It all began with my asking what the man’s heritage was.  He responded he was from India.  His daughter was in Israel, so I wondered if her being there had anything to do with their religious beliefs.  That’s when he identified himself as Sikh, which was surprising. I was under the impression that his hair should be long, under a turban.  It was short, so my curiosity got the best of me, and I asked him:  what does a Sikh believe?     

Sikhism, he explained, is theistic.  Its roots are in Hinduism, but the polytheism is gone.  No explanation how this came to be, whether the gods battled it out or not is unclear.  One guru, in a line of several, proclaimed it so.  Apparently there is a book that sets out the precepts for a follower, but this man had never read it.  He said they have temples for worship, but he rarely attends.  Why is it that believers would not cut their hair, I inquired?  The idea originated in a tradition of setting themselves apart, although why this and not wearing a clown nose was selected, he did not know. 

He summed up his doctrine as:  do no harm to anyone or anything. Ah, my hopes were up that I had met a pro-life advocate.  Well, not so much.  He admitted that he approved of family planning, which included extracting life from the womb. Upon stating this, he put his hand to his chin and looked puzzled.  He noted out loud that he would have to consider the contradiction in that more carefully later.   

The obvious follow–up was had he ever done anything harmful?  Yes, being human, he had.  Once he had inadvertently eaten meat in a chip dip; he couldn’t think of much else.  What does one do in that case, I wanted to know—how does one get rid of guilt for doing wrong?  Guilt, he replied, is a Catholic idea.  There is no such thing; instead there is work that must compensate for wrong-doing.  What work?  Perhaps shining shoes or cleaning toilets he enumerated.  How is one assured it is enough penalty?  He didn’t know.   

This led him to proclaim, in a musing tone, that everyone wants to go to heaven.  So pressing in on that observation, I asked him what gets people to heaven.  He told me that there is no one Truth.  Anyone who sincerely lives out whatever religion they adhere to is approved by God.  How did he feel about Hitler . . .  someone who truly believed in purifying the human race by eugenics, and who  undertook achieving this goal?  Immediately my friend retorted that Hitler had done harm!  And this is when the shock set in.  He realized that judging by his own Sikh definition, Hitler would be in heaven.  He sighed out loud that he would have to re-think this matter.

What came next was very surprising.  I asked if he believed in reincarnation.  He was exuberantly affirmative.  Yes, the cycle of life is a journey through every animal’s existence.  Wow, so the ant crawling on a log could be his ancestor or deceased pal?  That is why, he explained, there must be no swatting of mosquitoes, no eating meat and respect for all living things.  There is, I inquired, no essential spiritual difference between a reptile and a human?  He made his point by asking me a question I had never considered:  don’t you know that animals worship humans?  What an odd comment.  It took no interlude for me to ask if that was what the orca at Disney World was doing when it attacked its trainer?  My Sikh assured me that that was a bad orca, just like a bad person.  So, I went further. The reason that tigers hunt for meat, and we must not-- is what?  And logically then, you must think polygamy is ok?  He seemed insulted by my last assumption.  Absolutely not, was his reply.  The follow-up:  but that is the way of the non-human sort.  From what basis do you believe in monogamy?   

It was at this point that I thought the guy had thought about things enough.  It was time to call it a night.  I had learned so much, and told him so.  It had been another reminder that understanding worldview is important.  I was so very thankful, as I went out into the cool Cleveland night past a man walking his dog, that I am a Seeker and not a Sikher. 

 What to do with Jesus?  “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  John 14:6

If you are a regular reader of this website you are probably groaning.  Here we go again!  Why is this a point so often emphasized?  It is critical for many reasons.  Here are a few of them:

*If the premise for education is the pursuit of truth, there must be a truth giver.  Without acknowledging the identity of the arbitrator of morality and the designer of reality, each individual is left to determine the rules and boundaries for human behavior and endeavor.  Because of misunderstanding the “separation of church and state,” only one of two religious ideologies is allowed into the public sector.  (Foundational Presupposition Chart) Each has impact on social order in distinct ways.  One benefits the culture at large, the other does not.

