Book Review: Divided by Faith, by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith

Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America is a historical and sociological study of white evangelical attitudes toward white-black relations.  I found it fascinating.  I should also try to read some reviews by trained sociologists who may be able to offer some insight into their research methods.

Emerson and Smith state that America is a racialized society in which “race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships” (7, emphasis in original).  They define racism sociologically, in that it does not have to be intentional; instead, it is an inequality in power that disadvantages one group or another.  One interesting example of this is that more educated whites tend to have fewer prejudices against black people, but at the same time tend to take actions that increase racialization because they are able to pursue higher-quality schools and neighborhoods that tend to be predominantly white.  Thus they are actually more segregated from African Americans.  They also quote another study that argues that racializing practices are becoming more hidden and institutionalized rather than direct and expressed in the language of race (9).

ACORN, Obama, unlawful acts- should be under strict investigations

Kudos to James O’ Keefe and Hannah Giles for exposing what lies, unlawful, and treachery lies beneath the covers of ACORN.   BUT, will the left media pay much attention to this?  Will Obama speak out against this?  Apparently, this is “just some smear campaign”.  Wow, denial (or secrecy of corruption) is the quite the virtue to many.   Does one think  that out of this large organization, only these two women were corrupt?  Oh please.  Take off the blinders.  I’m sure not everyone in ACORN is corrupt, but one is too many and I’m pretty sure it didn’t start, stop or will end with these two women.  Another say story.  Another example of human nature’s fallen nature.  All the more reason to cling to the truth of the gospel, lest you fall into the trap.

Tragic proof yet I read an article where they said “alleged sex trafficking” and alleged this and that or “supposedly”.   The video speaks for itself.

Except for Glenn Beck, Where’s the news media coverage?   Where’s the community outrage?  Where’s the accountability?  No where.  Go figure.

Book Review: “Black and Tan” by Douglas Wilson

While looking at Doug Wilson’s blog one day, I happened to notice that he wrote a book on slavery and culture wars.  Black and Tan: Essays and Excursions on Slavery, Culture War, and Scripture in America seemed to be a great book to pair with America’s God, since both books discuss 19th-century American Christianity.

The story of this book begins in the 1990s when Wilson and his fellow Presbyterian minister Steve Wilkins wrote a pamphlet called “Southern Slavery as It Was.”  Controversy erupted when they argued that the abuses of Southern slavery were exaggerated.

Black and Tan reiterates the main points of that pamphlet and discusses the controversy that resulted from it.  The central points might be listed as follows:

• The Bible does allow for slavery within certain guidelines, although as the gospel does its work within nations, slavery will be abolished because the institution of slavery is against the logic of the gospel
• Racism and the slave trade are roundly condemned by the Bible
• Slavery was abolished in the United States in a radical and unbiblical way rather than that gradual way that it should have been if the gospel had done its work in American culture
• The Civil War empowered the federal government in such a way that it overthrew the truly federal system of government that the Constitution provided for, and this empowerment of humanistic instead of Christian values (which he compares to the French Revolution) paved the way for the current culture wars over abortion and gay marriage by, for example, giving the Supreme Court the power to overturn all states’ abortion laws

This blog post by Wilson also gives a good insight into his purposes.

In my view, there are great strengths and important weaknesses in this book, and I’ll discuss the strengths first.  Wilson’s explanation of the biblical view of racism leaves no doubt that God’s will is to replace racial hatred with racial reconciliation in Christ.  Wilson is emphatic and convincing that racism is sinful.  His discussion of slavery is also good.  Wilson is careful to state that he does not miss slavery and believes that God judged the South for its sins by handing it defeat in the Civil War.

