Tag Archive for: morality

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

,

By Daniel Merritt

Theologians and philosophers when engaged in explaining the mysteries of life, wrestle with two mysteries that challenge the mind and the soul. Those mysteries have to do with the problem of evil, which has two components: moral evil and natural evil. Of the two, moral evil poses the easiest solution, as we grasp that bad things happen as a result of man’s capacity to choose between good and evil. The choices one makes brings about consequences; bad choices bringing about consequence that can adversely affect the individual who made the choice and have a ripple effect that affects the lives of others.

It is a lot more difficult, though, to provide satisfactory answers in the face of natural evil. Natural evil would include “evil” or “acts” that is the result from natural events that would include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, disease and other “events” that occur which bring in our lives tragedy, pain, suffering, and even death. Devastating natural disasters in life often leave one pondering: “Where is God in the midst of all this suffering, loss of life, and destruction? It is not fair or just that these often disastrous acts occur (insurance companies call them ‘acts of God’)!”

The age-old dilemma was posed by Epicurus (341-270 BC): “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While simplistic answers are not forthcoming, approaching the subject from a Christian perspective does yield some thought-provoking insight. Six will be considered.

First insight, the Bible teaches that the sometimes “bipolar behavior” of nature is the result of The Fall. Natural evil is a result of man’s sin, the consequences of having a ripple affect which reverberates throughout creation. The Bible teaches that natural evil is a consequence of deliberate rebellion against his Creator, the result being that in addition to man being affected by sin, creation suffered negative consequences, as well. The present world is not the way it was created to be. As a result of man’s disobedience to God, pain, suffering and death entered the world. Paul tells us that all creation was affected by The Fall and that all creation groans and is in travail from the consequences of man’s sin and awaits the time when it is freed from the bondage of sin and death (Romans 8:20-22). The sometimes-unpredictable acts of nature were not present prior to sin entering the world. The world is broken as the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. Creation has been subjected to the curse of man’s sin and as a result, the present world is functioning abnormally from God’s original design, bringing forth “acts” that are a distortion from the way God originally created the world and man.

Regarding the consequences of the curse of sin that affects man and creation, Francis Schaefer succinctly writes, “I do not think Christians take the Fall and the present abnormality of the world with practical comprehension and seriousness. I mean by this that although Bible-believing Christmas certainly do hold to a historical Fall and the present abnormality of the world as a theological truth, when it comes down to living, this is often forgotten. In other words, we forget that everything is abnormal today and that much of the sickness in the world and sorrows in other areas are a result of this abnormality. or to say it another way, there is so much in history that God did not mean to be there, in the way that He created the world and created

man” (Schaeffer, Letters, IL: Crossway Books, 1985, 157). Schaefer’s words are most insightful in regard to the “why?” of natural evil.

Second insight, God respects the freedom of man to choose, whose decisions can lead to dangerous acts of nature being destructive. It is understood there is natural evil/acts in nature that arise through no fault of man, but man’s choices, actions, and neglect can sometimes put people in harm’s way when nature turns dangerous. When man builds houses, and cities on fault lines in earthquake-prone areas the inevitable will happen. When homes are built on the side of mountains that are prone to mudslides the house will eventually disappear from the mountainside. When one builds businesses and homes near flood-prone areas or on the ocean front there is the risk that hurricanes will sooner or later bring devastation. Human freedom allows one to construct homes, businesses and cities being in places susceptible to earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes; however, when one does, acts of nature can result in grave damage and loss of life. Also, if corners are cut on building materials or construction in order to build quickly or cut expenses, the devastation can be even worse. The Lord respects our freedom to plan and create where we choose, even though eventual disaster may lurk in the future. We want the Lord to intervene in such cases, but for Him to do so, He would have to suspend our freedom to choose (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, London: Saffron House, 1966, 12).