*When public dollars fund the instruction of children on behalf of parents, one worldview should not be preferred over another.  In the case of America’s education template there is a financial penalty for those with an unrepresented religious view.  Those who adhere to a theistic worldview not only pay for a contradictory message, they must support their own with tuition.

*If all ideas are equal, then there is no need to be concerned what pliable minds are taught.  But all ideas are not equal and no amount of money poured on bad fundamentals will result in different outcomes.  It has been said that the definition of a fool is someone who does the same thing over and over and expects a different result.

*Sympathy toward the poor, underachiever or handicapped usually justifies the ongoing practice of public education.  The actual benefit to these categories of youngsters is hardly satisfying; it is pathetic.  When parents are given the choice whether to leave or stay in the schools that are touted to be so helpful, there is a fast exit.  One has to wonder what is really at the root of maintaining the status quo.

*Institutions that receive a stream of tax dollars need not compete in the marketplace.  As their measure of success declines, more revenue floods in.  Private schools, in contrast, are directly accountable to the customer:  parents.  Currently public schools are operated under union mandates. They are not student advocates; their focus is faculty and jobs.

*There has been, traditionally, much trust put in public education.  Kids trot off to school without much inquiry by the adults who send them. Parents assume that the worldview they diligently built in their youngsters at home and in church will stand up to the twelve plus years of contrary instruction.  Barna studies tell a much different story.  The presuppositions nurtured by parents at home have be battered down and lost by early adulthood. 

*The problems we see in politics, finance and family are not incidental.  They are the reflection of a long, relentless battle against one kind of theology by the strident weapons of another.  The majority of America has congregated at the pulpit of liberal preaching . . .  and it shows.

There is a movement afoot to make changes.  The great thing about America is our heritage.  We were founded not by secular humanists, but by God-fearing men and women who fled from the tyranny of governmental religion.  In the end they had to arm themselves and struggle against taxation without representation.  As many are waking up to how the state has imposed one set of beliefs in education, while denying equal opportunity for any other, we need to do as those who have gone before us:  stand up for freedom.

From Romans 1:20

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

That is worth thinking through. If a pro-life advocate agrees to the assumption that the unborn are human beings, most of the reasons for abortion are eliminated.   It follows that abortion should not be used as birth control or as a means to eliminate those who are deemed less than “perfect” by society.  In the case of rape, there can hardly be a case made for ending life depending on the circumstances of conception.  That is a moot point for those struggling in the womb to survive.  The scenario under consideration has less to do with ending life and more to do with whose life will be rescued first. 

Let’s assume that a physician arrives at the scene of a horrific car accident.  His duty, and impulse, is to do no harm.  He checks all the victims.  He orders in his mind the best way to save those before him.  He triages.  In an effort to rescue some, his attention must go to those with the most opportunity to survive.  His reason does not even stumble on an idea that the worst of those still alive should be killed right off the bat.  Knowing that he is not omniscient is a given; he has incorporated this admission into his practice.  He works to sustain any life he can using all his mental acuity, the resources at hand and informed experience.  This art and science of caring for life makes him qualified to be a doctor.

It seems absurd that there is justification for abortion based on a hypothetical that has been ill-defined.  More than that, the laws that allow abortion have set a dangerous president played out in history before.  Surely Hitler’s regime should be our warning siren.  His eugenics movement began with giving doctors the right to rid a society of those who were not “fit” and well.  It ended in a whole scale extermination of Jews.  Hands entrusted to heal became the touch of torture and death.  We need to remember that.

God is the author of life, as described in Exodus 8:17 – 18:

“. . .and when Aaron stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the ground, gnats came upon men and  animals.  All the dust throughout the land of Egypt became gnats.  But when the magicians tried to produce gnats by their secret arts, they could not.”

