children in exchange for better career paths, financial security, and convenience.

While abortion apologists try to sanitize abortion by using terms like “tissue” instead of “baby” or “end the pregnancy” instead of “killing,” there’s no denying what’s going on when we inject poison into babies’ heads. We’re brutally murdering them. And we’ve done it millions of times. Lord, have mercy on us.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RrBrea

/by
Why Premium Sex Is Your Best Bet for Relational Success

Why Premium Sex Is Your Best Bet for Relational Success

By Terrell Clemmons

Last December, television talk-show host Meredith Vieira invited relationship expert Siggy Flicker onto her show as part of her “Ultimate Relationship Gift Guide,” to help her female audience answer the big holiday question, “What do I get him?” “It should be about ‘from the heart’ and it should be a thoughtful thing,” Siggy said right off the bat. So, what was the recommended from-the-heart, thoughtful thing for the relationship of a few weeks to three months in? “You’re starting to get to know each other… I always say, lingerie, pajamas—or, I love Hanky Panky underwear,” she said, holding up a pair of black and red g-string panties.

“But wait,” Meredith feigned objection, “that’s a suggestive thing, isn’t it?”

“Ya know, in the beginning of a relationship, what are you doing a lot of?” Siggy shot back, still holding up the panties. “You’re getting to know each other!” she semi-barked in a New Jersey beat. Like, Who hasn’t gotten the memo that morals are just, so… passé?

Isn’t it strange that something as intimate and private as sex has become, at least in the eyes of some, the fulcrum around which all relational life seems to turn? Or not turn. Take reactions to Lolo Jones for example, the rags-to-riches track and field star whose intention to save sex for marriage drew more coverage than her athletic success. “Lolo Jones should’ve had sex before that race,” was one of the tamer digs fired her way, “because #SexisforWinners.”

Sex may well be for winners, but before making a definitive statement out of that, the smart single would do well to figure out which game she (or he) is trying to win.

The Economics of Sex

The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, a research group specializing in family, sexuality, and social structures, took a rigorous look at today’s romantic landscape, and condensed what they found into a brilliant, ten-minute video titled, “The Economics of Sex.” It looks at sex as an exchange that goes something like this: Historically, the woman has been the gatekeeper for sex in a relationship. Will the man have to pay her a few compliments to get sex? Or take her on a certain number of dates? Or will he have to pay the premium—a lifetime commitment of all he is and has? She sets the price.

But the rise of feminism and contraceptive use upset that market equilibrium. It lowered the cost of sex by reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, and gradually the supply of women settling for sex at a reduced rate increased. Men in turn, taking the path of least resistance, went in droves for low-cost sex, rather than paying the premium. This split the mating market into two sub-markets: one where people go for sex, and another where people seek marriage. The former is more male-heavy, while the latter leans female.

This split market altered the woman’s gatekeeping function. It became easier for her to secure a mate in the short term because men looking for sex outnumber available women. But the reverse is true for women seeking marriage. Because, in that market, men, being in shorter supply, have the upper hand.

The Feminist Who Says, “Settle!”

This disappointing reality hits home especially hard for the aging woman who wants a family. In her 2010 book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, Lori Gottlieb, a 40-something single mother (by sperm donation) thoughtfully reflected on, not her unmet fill of sex, but her unmet longing for marriage and family. “Do it [settle] young,” she writes, rather than holding out for Mr. Perfect.

Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child) … in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.

Her argument met with, shall we say, mixed reviews, though her counsel seemed to be offered in all sincerity.

Solutions That Satisfy

And given current market conditions, it seems fitting. Strictly speaking, the market solution for women would be for them to band together to raise the price of sex. This would call men back to a higher standard, thereby improving relational prospects for all.

Yes, all. In the latest National Marriage Project report, titled “What Happens in Vegas Doesn’t Always Stay in Vegas,” researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades found that the way couples conduct their sex lives before marriage has a bearing on their future happiness. About 90 percent of couples have sex before marriage, they reported, but those who do so only with their future spouse have better odds for marriage stability than those who play the market first.

In other words, sexual monogamy is a pretty good plan for winning at relationships, if what you ultimately want is marriage and potential family. Admittedly, it’s not the way to “win” if sex is all you’re after. Since the odds are against finding success at both, the wise single will consider early on, Which one do I want? and choose a course of action accordingly.

Getting to Know Each Other: The Premium Way

Chelsea and Mark got married last summer at age 21. They’d been dating since their freshman year of high school. And while they didn’t make a big, public deal about it, most of the friends and family at their wedding knew they had waited.

They, too, drew attention for making a counter-cultural choice. Sometimes there was ridicule, which hurt. But the thing that surprised them most was not the ridicule, but the way some of their peers seemed not even to have categories of thought by which to conceive of such a relationship (What? Well … why?).