Third insight, God created the world to operate according to certain laws, and even though sin may have skewed some of nature’s laws as originally designed, there is a cause and effect in nature in regard to how the world works. These are more than impersonal forces; behind it all there lays the Creator God. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne advocates that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible for the existence of humanity. Polkinghorne states that while our “knowledge of the physical world is patchy and incomplete,” the same weather systems that create F-5 tornadoes also creates rainstorms that bring water to the needed soil and plants. The same wind patterns that refresh us on a hot day can turn into destructive gale force winds. The same earthquakes that destroy buildings are part of the very dynamic in the regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human life. The same kinds of bacteria that can make one sick and even bring death also yields substances that are used to bring healing. As Creator, God has created the world to work in a certain way and even though creation has been affected by sin, what we assume to be inherently bad or unjust contains within its processes that which also brings about good and sustains life (Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, Boston: New Science Library, 1989, 3-7). That our Creator God doesn’t change the laws of nature to coincide with our idea of what is good and just brings us to our fourth thought-provoking insight

Fourth insight, in addressing the problem of “natural evil” one must approach it from the perspective that the problem is not with God, but the problem begins with our assumptions about who we think God ought to be, what God ought to do, and how we determine what is just or unjust. We expect God to act in a certain way according to the way we perceive Him. We presuppose that if God is good and omnipotent then “bad” shouldn’t happen, that God should be and act in the way our mind conceives Him to be. However, we define just and unjust from a near-sighted, sin-tainted perspective. Basing whether something is good or bad, just or unjust on the premise of whether it fits into one’s own understanding what those terms mean is not the basis on which such a judgment should be made. One is not to affirm the goodness of God’s

character according to one’s own experience and presupposing. Surely God, who sees all thing from the beginning to the end, sees the bigger picture. His thoughts and ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

What appears to be unjust or bad from our rationale, experience and perspective could actually be something that is very good from a longer-range perspective, but we are only seeing from our short-sighted perspective. In our view of God, we tend to project our narrow-sighted view and experiential definitions of good and bad onto God and assume that if He is good, He must be good by our own limited standards of what constitutes good and just. When one says God needs to be “just,” most often one makes such a statement in terms of what one thinks justice ought to be or in relation to what one perceives to be just from one’s restricted viewpoint. In the process, one doesn’t grasp how justice for one might be an injustice to someone else in a different setting or vice-versa. After all, do we only want a God that fits into our box of understanding or One whose basis for what is just and unjust goes beyond one’s limited intellectual capacity?

We also impose within our narrow scope of God’s omnipotence, that He should use His power to conform to our understanding of how His power ought to work in the world and in individual lives. When we superimpose our concept of how God’s omnipotence should operate in the world, we have reduced Him to our level. God’s power is not subservient to our thinking or our whims of how we perceive He ought to operate in the world and in our lives. Our conception of God too often projects our preconceived assumptions onto God whose omnipotence we contend should be within the scope of our control. What we actually want is to manipulate God to fit into our parameters of how we think He ought to flex His powerful muscle over the forces of nature. How much better it is to come to terms with the understanding that God desires to work in us and with us in the world, and help us to better reflect the image of God He has stamped on each soul even when we encounter “acts” that from our perspective are deemed unfair, unjust, or bad (Dennis Bratcher, The Problem of Natural Evil, The Voice, www.crivoice.org, 2018).

Fifth insight, “Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose” (Augustine) (Robert Francis Allen, “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi, 3:1, 2003, 84-90). Pain, suffering, and disorder associated with natural evil providentially bring about a higher divine purpose in the larger plan of the Lord. Natural disasters often bring out in humanity the very best of human character, as neighbors and strangers aid one another in recovery. While natural disasters are often tragic, glimpses of the marred image of God within us is seen sparkling in the wreckage. As well, it is only after such natural disasters that some people actually have their hearts made tender enough to call on the Lord for help and strength in daily life. Many times only when one’s present situation is drastically changed does one find themselves thinking about the brevity of life, eternity and one’s accountability before the Lord. Further, it is in the aftermath of “acts of God” that one develops positive and strong character traits that would not have been formed if the disaster had not occurred. If difficult times one is prompted to grow stronger and become better human beings. So, even in the midst of disaster, the Lord can direct what appears to be bad or unjust to fulfill a higher divine purpose (Romans 8:28) (Barry L. Whitney, What are they Saying about Evil? Paulist Printing, 1989, 6, 25)

Sixth insight, one whose reasoned reaction to the calamitous effects of natural disasters, instead of disproving the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God is in reality strong evidence for

His existence. In his book Mere Christianity, former atheist C.S. Lewis acknowledged he thought the injustice he perceived in the world was an ironclad argument against the truth of Christianity. But as he reflected on what he considered injustice in the world, he asked himself, “How had I gotten the idea that just and unjust existed?” How can one appeal to an objective standard of just and unjust, if there is not a standard outside of one’s self? For if there is no God and we are only the sum total of a collection of random atoms, one’s appeal to events or acts being declared just and unjust is no better or worse than that of anyone else. Such deducing resulted in C.S. Lewis becoming a Christian and one of the great Christian thinkers and writers of the twentieth century.