The origin of Buddhism is Hinduism.  Both are difficult to assess because they have morphed over the years.  Simply put, neither depend on the worship of one True God.  The existence of God “tends not to edification” and is in no way significantly acknowledged.  The doctrines of Buddhism may be summed up in Four Nobel Truths:  (1)life is basically suffering or dissatisfaction (2)the origin of that suffering lies in craving or grasping (3)the cessation of suffering is possible through ending the craving (4)the way to cease craving and so attain escape from continual rebirth (reincarnation) is by following Buddhism. An additional requirement for compassion has been added, due to the obvious selfishness inherent in the original principles.  A Buddhist is on a quest, attempting to arrive at “nirvana.”  This is a level of experience where denial of urges and avoidance of self-gratification are accomplished.  Personal ignorance and inability to obtain the state of peace is like the Christian notion of sin.  The Five Precepts, rather than the Ten Commandments, include prohibition of killing, stealing, illicit sexual relationships, wrong speech, drugs or alcohol.  Meditation, rather than prayer, is the primary means by which spiritual advancement is made.  There is a notion of a type of salvation that every worshipper receives, after a life (or lives) in search of the harmonious equilibrium.  Although Buddha may be sighted as the Messiah-type for followers, he did not claim divinity.  He considered himself an example for the faith.

The most interesting observation, perhaps, is that this religion has the components inherent in Biblical explanations.  As with every Truth imposter, however, it relies on works.  “Getting clean” depends on one’s own effort.  There is no notion that a Creator loves those He made and has provided, Himself, the means to return to a right relationship with Him. There is no cross testifying that justice and mercy have been reconciled in the final accounting of life’s trials.  There is no blood-splattered reminder that the penalty for personal transgressions is costly. Forgiveness is an autonomous concept detached from relationships or restorative fellowship. 

Although self-discipline is Tiger’s biggest asset, and he has shown himself to be an extraordinary achiever, the real consequence of illicit behavior is guilt and shame, as he admitted.  No matter how hard he thinks or strives, the elements of redemption are not within his worldview.  This is all bad news for Tiger Woods, if he listens to his mother.

 From Hebrews 9:22 

" . . . and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." 

The insistence that evolution is the single theory of beginnings has huge implications.  The acceptance of its unscientific, unproven conclusions has interjected a particular religion, with all its tenets, into the State.   This notion that a public religious view, not at all “neutral”, has set up shop in our midst is rejected by the ACLU and the proponents of public education.  To anyone who thinks about it seriously, however, it is obvious.

The best illustration of this is in the realm of moral decision-making.  The predominant theme for children in tax-supported schools is that each person decides for himself what is right or wrong.  This is in contrast to having an “outside oneself” determiner of good.  It is rarely noted, in the context of teaching relative ethics, that eventually this leads to conflicting conclusions, resolved by the one with the most power or biggest gun.  Worked out in reality, we see a generation largely unable to acknowledge evil regimes, commit to marriage or pay what they owe.

The Progressives in power are faithful.  They have been able to use our classrooms to proselytize at will, clutter up the understanding of what religion is, and (with slight-of-hand) put into place the State Church of their choosing.   Ironically, their concept of freedom to choose may be highly selective, given only to those who agree with them. 

From Proverbs 3:5

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." 

I had the opportunity to interact using the Koukl method recently at a Super Bowl party in Phoenix.  One of the women at my table was originally from Germany.  She remarked how she had gone back to her country, and during her trip she wanted to go to a spa.  When she found out that she would not be allowed in with a swimsuit, she walked away.  That scenario ignited a variety of comments.  The gentleman next to me saw nothing wrong with men and women enjoying a steamy interlude together in the buff.  He insisted that Europe was much more advanced and so much less inhibited:  a good thing. 

Is that so?  I wondered to myself how he would feel about his teenage daughter or his wife among a roomful of naked male oglers.   Now, him being one of the espiers I could understand.  My first reaction, having been surrounded by lawyers all my life, was to argue.  But, this was an opportunity to train myself in a better approach.  It struck me fairly fast that this discussion was about much more than a public relaxation facility.  It was all about the foundation and meaning of being human.  If the flesh is irrelevant, intimacy has no purpose and the male/female relationship needs no boundaries, then further discussion was unnecessary.  But reality seems to indicate something quite different, and the ridicule of modesty begged for a bit more inquiry.