He also does not defend the Southern practice of slavery as biblical, although he does believe that the conditions have been exaggerated.  Wilson believes that Southern slavery was more humane than ancient Roman slavery or slavery in the Caribbean plantations.  This is something that I don’t have the expertise to weigh in on before reading more about it, and the details are not discussed much in this book.  I believe that it is discussed more in the original pamphlet, and this portion became part of the plagiarism controversy that enveloped it because Wilkins did not footnote material that he had taken from a book called Time on the Cross.  I hope to check out the full pamphlet sometime.  For now, it is enough to say that I was impressed with Wilson’s principles and exegesis on slavery, the slave trade, and racism.  An honest look at the Bible will show that slavery with limits appears in the Bible, and I think that Wilson does an admirable job interpreting what it means.

There are some weaknesses that need discussion too.  His characterization of the American Revolution against Britain as “not a true revolution in the modern sense of the word,” with the true revolution coming with the Civil War, is useful but also too simple.  Much of the leadership of the American Revolution indeed did not want anything like the French Revolution, but the Revolution also unleashed democratic, anti-authoritarian forces in such a way that they frightened some of the Founders (see Federalist No. 10, for example, where Madison openly says that democracy is bad).  Mark Noll’s America’s God and Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution discuss this trend well.  Peter Leithart commented on the radical nature of the American Revolution recently when he said, in response to a review of a book on aristocracy and revolution:

Different as France and America were, the example of America was key for French revolutionaries, since the US (in Doyle’s words) “showed the European world beyond America that a society without nobles was possible, and could work.”   American opposition to nobility is enshrined in the Constitution (Article 1, sections 9-10).  For all the “conservatism” of the American revolutionaries, Armitage’s review neatly captures just how radical the American experiment was.  To European conservatives, the US – with its rejection of throne, throne and altar, and nobility – must have appeared to be an effort to change the operating system of human society.

I think that most historians would argue that there was a democratizing trend that continued from the Revolutionary period through the 19^th century.

One example of revolutionary nature of the American Revolution is its most famous document, The Declaration of Independence, which is hardly anti-revolutionary.  It traces government’s authority to “consent of the governed” rather than God, and has its intellectual heritage in Enlightenment deism rather than traditional Christianity.  I think it’s far better to see the American Revolution as supported by different people for different and overlapping reasons rather than as simply conservative or radical, Christian or deist.

Also, although Wilson writes that the North was not monolithic, he tends to identify the North with secular humanism because of people like radical abolitionists and Harvard’s Unitarian leadership.  His view doesn’t allow for enough nuance in viewing Northern society in the 19^th century.

He also refers to the inferiority of African culture when compared with European culture without much description of why.  Now, it’s important to say that he does not do this on a racial basis.  He gives some details on European barbarism before Christianization, and he says that he looks forward to the day when Christianized Africans will produce the magnificent cultural achievements that European culture has.  For him, the key is the gospel’s influence in culture rather than any notion of innate European superiority.

Because I have secular training in the discipline of history, I’m sure that I have my own blind spots on this.  To me, though, his easy assignment of inferior African culture didn’t seem particularly reflective.  I’m not so sure that a traditional culture, once Christianized, has to take the same route as European culture.  The key is faithful Christian living, which will certainly change the culture, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will produce the cathedrals and grand musical compositions that Wilson expects.  Secondly, his point of view doesn’t do very well in explaining Mesopotamia, Egypt, or China, which all had quite “advanced civilizations,” by most people’s standards, without the gospel.  I’d like to hear more from Wilson on this point, but I think what he has in Black and Tan is too simplistic.

At not much more than 100 pages, Black and Tan is worth reading.  Wilson’s a great writer, discussing important ideas with clarity and an economy of words.  His sense of humor is outstanding as well.  It will make you think about the origins of the culture wars and the trajectory of American history, even if you can’t agree with him on everything.  As he points out in the introduction, one needn’t be a professional historian to write about history.  And though I have disagreements with the book, I’m glad that he didn’t keep his opinions to himself.

Balanced Spirituality According to St. James

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

I am preaching on this text this coming Lord’s Day (8/31/09). After reading Matt Harmon’s ( Grace Theological Seminary) “ten theses for further discussion” from his talk about the relationship between the kingdom of God and social justice (here and here), I got to thinking some more about these issues and I noticed how much it has in touch with the epistle of James, which I am preaching through right now.