While we have sought to look at six insights in regard to the problem of natural evil, ultimately we must acknowledge our inability to answer every question posed. Our finite minds can only take us so far, and we will never be able to penetrate the infinite mind of our benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not a weakness to admit that we do not have all the answers, but this know…in the midst of disastrous acts of nature, God is able, willing and desirous to bring comfort, hope, and encouragement to the hurting heart. He is a God who walked among us in Jesus Christ and He is not oblivious to our pain. Having wept through human eyes (John 11:35), He comes to embrace us in our pain that in His divine providence will bring treasure out of a tragedy.

 

Daniel Merritt received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and a Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine Inspiration; Writings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11; and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F5ftcx

/by
Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

Responding to Sam Burke’s Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

By Evan Minton 

In the comment section of one of the posts on the Cerebral Faith facebook page, Sam Burke commented “If I found out Christianity was true, I would do everything in my power to stop people from having kids so that more people don’t go to Hell. According to Matthew 7:13 only a few people will find the way to Heaven. Almost everyone who is born will end up being burned in eternal conscious pain for eternity according to the Bible. A trillion years and the person will not be a second closer to being out of Hell. Any parent who truly believes and understands this, and knows their kids will statistically probably end up in Hell and has kids anyway hates them. Having children violates “love your neighbor as yourself” on that viewpoint. If Hell, then Anti-Natalism.

And not to mention if the Age of Accountability is true we should conceive kids just for the sake of aborting them and therefore “populating Heaven.” And I am Pro-Life!! Or infants are damned unless they accept Jesus as their savior from the time they are born. Christianity is utterly hopeless, depressing, etc. No compassionate person could want Christianity and all that it entails to be true.”

Is this the case? If Christianity is true, does it entail that you should either abort your children or refrain from even having them? I’ve already dealt with the Age-Of-Accountability-Entails-That-Abortion-is-ok argument in this blog post here and in chapter 4 of my book A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell. So I won’t rehash those answers here. Rather, I’ll address the more modest argument that if Christianity is true, and if more people statistically end up in Hell instead of Heaven, then it’s basically our moral obligation to refrain from even conceiving!

First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame

Jesus said that “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish but whoever does not believe in Him is already condemned because he has not believed in God’s one and only son.” – John 3:16-18 (emphasis mine).

God The Father gave up God the Son (i.e., Jesus) to die for the sins of the world! The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos, and it is most often used to either describe all of humanity, the entire planet, or the entire physical universe. If you are a part of the world, then God loves you and became a man to atone for your sins. I’m a part of the world. You’re a part of the world. Adolf Hitler was a part of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a part of the world. The random person who drove by my house yesterday is a part of the world. Every human being is included in this passage. Moreover, whosoever out of the group that God loved (i.e., the world) who places their faith in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Jesus said that God didn’t send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him.

Because “God so loved the world”, he therefore “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). As a result of this love and desire, He “gave his only begotten son” and by that is meant that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6, cf. 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9).

God offers this salvation to all. We’re not able to accept it on our own (see John 6:44, John 6:65), so God sends His Holy Spirit to enable us and persuade us to receive His offer of salvation at the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:14, John 12:32). This grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), resulting in the persons own damnation if they continue to resist God’s grace until they die (John 3:36). The choice is up to you. Will you resist The Holy Spirit or will you yield to Him?

God became incarnate, died on the cross to take the punishment we deserved and then rose from the dead. God sends grace to all people to draw them to salvation. Some choose to resist God’s grace and others choose not to. The ones who resist cannot indict either God or their parents for the choice they made. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is why it is often said that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather, people send themselves. No one who ends up in Hell has to be there. Their damnation could have been avoided.

Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them. 

Sam Burke is assuming that parents have no more say in the eternal destiny of their children than merely birthing them and letting them decide for themselves. However, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he’ll grow up right. Theologically, one should expose their children to sound doctrine at a young age, and teach them apologetics from a young age. You can start with having them read books like “The Case For Christ For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For Faith For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Mystery Of The Picture: Where Did The Universe Come From? Did It Come From Nothing?” by Mary Katherine Mammen and Neil Mammen, and “The Awesome Book Of Bible Answers For Kids” by Josh McDowell and Kevin Johnson. When they enter high school, you can move them on to more advanced material like the regular “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Evan Minton, and others. See my blog post “Teach Your Children Apologetics” for a larger list.