The natural, and perhaps easier, thing to do is be agreeable in a social setting.  But, it is possible to be kind and curious and provocative.  Discovering the basis for someone else’s beliefs is fascinating and well worth the trouble.  Leaving a stone is someone’s shoe, a great metaphor Koukl uses to describe a pebble of Truth that rubs against someone’s worldview, can be very satisfying.  It is encouraging to see more and more of those around us limping. 

From Romans 9:33:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall., and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Let’s suppose that it would be offensive to practicing Jews to have to support an Islamic education with their tax dollar.  Now, let’s consider whether it would make sense to have Christians fund the Unitarian Universalist church.  That would not adhere to the test of today’s “separation” understanding, would it?

Here are the tenants of a Unitarian Universalist (faith community established in May 1961):

(1)  No one is accountable to anyone but themselves

(2)  Personal experience, conscience and reason should be final authorities in  religion

(3)  Religious authority lies not in a book, person or institution, but in oneself

(4)  Humanist belief of each individual is superior to God or any scripture

(5)  The theological doctrine avows that all souls will ultimately be saved and that there is no ultimate punishment for wrong

(6)  Every person is allowed to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as it is sincerely done

(7) Humanist teachings are guided by science and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit

The essence of a Unitarian Universalist is secular humanism. (Foundational Presupposition Chart)  Indeed, public education adheres to this very churchy worldview.  The support of it can be compared to passing the offering plate for a particular brand of Sunday School.

How would a Humanist feel if they were asked to pay for Biblical teaching through taxation, and then, in addition, have to send their own children to private school?  That may be the one thing they probably wouldn’t tolerate.

From Psalm 33:12

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he chose for his inheritance.”

It is important to clarify these women with whom I chatted are not mere acquaintances.  We have gathered together before.  Most of them are in their fifties, they have wonderful families, and I count them as very dear to me.  They are also smart, articulate, and they sincerely care about many of the problems in our culture. 

One of my passions is changing the educational system in America.  Now that Ohio is my home, I live near Cleveland where the schools are failing entirely.  They rank at the bottom of every measurement scale.  In the course of sitting under the cabana, slathered with sunscreen, the conversation turned to this very topic.  It was clear that I was about as outnumbered as a conservative on “The View.”  However, I enjoyed listening to the concerns that were shared; mostly we were like-minded on the difficulties of teaching these days, on the lack of family solidarity and a general slouching of the work ethic and morality.  The obvious question was:  what should we do about it?

That’s when the answers became interesting.  One of my companions, who works hard on behalf of others as a fundraiser, wanted mandatory pre-school beginning at age two.  She felt that by the time kindergarten rolled around, it was too late to rehabilitate.    I wondered if that would apply to my kids, if they were still young.  Assured it would, I blurted out (not to my credit I suppose) that it sounded like the old Soviet Union or Communist China. 

My best friend in the group, whose son works in the roughest public schools in Boston, is a thinker and says it like it is.  She is usually a Democrat liberal, but confessed that she voted for the Republican Scott Brown.  That, by the way, sent me off rejoicing that perhaps things could really change.  She turned to me and, in her blunt way, inquired, “So what would you do to make schools better?”  As I explained that more money wouldn’t fix the problem, but more parental choice may, she upped the ante.  “So, how would that work exactly? Even if parents received vouchers to take wherever they wanted to go, wouldn’t children of irresponsible parents get lost in the shuffle? Would there be, by default, a school for all those students inclined to fail? “   I wanted so much to have a reply that would tie the whole matter up in a wrapped package expertly delivered.   Instead, we wondered if there is still a right in our country to be a negligent parent.  Or are we to be our brother’s keeper; and if so, who decides what worldview will be taught to them? 

Before we enjoyed the green flash of a Hawaiian sunset, we scattered.  But left behind, like footprints at low tide, was a Centurion’s dream topic begging to be explored.  And before you could say “aloha” or “mahalo” . . . it was. 