“They have sex right from the start, and then they have to learn how to communicate with each other,” Chelsea said. “If they don’t have sex in four days, it’s like the biggest nightmare to them. And it’s a nightmare because they feel like they don’t have the relationship when there’s no sex because that’s all the relationship’s based on.”

She finds that really sad. “It’s as if they can’t even talk to each other. All they seem to know how to do is have sex. Then they get bored and move on to the next relationship.” For her, waiting prioritized the relationship over sex so that the friendship could mature and develop a life of its own, without sex being the center of it. Since the wedding, the sex “has been nice, but we have so much more besides that. Other couples are missing out on so much more that there is.”

We should pity Ms. Flicker for confusing cursory sex with “getting to know each other.”

Know Your Power

In financial terms, to corner, a market is to get sufficient control of an asset to manipulate the price. Casual sex surrenders control and gives everything away dirt-cheap. The smart woman (and man) who wants a sex life that is thoughtful and satisfies longings will retain control of her assets until the set price—the premium—has been paid. “The Economics of Sex” video concludes, “For a woman to know what she wants in a relationship, and to signal it clearly… this is her power in the economy.” It’s also the most winning strategy for achieving sexual and relational success.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2WdB7TJ

/by
Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney: Journalists Worthy of the Name

By Terrell Clemmons

Phelim McAleer was in Pennsylvania in early 2013 doing a series of screenings of his film FrackNation. As he often did when travelling, he checked the local paper for interesting court cases underway, and a case concerning a doctor in Philadelphia caught his attention. And so it happened that on one of his days off, he walked into the courtroom where abortionist Kermit Gosnell was standing trial for a slew of charges including (but not limited to) murder, infanticide, and multiple violations of state abortion law.

Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney_ Journalists Worthy of the Name

Phelim had seen a lot in his twenty-five years in journalism (he started his career in a part of Northern Ireland known as “Bandit Country”), but the evidence he saw that day in Room 304 of the Philadelphia Justice Center surpassed anything he’d previously encountered. The photos displayed up on a big screen—pictures of well-formed babies, some of whose necks had been snipped with scissors after live birth—were more horrific than anything he’d ever seen. All of this was shocking in itself, but what was even more astounding to him as a journalist was that the press gallery behind him was completely empty. There were no national journalists covering this case. Not one. How could this be?

He returned home to Los Angeles and told his journalist partner and wife, Ann McElhinney, that he had found the next project they would work on. At first, Ann wanted nothing to do with it. This subject was foreign territory for them, way outside their wheelhouse. Besides, both she and Phelim had always considered themselves neutral on abortion. Why venture into such a hornet’s nest?

Phelim ordered the court transcripts anyway, and Ann read them. Afterward, she agreed, Yes, they would make this film. It was more than an assent or a shared inclination. It was a conviction. Here was information of significant public interest, and it was shameful that no one was putting it out. A film about this had to be made; therefore, they would make it.

Truth-Telling in the Public Interest

It would be a controversial undertaking, but Phelim and Ann were no strangers to covering controversy. Both natives of Ireland, they had started out as print journalists, but then moved into filmmaking. For one of their early productions, The Search for Tristan’s Mum, Ann went undercover to infiltrate a corrupt baby trafficking ring in Indonesia. As a result of her investigation, Tristan was returned to his natural mother, and the baby sellers were put in prison.

While they were living in Romania in the early 2000s, an uproar arose about a gold mine in Transylvania called the RosË›ia Montana˘ă Project. They watched as Western environmentalists and activist groups like Greenpeace came in with their agendas, talking for the locals as if the locals couldn’t speak for themselves. Worse, the media were not reporting the truth of the matter—that the vast majority of the locals very much wanted the mine.

The RosË›ia Montana˘ăsituation provoked a kind of conversion moment for them on two levels. They saw that (1) capitalism was the economic system best suited to lift people out of poverty, and (2) mainstream journalism was not only doing a shoddy job of reporting the truth, but at some point it was downright corrupt, in that the narrative of the outside environmentalists was being reported rather than the actual truth on the ground. So in 2006, they released Mine Your Own Business, which told the truth about the mining village and also examined other mining projects in the developing world that were under threat of opposition from powerful outside interests.

Continuing with the theme of Big Environmentalism and the effect it can have on impoverished communities, in 2009 they produced Not Evil Just Wrong, which examined and critiqued hysteria about global warming. Then, in 2013, came FrackNation, for which Phelim faced threats, cops, and bogus lawsuits to tell the stories of rural Americans whose livelihoods stood at risk because of misinformation about hydraulic fracking.