While your kids should look at the evidence for Christianity’s truth, You should be a well-informed Christian and be able their questions as well. As J. Warner Wallace once said, you are the first apologist your child will ever be exposed to. I think fewer young people would leave the church if we were prepared to make a reasonable case for Christianity instead of emphasizing feeling based experiences, and (this especially goes for youth pastors) entertainment. When I become a father, I will ensure that if my child grows up and apostatizes, it won’t be for intellectual reasons (John 3:19-20).

The answer to the problem of your offspring going to Hell isn’t to refrain from having them, but to make sure that they know the Living God.

Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers

You have no idea the ratio of damned to saved and neither do I.  It’s difficult to read Matthew 7:13-14 and not get the idea that Jesus said there would be more damned than saved. However, Jesus didn’t give an exact ratio. For example, Jesus never said that for every 1 person who is saved, 100 are lost. For all we know, for every 1 saved, only 2 or 3 are lost. You can’t calculate the probability that your offspring will, by the end of his life, have spurned The Holy Spirit. We’re not in a position to tally the exact number of saved to lost. All Jesus said is that many would enter the death gate and few would enter the life gate. That’s not exactly what I’d call mathematical precision.

Revelation 7:9 observes, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Millions and millions of people will be in Heaven from all over the world.

Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option

Burke’s criticism presupposes a very specific view of Hell; the Eternal Conscious Torment view. However, what if Annihilationism is true? Annihilationism is the view that the damned do not, in fact, suffer eternal conscious torment. Rather, on some forms of annihilationism, they suffer for a little while are eventually annihilated, or they annihilated immediately upon being judged by God. Thus, annihilationism is absolutely no different than Atheism and Deism concerning the afterlife. The only difference is that Atheists and Deists believe that everyone is annihilated, whereas the Christian annihilationist only believes some are.
Since I do not adhere to annihilationism, I have tried to respond to Burke’s argument while presupposing ECT. However, in the case that Burke or others find my response unsatisfying, I would advise them to look into the case for annihilationism. I don’t want Burke or others to reject Christianity on the basis of a secondary doctrine that I could be wrong about. If I did that, I’d be no different than Christians who require people to give up assent to Darwinian Evolution. If I’m wrong and annihilationism is true, then it has even less force than it would on ECT.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tXr0Wu

/by
Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

By Mikel Del Rosario

Technology for Good

Using Artificial Intelligence for the Common Good

When I began teaching in Northern California, I met a remarkable young woman named Emily Kennedy. Today, she is the President and Founder of Marinus Analytics. I recently invited Emily to join me on the Table Podcast for National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention month. We talked about how she and her team uses artificial intelligence to help law enforcement rescue people from sex trafficking. See how our Christian convictions on the value of human life fuels Emily’s fight against human trafficking and how her company uses technology for social good.

Access the full transcript here.

Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GW4mFx

/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
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
How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family

How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family?

By Mikel Del Rosario

Understanding Acceptance, Approval, and Convicted Civility

When I speak at student events, Christian kids ask me, “How should I relate to my gay friends?” Many believers struggle to relate to their LGBT neighbors, friends, and family because they worry about being misunderstood. How do we stick to biblical convictions while loving our neighbors as ourselves? I’ve learned a lot about this area of engagement through my work with Darrell Bock at the Hendricks Center. Along the way, I’ve discovered three key questions many Christians have:

How Should Christians Relate to Gay Friends, Neighbors, and Family

  1. Why does the church seem hesitant to engage?
  2. Is there a difference between acceptance and approval?
  3. How can we challenge people well as ambassadors of Jesus?

Why does the church seem hesitant to engage?

I know it’s tough to stand up for a biblical view of sexuality. But some Christians say relating to their gay neighbors can seem even tougher. Maybe it’s because many of our brothers and sisters grew up with an unhealthy way of separating “church people” from “non-church people.” In fact, I think many people who come from Christian homes may have been raised with a “culture-war mentality” that makes winsome engagement difficult for them today.

But think about this: We all have the same core needs before God. It might be in different areas of our lives, but we all need his grace and forgiveness. This realization should make us question any kind of “us vs. them” mentality we may still have in the back of our minds. After all, everyone’s born with desires and tendencies we never asked for. One way to balance loving our neighbors with holding Christian convictions is to know the difference between acceptance and approval. Because it’s important to make a distinction between the two.