From Matthew 18:6

“ . . . but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

There are serious differences between the Catholic, Protestant evangelical and Orthodox traditions on many theological issues and devotional practices.  However, none of those differences are alluded to in any way in the Manhattan Declaration, nor do any of the original signers believe they were compromising their respective positions by signing it.  The drafting committee was careful to achieve complete harmony of all three traditions—Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant evangelical—on the critical issues addressed in the declaration, and on those issues only.  This was accomplished by making sure every assertion in the declaration is rooted in the Holy Scriptures they share in common.  In the final analysis, the Manhattan Declaration is simply a declaration of the signers’ common stand on life, marriage, and liberty.  To read anything more into it would be contrary to the intention of the drafters and the nearly 150 leaders who signed it originally.

 

There are a whole host of counter-arguments to MacArthur (and others) available through http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/faqs/why-i-signed.  One of these is by Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College on why he almost didn't sign it:  http://president.blogs.covenant.edu/2009/12/11/why-i-almost-didnt-sign-the-manhattan-declaration/

John MacArthur:

Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:

• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.

• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.

• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.

• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.

• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.

In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.

Already Gone:  Why your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do to Stop It, by Ham and Beemer, points out why attending Sunday school hasn’t been a very effective tool for promoting adult Biblical belief.  It is apparent that, although children can recite the answers to Bible story questions, they do not build on a very deep foundation.  Usually, if they answer “Jesus” or “it says so in the Bible” everyone grins from ear to ear.  Even coaxing a very young one to proclaim they have asked “Jesus into their heart,” without a clue what that means once they get past the initial response, gives teachers and parents a grand sense of accomplishment.  The fact that Jesus Himself did not demonstrate baptism until he was a full-grown adult does not seem to matter.  Maybe it is time to consider whether the complexity of nurturing faith registers somewhere beyond the pat answers and rewarding the church’s own political correctness.   

There is something to be said for protecting youngsters from those things that do not please God.  However, as kids mature, they are confronted with a culture that is very contrary to the one they have at home and within their family’s fellowship. (Foundational Presupposition Chart) The pressures around them generally have the effect of planting doubt; privately, since this would be a huge deal if brought out in the open.  When ill equipped to respond with more than a rote reply, they breathe in the worldview around them and attach it to one they were told to keep.  Once they begin the process of living on their own, without a logical, well-thought out ideology, they conform to the one that seems to swallow them up. 

There is no “formula” for parenting those God has put into our keeping.  The freedom human beings are given to accept or reject the Truth is very precious, and it must be respected more and more as our children mature.  The important task for those attending young ones is to challenge them to think about the ramifications of ideas, especially conflicting ones.  Demonstrating the habits of Christianity is paramount.  In addition, we must know how to encourage critical thinking and provide a platform for defending and refuting worldviews.  That depends, of course, on our own ability to handle the Word of God and all it implies.

 From Acts 17:16 - 17

"While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.  So he reasoned in the synogogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there."

One of the key tenets of evolution is that “survival of the fittest” results in the progress of living things and beings.  This process is considered beneficial.  In most cases, a physician defies this vital aspect of Darwin’s theory.  If there were logical adherence to the conviction that those who are weak should die off, there would be a grand effort by caretakers to ignore the sick and vulnerable.  The attention of a doctor assists in reversing the admirable gains of natural selection.   Medical personnel seldom recognize they work against their own evolutionary presuppositions.

As acceptance of rationing health care and publically funded abortions grow, physicians will be called to declare their beliefs.  As in Hitler’s regime, they will choose to “do no harm” or “do harm when it is useful.”  They will have to decide whether human beings have value because they are made in the image of God, or if they are high order organisms of the material world whose elimination would benefit the species.   There will no longer be the luxury of holding two contradictory worldviews at the same time and operating out of the one grounded in compassion for the weak.  There will be clarification.

It would behoove us, as participants in the culture, to ask those nurses, doctors and aides around us why they do what they do.  And by now, you can figure out the follow-up question. 