Pastor John Svendson from El Segundo First Baptist Church, who was a mentor to me of sorts in my formative years of theological training, outlined James 1:27 as follows:

“Real Religion”: A Social Dimension (looking outward Jm 1:27a) and A Spiritual Dimension (looking inward Jm 1:27b)

I am going to use this brief concise outline in my own preaching of this text. It sums up well the entire book of James, which is primarily concerned about our outward action as a reflection of inward piety. American Protestantism has usually gravitated towards one end of the spectrum, either being very engaged socially at the expense of orthodoxy or being very engaged to personal sanctification within an orthodox paradigm, albeit disengaged from social action beyond one’s family and local Church community. It is easy to say that we want to live in the middle: to be faithful to Scripture in personal piety and in social engagement, but much more difficult to live out…it requires tension, which most of us don’t like. James hits us on the head when he tells us that our “religion” is pure only when we do BOTH: care for widows and orphans and those who are afflicted AND “to keep oneself unstained from the world”. The challenge is to engage the world and yet remain undefiled by it. Christians love to escape from the world or find themselves all to comfortable in the world. Let us embrace the tension that Scripture gives us.

If you don’t care for those who are “afflicted”, then your orthodoxy means nothing…your religion is worthless.

If you don’t care for Scripture and personal piety, then your social engagement, though noble, proceeds from moral and epistemological bankruptcy. It is deficient.

Let us tend to both (caring for the afflicted and personal piety), knowing that each is at stake in the other!!!

The tricky balance between evangelism and social justice

Matt Harmon of Grace Theological Seminary posted “ten theses for further discussion” from his talk about the relationship between the kingdom of God and social justice.  You can find them here and here.  This is something that I’m quite interested in.   Here are some that I thought were particularly well-said:

2. We must allow biblical and theological convictions to shape our engagement in social action. There are simply too many individuals and churches that jump into these issues out of compassion devoid of biblical and theological foundations. The responsibility for this rests primarily with the church to provide solid teaching on this area, but also for individual believers to ground themselves in Scripture. Compassion that is not rooted in the gospel will ultimately and inevitably lead to assuming and eventually even denying the gospel in the name of caring for people in this life.

3. We must not collapse the already/not-yet tension. However one puts this together, we need to be sure to recognize both. Emphasizing the already to the neglect of the not-yet results in people thinking that our efforts usher in the kingdom, or worse yet that the ultimate goal of God is to improve conditions in the [sic, I think think he means "this"] life. Emphasizing the not-yet to the neglect of the already results in people thinking that any engagement in social issues is a waste of time because it is all going to burn. Holding the two together holds the promise of engagement in social action while prioritizing eternal issues of heaven and hell….

5. We must prioritize proclamation of the gospel without neglecting social action. This is the point where our theology really surfaces. If we are convinced that heaven and hell are ultimate realities that each human being must face, then we will prioritize the communication of the gospel message. This does not mean that every kind deed must be accompanied by a gospel tract, but it does mean an intentional effort to share the gospel in the context of meeting physical needs or addressing social structures. Actions are not self-interpreting; there are plenty of nice moral people who do good things for the community and have no interest in Jesus Christ. If we are to distinguish our efforts from them (and at some level we MUST if we are to be faithful to Christ) there must be communication of the gospel. Faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17), not by simple observation of good works.

6. We must realize that our actions are not self-interpreting. There is absolutely a place for being salt and light in a community through good deeds. But unless those deeds are given an interpretation, people will simply not know why we are doing them. There are plenty of groups who do good deeds in the community. Our actions will not truly adorn the gospel unless people are made aware that the actions flow out of our commitment to Jesus Christ. Again, faith comes by hearing, not simply doing good things before people and hoping they make the connection to Christ.