Is there a difference between acceptance and approval?

Just like the kids who approached me at a church event, Christian adults also wonder, “How should I relate to my gay friends or co-workers?” “What about gay family members or their friends?” Parents have asked me, “Will I compromise my stance on biblical sexuality by being kind to my gay child’s partner?” I like Pastor Caleb Kaltenbach’s approach. He grew up in the LGBT community and he talks about the difference between accepting people and approving of what they do:

We’re called to accept everybody as an individual. That doesn’t mean we approve of every life choice somebody makes… Parents of [gay] teenagers who “come out” to them sometimes think, “If I accept my child, that means that I’m approving of a same-sex relationship.”

My point is, no. Anybody should be able to walk through the doors of my church when I preach…I shake hands every Sunday with people that made life choices that I wouldn’t approve of. But that doesn’t mean that I accept them any less…

[At] our church…you can belong before you believe…not saying that we integrate people into the body of Christ without salvation. But we give people a chance to be a part of our community. That’s where we live out that acceptance versus approval.

…We have to own the fact that it isn’t our job to change somebody’s sexual orientation. It is our job to speak the truth into people’s lives.

We need to understand people from their perspective…a lot of Christians are not willing to do that when it comes to certain people, including the LGBT community… [1]

So acceptance means respecting people made in God’s image. Approval is like signing-off in agreement on what someone believes. These are two different things.

Still, everyone’s obligated to obey God’s commands. This brings a moral challenge to the area of sexuality—a space where we all need to be sensitive to objective moral values and duties. Darrell Bock explains the importance of LGBT engagement:

There’s a moral challenge for the way God calls people to live in the standards that he reflects which is a way of saying, “The most efficient, effective, authentic way to live is to live this way.” But you’ve got people who live differently. The very people who you want to challenge with those standards are the very people you want to invite into a new experience with God, who is the solution. If you wall them off from going there, you’ve actually cut [them] off from the solution.[2]

While the church can’t approve of a lifestyle that’s insensitive to God, accepting all people and loving them well mirrors Jesus’ example—challenging people with truth and compassionately serving others. I love how my local church uses the slogan, “Radical inclusivity and profound transformation.” The church should be inclusive, while recognizing that a real relationship with God includes life transformation. This is a great starting point for answering the question, “How should I relate to my gay friends?”

How can we challenge people well as ambassadors of Jesus?

Mark Yarhouse introduced me to something called “convicted civility” which focuses on the relational part of engagement. Our team at the Hendricks Center invited him to share with the students at a DTS cultural engagement chapel. I like how he said:

“We have far too many Christians who are strong on convictions, but you wouldn’t want them to represent you in any public way because… they do it [in a way that is] not very civil in its engagement and loving and caring. Then you have Christians who are so civil, so loving, so caring, that you have no idea what they stand for. There’s this tension that you want to live out.”[3]

So, what’s it look like to balance conviction and civility? Mark told a story about a day he invited a gay activist to his presentation on sexuality. This broke down stereotypes and led to meaningful conversation:

I was making a presentation and a local gay activist contacted our university and said “I’m going [to be there].” Then, he did a YouTube video calling for all of his gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and other friends to come and just sit in the front couple rows and stare me down… so I invited them to come. [I thought], “He’s coming anyway, protesting me!” I invited him to come and meet me and meet my students, and sure enough, they sat down in the front rows and stared at me as I was presenting.

But I talked with him afterwards. He made a video afterwards and said, “You know, I didn’t agree with everything this guy said, but it wasn’t as bad as I thought it was.” And… he was just eviscerated by people within the gay community who felt like he should’ve been tougher on me…

One of the guys who came to protest me, I went out for coffee with him a few times. He was raised in a Christian home. He talked about his upbringing. He said, “Look, I thought when I met you that you were going to have smoke coming out of your nostrils and horns on your head. That’s the way you were depicted to me, and yet here we are having coffee and talking about this.”[4]

Interestingly, the protestor got more push-back from the gay community than he did from Christians who extended a hand to him. The whole idea of “convicted civility” is relational. But it shows there’s no need to give up our convictions while interacting with those who challenge a biblical sexuality.

Engaging with Courage and Compassion

The next time someone asks you, “How should I relate to my gay friends and co-workers?” Think about Paul’s words: “Receive others as you have been received by Christ” (Romans 15:7). When we were far from God, Jesus took the initiative to engage from a heart of compassion. Relating to people on the basis of love can give people pause—even those who disagree with us on moral issues.