 From Genesis 1:25 - 26

"God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.  And God saw that it was good.  Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness . . .'"

The Scripture portrays the Christian God as relational and loving.  He is the Father who has all He needs in the Trinity.  His Son and the Spirit thrive with Him in perfect unity.  The joy that ties them together is so boundless that it exudes outward into a desire to invite others into their Community of Goodness .  They created all that “is” to enjoy their dance of, what Jesus calls, the Life.   (The Reason for God  by Tim Keller)

As a young child, I remember a particular waltz.  My Dad used to put me on his shiny wing-tips and lift me gently as he stepped to the hum of his song.  He stood  6’2” and towered over me; only by his grip could I stay on board.   A sweet, gentle lead swept me along as I gleefully squealed with delight.  All was well until I decided to go my own way.  Then, I slipped off  his toes and tripped on my own two feet.  Before I could fall, I was scooped up, put aright, and off we’d go again with a twirl.   

The Three Persons in One, in a similar way, invites us into a dynamic relationship which is neither legalistic nor one-dimensional.  He seeks after the wall flower with a tenderness.  His eye is on the one standing in the dark shadows.  His heart longs to woo and draw because He is no dictator nor taskmaster, but the exquisite Choreographer of all time. 

The difference between the Muslim Allah and the Trinity God may be portrayed  in this simple way.  Allah wants obedience.  The Trinity God wants to dance. 

From 2 Corinthians 13:14:

“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

Do these arguments sound familiar?  It is ironic that many of those who did, or would, march for Martin Luther King’s dream, support a right to destroy the unborn.  There are two obvious differences between the victims of slavery and abortion.  The  intention of slavery was not to snuff out life.  Additionally, those who suffered under the oppression of plantation bosses had hope they would someday escape and perhaps be able to fight for the freedom of others.  Not so for the captive infant.  This contrast should logically compel those interested in civil rights to increase their efforts to fight for the innocent and powerless in the womb.

Why would proponents for justice have a selective application of their principles?  That is because sitting in the middle of the abortion quandary is an extra stickler.  The attempt to eliminate abortion touches on a forbidden topic:  sexual autonomy. That is a discussion so fervent and undesirable that we avoid it at all cost.  We would rather destroy the evidence that points to the underlying problem than admit to the real issue.  It is a bloody exchange that calls up the conscience of many.

The peaceful-minded Christian does not relish interrupting the cultural conversation concerning the obvious consequences of disregarding right and wrong.  The guardians of a generation lost to the incinerator pan will be held accountable; if not by the high calling of ethics, then by the God who insists that the human being is much more than a collection of tissue, but a valuable, made-in-His-image life to be given every opportunity to breathe and grow in His likeness. 

We must be thankful for the movement led by a courageous Christian, Wilberforce, to end the horrors of slavery.  How much more should we be looking for the last day that we allow a more vulnerable underclass to be silenced.

From Amos 5:24

"But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."   

When one of Tiger’s mistresses was interviewed, she was asked if she owed Tiger’s wife an apology.  She said no; that was his business, not hers.  She had done nothing wrong.  Then, she was confronted with the rumor that her past involved prostitution.  She refuted the accusation and added that she was a Christian and wouldn’t lie.  Apparently, she had created a religious idol to accommodate her own preferences and practices.  The One True God, holy and righteous, had been replaced with an imaginary friend who informed her morality.   

The great golfer’s silence, in contrast to the many who have spoken up, only fuels speculation.  What compelled him to engage in this startling behavior?  The humanist cannot explain it in terms of bad circumstances.  Tiger Woods had everything:  money, unbelievable career, beautiful wife, two healthy children and adoring fans.  None of this seemed to be enough; he craved more.

Christians see the answer at the manger.  The bed of hay speaks of an expected occupant.  All gathered around to see what would fill the gaping hole.  They did not come to find a carved totem or made-up playmate placed in the center of humanity’s yearning. The throne of man’s heart would not be gorged with worldly stuffing.  Someone came to rule there, and now.  He alone satisfies perfectly.  