7. We must recognize the trend towards increasing social action and decreasing evangelism within the church. In many (if not most) evangelical churches today it is easier to recruit people to go do a neighborhood service project than it is to do evangelism. My concern is that a growing number of evangelicals assuage their guilt (if it even exists!) for not sharing the gospel by doing good deeds in the community. While I am not arguing a strict causation, it seems more than coincidental that at a time when evangelical participation in social action is rising rapidly active participation in evangelism falling rapidly.

8. We must think through and articulate the connection between specific social action and the gospel. One of the reasons that social and action and evangelism are hard to marry is that we have often failed to think through the relationship between specific physical needs and the gospel. When ministering to the hungry we can point them to the bread that truly satisfies. When ministering to those who are poor we can help them to see that their physical poverty is a window into the spiritual condition before God, and their need for spiritual riches that cannot be destroyed. When we think through these kinds of connections the relationship between social action and the verbal communication of the gospel seems much more natural.

Hat Tip: Justin Taylor

American hermeneutics and slavery

After chronicling the Americanization of Calvinist and Methodist theology, Mark Noll in America’s God turns to American biblical hermeneutics, the way that Americans read the Bible, in Chapters 18-20.  Noll argues that the American approach to Scripture in this period also came from both their Protestant heritage and their revolutionary/early national circumstances.  Noll has argued that republican government and commonsense moral ideas replaced the traditional authorities that held sway in the colonies, and that society was becoming increasingly democratic.  Evangelicalism often followed these trends even as it created what Noll calls “a formidable Christian civilization” (437) out of the former colonies, displaying a willingness and sometimes even a preference to work in the wide-open marketplace of religious choices, offering a view of human nature that owed quite a bit to Scottish Enlightenment ideas, and expressing theology in language drawn from Enlightenment and republican ideas.

These historical developments impacted the way that Americans read the Bible, Noll argues.  As the American Revolution and the democratizing forces that came from it laid waste to traditional authorities and evangelical churches expanded their membership, American culture displayed great devotion to “the Bible alone.”  This meant that the plain meaning of Scripture could be understood by the average person without help from theological traditions.  Noll notes that Americans rarely cited the Bible itself to justify this way of interpreting the Bible. He calls the American style of interpretation “a Reformed, literatal hermeneutic,” which had three basic characteristics:

• an adherence to the Reformed tradition that the whole Bible was important as a guide for all of life
• a belief that the Bible was plain to all people without help from tradition; Noll quotes Restorationist Alexander Campbell to illustrate this point: “I have been so long disciplined in the school of free enquiry, that, if I know my own mind, there is not a man upon the earth whose authority can influence me, any farther than he comes with the authority of evidence, reason, and truth…. I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me” (380)
• a belief that because the Bible was simple, it offered simple solutions to “problems in theology, morals, and society” (384)

But this hermeneutic did not provide simplicity on the subject of slavery.  In fact, theologians and others in the North and South could not reconcile their respective commonsense readings of the Bible with each other.  In fact, the American hermeneutic favored the Southern position: slavery was clearly in the Bible and rules were given to govern it in both the Old and New Testaments.  This meant that some abolitionists, like William Lloyd Garrison, rejected the Bible completely.  Consequently, this made other abolitionists vulnerable to the charge that they too were faithless.  Noll shows well how pro-slavery interpreters could back up their positions using the American literal hermeneutic.

He doesn’t show as well how the anti-slavery evangelicals believed that their own reading of the Bible as anti-slavery was literal, but he does give the general arguments that they used.  They tended to either argue that American slavery was different and worse than slavery in the Bible or, more commonly, that the spirit of the Bible condemned slavery even if the letter did not.  This second view distinguished between the facts recorded in the Bible, which were not to be taken as encouraging all recorded behavior, and the moral teachings of the Bible.  But these views generally did not hold up in debates against theologians who defended slavery.  Noll argues that the Civil War had the elements of a theological crisis that American theology simply could not solve.