And so, while on the surface the trial of an abortion doctor appeared to be a change of direction, at a more basic level, it was a continuation of the journalistic duty to report facts and stories mainstream journalism was misreporting, or in the case of Gosnell, outright ignoring.

Accidental Discovery

Ironically, the abortion “House of Horrors,” as the Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident. Kermit Gosnell had been under investigation for running an illegal prescription drug racket in early 2010, when Tosha Lewis, an informant recruited from Gosnell’s clinic staff, casually mentioned an Asian woman who had died at the clinic a few months back. Something about her death, Tosha said, “just wasn’t right.” The narcotics investigator went to look up the police report, but there was none. This puzzle led to more questions, then to search warrants, and then ultimately to a coordinated raid that included narcotics investigators, the Pennsylvania Departments of State and Health, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and the FBI—all told, a raid of more than twenty participants.

They walked into a veritable waking nightmare. A cat had the run of the place, and the stench of cat feces, urine, and formaldehyde hung in the air. There was blood on the floor, urine on the stairs, and piles of trash everywhere. The chairs, blankets, and all surfaces were drowning in cat hair, and the medical equipment was unsanitary, outdated, rusty, and lying haphazardly about the place in varying states of disrepair.

The more they looked around, the worse it got. A metal cupboard housed jars of severed baby feet. Refrigerators and freezers scattered throughout the cobbled-together maze of a building held more bloody fetal remains—they were stuffed into used water jugs, milk jugs, cat-food containers, plastic bags, and Minute Maid juice bottles. The basement housed -fetal remains stacked to the ceiling.

It was the stuff of horror movies, but this was no Hollywood set. This was real life. Semiconscious women moaned in the waiting room, while none of the post-op patients were hooked up to any kind of monitoring device. Two were bleeding heavily and in such distress that paramedics were called, only to discover that the emergency exit door had been padlocked shut, and no one could find a key. Meanwhile, Gosnell wanted to do an abortion while the investigators went about their work. When he finished, he sat down at his desk wearing torn, bloody surgical gloves and ate his dinner, gesturing with his chopsticks while answering investigators’ questions.

Clearly the team had stumbled onto a crime scene that went beyond drug running and one suspicious death.

Documenting an American Tragedy

In the end, the wheels of the Pennsylvania justice system consigned Kermit Gosnell to life in prison without parole. The challenge for Phelim and Ann became how to tactfully but truthfully document the manifold unsettling realities of this case.

Thorough professionals, they interviewed officials from the local police, the DEA, the FBI, and state oversight boards, along with clinic staff and former patients. Ultimately, Ann decided to write a book about the case, in addition to making the film. “It’s disturbing that this story isn’t widely known,” she explained. And there were aspects of the case that wouldn’t end up in the movie, but that should be recorded. “People should know these things,” she said, her Irish brogue accentuating the conviction.

The result is Gosnell, The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer, a page-turning journalistic account of the case, which has to be read to be believed. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. Along the way, Ann exposes failure after appalling failure, unflinchingly naming names of officials whose responsibility it was to enforce the law or to ensure that medical standards safeguarding women and children were maintained, but who ignored clear warning signs, looked the other way, or blatantly ignored the law. Local and national media did no better.

She candidly admits it was hard:

Reading the testimony and sifting through the evidence in the case in the research for this book and for writing the script of the movie has been brutal. I have wept at my computer. I have said the Our Father sitting at my desk. I am no holy roller—I hadn’t prayed in years—but at times when I was confronted with the worst of this story I didn’t know what else to do.

More Conversion Moments

Until Gosnell, she found prolife activists distasteful—too earnest, too religious, maybe even manipulative. Back off with your scary pictures, she thought, I’m sure they’ve been photo-shopped anyway. After learning of the Gosnell case, though, everything changed. The images shown in the courtroom were not from activists. They were from police detectives, medical examiners, and employees of the Gosnell clinic testifying under oath.

Similarly, the voices in her book and in the film are not pro-life voices. The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted “a good, legal abortion.” Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. “Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell’s own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind,” Ann wrote.

“Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly,” says Phelim. “Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don’t think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I’ll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone’s faith was shattered.”

Changing people’s minds, though, is not what they set out to do. “They used to say in journalism, if you want to send a message, go to Western Union,” Phelim says. “We didn’t go into this to send a message. We went in to tell the truth.” And so, when it comes to Gosnell, “our message to pro-life and pro-choice people is, find out the truth. Make an informed decision. Because when you find out the truth about abortion as a pro-choice person, it will rattle your confidence in your pro-choice position. And that’s exactly what journalism should be about.”

Both Phelim and Ann hope that through their book and film, people will find out the truth, and that something like Gosnell’s clinic will never happen again. “The truth is very, very important,” Phelim says, “and the truth will set you free. That’s what I want.”

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2AwiyRL

/by