Merry Christmas from the Savior:

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."  John 10:10 

We can picture the scene and share in Mary’s amazement.  We may recall in our own lives the cry of our firstborn.  We have huddled in a dimly lit nursery, pressed ourselves close to the sweet exhale of a newborn, caressed a fragile hand that folds around our finger; stroked the downy head that nuzzles into our shoulder.    We know what it feels like to wonder how the little life before us will turn out.  What will this wee creature grow up to be?  What personality, job or inclinations will unfold from the soft rosy bundle before us?

Surely Mary experienced all of this and more.   Surrounded by barn animals, simply clad shepherds, and a husband not biologically related to her son, Mary had clues to the identity of the one she bore.  He was the centerpiece of a spectacular evening.  Even the star overhead exclaimed this crescendo of history.  At last there was delivered a long awaited remedy to the broken shalom of creation.  The crack of sin that broke perfect unity with the Creator could be filled. 

The nativity lamb instinctively knew that someday the lion would no longer stalk, but would be tame again because of the One who squirmed in the straw bed.  The men leaning on their crooks yearned for this promised Redeemer to provide for them a new nature that would free them from their own selfishness and pride.  Joseph, himself a follower of the One True God, kneeling in the dirt understood his bow to this infant was in submission to his King.  But, Mary.  What about Mary?

She must have clutched this one called Emmanuel:  God with us.  A Mom’s love poured out over the flesh and blood she was called to nurture.  And yet, she was aware that His Spirit was not like her own.  He was inhabited by the Holiness of God.   She knew one day her own little boy would grow up and be her Savior.  The sacrificial system so long a part of her Jewish people would soon be finished.  The remembrance of blood shed  in the Temple stabbed her own heart because this life she held would pay the penalty as nothing else, no one else could.  He would die for her and anyone who believed Him.  She was torn between holding Him, capturing Him and never letting Him go, or surrendering Him to His True Father.  Would she be able to nudge Him toward the Cross?  Could she obey her calling to raise up this Jesus for the very purposes of her Yahweh? 

We know how Mary answered those gut wrenching questions.  She did what God asked her to do.  She knew, maybe more than anyone ever would, that Grace is not cheap.  The Love that pulsated through the arteries of her slain son would be spattered for you and me and, ironically, our children.  For the sake of a humanity held hostage to sin, Mary willingly, gratefully, fed, protected and taught her own to walk the road of Calvary.  

Mary stood at the crucifixion, probably recalling how it all started for her.  She had decided, back then and there, that her life would matter for the Audience of One, Her God.  And that made all the difference forever. 

  From the Word of God:

"Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother . . ."  John 19:25

This is almost reason for those of us who are followers of Christ to declare, “Bah humbug!”  It seems as though there has been an invasion of sacred territory.  Then, again, the almost universal salute to the December holiday is evidence that the birth of this Jewish child is an historical fact, and it just can’t be ignored.  The tinsel, lit trees, yard decorations, carols and presents rivet attention either toward Santa, who comes down the chimney, or that One who claims to slide into the sin-sick soul.  Old Saint Nick is acknowledged by everyone as fictional.  The infant nestled in Mary’s arms gets mixed reviews.

Most everyone agrees, as our dating system implies, that someone unique was born over two thousand years ago.  For many non-Christians, he was a brilliant teacher or a good man.  This, of course, is nonsense.  Anyone who claims to be God, insists he came to save humanity, and proclaims he is the “Truth” is either nutty, a liar or . . . truly the Messiah. 

The essence of the Scriptural Jesus is hardly innocuous.  Those gathered around to examine His identity, that first Christmas and now, eventually have to decide who He is.  Packing Him up and putting Him away on New Year’s Day doesn’t really work. Each of us is either attracted to, or repulsed by, the Labor of Love delivered into this world. He changed everything forever, not just seasonally.     