There were other theological perspectives outside of these competing evangelical alternatives.  Interestingly, Noll also argues that British and Canadian evangelicals, who did not share the American hermeneutic, often found it strange that Christians could defend slavery.  African American theology tended to be very Bible-centered, but tended to look at the broader biblical story.  Roman Catholics criticized Protestant individualism and claimed that the authoritative interpretation of the Church could solve the debate.  Lutheran and German Reformed theologians in American tended to look to their theological traditions while also becoming Americanized.  None of the American traditions had the cultural capital to make much difference, Noll believes.

The one theological school that Noll gave a chance of impacting the debate was the conservative Reformed, such as the Old School Presbyterians.  He gives the examples of Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary and Robert Breckinridge.  Both came to the position that though the Bible allowed for slavery, larger biblical principles pointed the way to abolition because of the sinfulness of the practice of the Southern slave system (Breckinridge) or the biblical limitations on slavery that ultimately undermined the system (Hodge).  But Noll believes that this perspective could not overcome the power of the Reformed, literal hermeneutic.

Noll closes Chapter 20 with a great reflection on American “common sense” about race in the 19th century and how this interacted with ideas about slavery and the Bible.  He argues that while defenders of slavery looked at the letter of the Bible to defend slavery, they allowed their common sense about the inferiority of blacks to overrule the Bible’s teachings on race.  Hence, defenders of slavery were quite comfortable in asserting that not only was slavery divinely sanctioned, but black people were meant to be slaves.

our mad world

Since we are encased within our society we can sometimes forget how insane it really is. A conversation I had yesterday reminded me of the deep weird that we live in. Our women fill their bodies with chemicals to prevent them from fertility for years and years. Later, when they are older and may decide to have kids they then take fertility drugs which sometimes cause them to conceive five or more kids at a time, several of which may be selectively killed prior to birth.
If children do arrive in our modern childless families, they alternate between being treated as possessions to be controlled and burdens which must be sloughed off to the State. Most kids enter daycare at the earliest possible age so that the mother can be used by our capitalist system to increase our standard of living (plasma TVs, mobile devices, huge cars, and so forth). Daycare costs a lot though, so it is with relief that when the child is older, the free (tax-supported) system kicks in and the kids can go into 13 or so years of state-indoctrination, aimed at making docile citizens who can in turn repeat this cycle.
Young men and women know that what the are supposed to do is go to college, learning from materialist professors how to hate the values of the society (Christendom) that gave birth to our modern enlightened society. This is where people learn the really tremendous value of binge drinking, drug use and casual sex with as may partners as possible for four years or so. They also learn the exalted status of sodomy and the way in which oppressive patriarchalism held women down for millenia until they woke up in the 1960’s.
After getting a BA or perhaps a Master’s Degree, the men and women are now around 22-25, a time at which in the primitive days people had already married and started having kids. We know better than that, and so marriage is still perhaps a decade off for our average Jane. She’s got to see the world, travel, experience different cultures and figure out what to do for work. Besides, how can you start a family when you have 40K in student loans to pay off first? And who really wants to marry a Peter Pan like male who thinks life consists of playing video games, watching ESPN, getting drunk and hooking up as much as possible?
So life goes on until finding the right person in the early to mid 30’s and getting married. You still have to wait to have kids until you get the right house, travel some, and get a promotion. You get the picture, wash, rinse, repeat….The goal is to get rich via real estate or the lotto so you can stop working at that job where they don’t appreciate your efforts. Then you can just fish all day, or shop, or eat, or whatever.
To defeat depression you get hooked on TV shows or watch an endless succession of movies or Twitter or get medicated. This doesn’t even throw in the cheating, “open marriages”, abortions, child support, or simple boredom that are the other norms of our day.
This is what our world has to offer. In the end it is meaningless and futile. It is not the good life and has nothing of ultimate worth to offer us. It is merely marking the time until you die and your existence ceases, in contrast to what religious fanatics think. Welcome to 2009 proles.