Unfortunately, one of the first things many people think about when they hear the word “Christian” is “intolerant bigot” or something like that. A key way to break down this stereotype is engaging with courage and compassion. So that when someone hears the claim that “Christians are intolerant bigots,” their first thought would be “Are you sure about that? I actually know some Christians and they don’t treat me that way at all.” As my friend Sean McDowell says:

The power of individual lives and Christians reaching out to nonbelievers and people of all different stripes is probably the most important way to overturn this cultural stereotype that is affecting the way that we’re seen and relate to people.[5]

So, how can we relate to our gay friends and neighbors while holding to biblical convictions? By understanding the difference between acceptance and approval. By approaching conversations with convicted civility. And extending a hand that offers something way more than just tolerance—the love of Jesus.

Recommended Links

Notes

[1] Table Podcast, Grace and Truth in LGBT Engagement

[2] Ibid.

[3] DTS Voice, What Does Convicted Civility Look Like?

[4] Ibid.

[5] Table Podcast, Truth, Love, and Defending the Faith

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

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

/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
If it Feels Right it must Be Right... Right

If it Feels Right it must Be Right… Right?

,

By Jeremy Linn

How could something that feels so right be called immoral?

If it Feels Right it must Be Right... Right

That is basically the question Imagine Dragons singer Dan Reynolds proposed on a recent interview on the Ellen Show. In the interview, Dan talked about his upbringing as a Mormon and his tendency to rebel against the moral cues of his culture. When he attended BYU (the “Mormon college”), he started sleeping with his girlfriend. BYU somehow found out about Dan’s actions, and the school decided to kick him out. That’s when he asked the question – “Why is this thing that feels right also something that gets me kicked out of college and shames me in my community and made me feel all this guilt?”

Imagine Dragons

Now a few warnings before continuing. I am NOT about to advocate for the moral validity of the Mormon faith. I am also not about to tear down Imagine Dragons – I would say they’re in my top 5 favorite bands. Finally, I am not going to analyze BYU’s response to Dan’s actions or the effect that response had in Dan’s life.

But I do want to point out that in his question, Dan implied that he believed what he was doing was okay because it felt right to do. His assessment of his moral actions was not based on an objective moral code laid out by Mormonism, or any other objective moral code for that matter. It was based on a subjective standard – how those actions felt to him.

This notion is common for people in our culture to hold – if something feels right, it must be morally right. But do feelings actually provide us a solid basis to assess the moral quality of our actions? To address complex questions like this one, I like to start with the most obvious points, and then continue from there. So I will do just that with this question.

One obvious point is that using feelings as a basis for moral assessment doesn’t work logically. If we’re going off a purely feelings-based standard, any action could be morally justified with that standard. For example, I would not be surprised if some people who are charged with child pornography felt that accessing that content was an okay thing to do. Yet they are still prosecuted, and many people who base morality off individual feelings would be outraged by their actions.

Another point is feelings are temporary and can change. What feels right one day may feel not-so-right the next. What if Dan suddenly started to feel like sleeping with his girlfriend was a wrong thing to do? It seems that under the feelings-based standard, the action would turn suddenly from morally right to evidently wrong.

Based on these two concepts alone, it’s clear that feelings are not a solid basis for us to assess the moral quality of our actions. Certainly less obvious points could be thrown in as well. There’s the question of how to determine who is right when two people’s feelings conflict. Then there’s the question of how to govern with moral principles when the standard for morality is the feelings of each individual in a society.

So what is a proper standard to assess moral actions? Again, I turn to the obvious points to address this question. First, a proper standard involves something that goes beyond what an individual feels since feelings are a poor basis for making moral judgments. Second, the standard is one that will not change quickly, as moral assessment would be nearly impossible if the standard can change on a dime. Third, the standard must transcend cultural norms in order for us to be able to evaluate the moral actions of people from a different culture.

This criteria for a proper moral standard is in line with theism – the notion that a good and personal God exists. In theism, goodness is inherent in God’s nature, and thus the moral standard comes from reflection about God’s nature. This nature goes beyond individual feelings, never changes, and transcends cultures.

It is possible that a non-theistic standard could meet the same criteria. But whether a moral standard comes from a theistic or non-theistic viewpoint, one thing’s for sure:

If something we do feels right, it does not necessarily follow that we are doing the right thing.

 

Jeremy is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

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

/by