Every effort is made to evade the Gift given to mankind:  Emmanuel, God with us.  The annual holiday hubbub, and even the focus on the nativity scene itself, may distract us from the fact that the crib is empty and the baby grew up.  He no longer coos and crawls.  He has been crowned Lord of Lords and has issued the proclamation that He rules the Kingdom that has no end.  He seems to insist that even the skeptic notice this.  So, for His sake, and in His Spirit:  Merry Christmas one and all.

From the Mouth of Jesus:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”  Matthew 10:34

Marriages, even among those who claim to be Christians, fail half the time.  If we have tuned into Jon and Kate, it doesn’t take long to sense that how we interact with others matters.  Treating one another with a love that “keeps no record of wrongs” and is not “self-seeking” (1 Corinthians 13) is a habit--or not.  It is an unusual person that “naturally” veers from the inclination to blame and justify.  Asking for forgiveness, if we are real, often means swallowing that big, huge wad of pride that sticks in our throat.  Being right usually trumps everything.  Politeness, kindness, keeping a rein on the tongue (as James puts it) requires intentional practice.  The Gosslin parents didn’t often demonstrate this when film rolled.  It is, indeed, easier to wear a slogan than die to oneself. 

The marriage of the Roloffs seems to be unraveling, too.  The heartbreaking drifting apart of these partners seems to revolve around the fact that mothering has absorbed mom and work has overtaken dad.  Each seems to have devised their own convenient distraction from focusing on one another.  Relating to an adult, being called to knock off the edges of “self” as Christ asks Believers to do with someone close-up, requires hurting at times.  The latest episode of the Roloff saga leaves Amy remarking that she wonders if they can be “happy.”  It is an interesting choice of words.  Christians are taught that marriage is a much deeper, profound thing than the flimsy relic of the world.  Marriage is, rather, a reflection of the faithfulness, intimacy and co-Life of Christ and His Church.  It is a costly, eternal relationship; there is no turning back.  This union interwoven with suffering is dependent on the Spirit’s pouring forth blessing and joy.  Learning to trust, submitting to another in the proper way, choosing to love (husband to wife) and respect (wife to husband) does not come instinctively (Ephesians 5).  It is life-long, earthly endeavor involving choices.  Undertaking this alone would be almost intolerable.  But, this is not how it works for those who obey Christ.  He is in it.  He is There.  He provides the adornment as well as the glue in the whole matter. 

What is unique about the peek into “Eighteen and Counting”?  Besides the lively home that seems to thrive, there is a peculiar activity that stands out.  It is the observance of a discipline.  Not, probably, an exercise that is always embraced, but most likely endured for the greater good it produces.  It is the study of God’s Word daily.  It is led by the father, in this case.  Staying inside the pages of Scripture brings everyone back to what is True:  the family is an institution designed by God to be the primary unit where community is learned and love is demonstrated.  It is where the mission field begins. The default button, making ourselves autonomous, is tripped each and every day through the living, active Word.  Better than setting an alarm system, stashing a gun in the safe or getting a guard dog, this Dad has put protection around his own by building up a Truth wall.  His strong defense is the Word of God he packs into his own spirit and throughout the territory that is his.  Not only is it a safeguard for his marriage and children, it provides the power that will personally transform his wobbly will, that may easily fall to temptation, into a resolute one directed toward what pleases God.

Anyone who has been to a wedding, or has said the “I do” at the altar realizes that seldom does anyone start out on a course to end up divorced; but things can go bad or boring or benign.  This is not the Plan.  The unfolding of lives on television can hold important lessons for all of us.  It reminds us of how decisions we make have consequences .  We rarely find ourselves in trouble all at once, but have inched along a route that leads up or down.  There is always redemption and opportunity to come back, which is very good news.  We, who belong to Jesus, are the Bride of Christ.  The Groom always waits for us down the aisle.  He treasures the beauty of engagement and glories in each step we make closer to Him.  He observes carefully the steps we take and delights in our growing grace, knowing it doesn’t come cheap, as He has demonstrated so well.

 From God's Word:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.  This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.  However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."  Ephesians 5: 31 - 33

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.