30 days, pro-choice in a pro-life world

I happen to catch a show of “30 days” late last night (when I should of been sleeping), a reality show by Morgan Spurlock, about a pro-choice woman to took on the challenge of living 30 days at “His Nesting Place“, a faith-based pro-life organization (a great opportunity for ministry or help).   Watching the show was interesting, sad, joyous for the life-services provided & frustrating.

There was one part where Mr. Spurlock interviews a couple about the death of their daughter who died from a botched abortion obtained illegally somewhere b/c she was under age.  I feel for the grief the parents feel over the loss of their teenage daughter.  I really do.  I have children and I would be stricken with much grief if they had died while I live.  I don’t remember when it was that the daughter died or even when this particular show was recorded. I’m sure if I wanted to search the internet for those details that I’d find it but it’s irrelevant at this point.   But the parents were angry that in Indiana, where they lived, had passed a “parental consent law for minors” which states that a minor under 18 needs written permission from at least 1 parent and accompanied to a pre-abortion visit.  So these parents were mad at the law and law-makers!  Is it really the fault of the government?  They admitted to not knowing that their daughter was pregnant.  The daughter apparently took matters into her own hands, sought an abortion by someone who was apparently unqualified & she paid the ultimate price.  Spurlock just shook his head as in disbelief.  I can see & understand the tragedy of this circumstance as it is a sad one.  But is there no fault with the teenage girl & the guy that contributed to her pregnancy?  Did she do absolutely no wrong?  Is it really “ok” that minors should be absolutely free & able to go and have an abortion all by herself without any knowledge or consent by her parents or guardian?   How is this even fathomable by any parent or mature adult?  My 7th grade son was not allowed to suck on a cough drop at school last year, not even with my consent!  Why is it that our kids in schools can’t have an aspirin or tylenol or any kind of medication w/o either a parent’s or physician’s consent?  Why do I have to sign a medical release for my child at school if he/she were to have an emergency and needed to go to the hospital? Isn’t it b/c those are important decisions that parents should know and be aware of and contribute their voice to these concerns b/c their children are their responsibility?  Are they not?   Why is an abortion any different?  Why are pro-abortionists trying to hard to make this a “right”?  Is it really??  It’s surgery!   Is it b/c the girl or boy will be embarrassed or ashamed or scared or guilty that they did something they shouldn’t have?  In which they now encounter the resulting risks of their behaviors?  It’s like, if you play with fire, you risk getting burned.  Like, if you drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you risk a crash, injury to yourself, whoever is in the vehicle with you and anyone else that may be on the road.  Or, like, if you do drugs, you risk damage to body/organs/disease.  Like, if you decide to steal from a drug dealer, you risk getting killed.  Like, if you draw on a cop, you risk getting shot at.  and on and on…

And then there was this other part where the pro-choice girl, who works in a “women’s clinic” in which she proudly advertised “offers choices”, who also herself had an abortion b/c she simply wasn’t ready, was asked if she came to the realization that the fetus is really a baby and that people are choosing to abortion the baby, hence therefore killing them, then surely she would change her mind about the validity of “choice”.   I was so sad to hear her say that even if she for some reason should change her thinking that a fetus was a living baby being aborted that she wouldn’t think or believe or feel any different than she has been, which is it is still ok to abort a baby if a woman should so choose.   how awful.   It was awful for me to watch her act excited as she greeted & held some of the babies at the ” His Nesting Place”.   I wanted to say to her, “those are the very babies that you say is ‘ok’ to abort!”

Part of the challenge was that she had also experience the ways in which pro-lifers approach or minister to their cause.  Mind you not all pro-life organizations function the same.  One cause of which was outside the famous chinese theater in L.A., where demonstraters were displaying pictures of aborted babies.   She was offended and didn’t like what the protesters were doing, calling them provacative & the beloved liberal title of “fear-mongering”.    I know those images are disturbing and grotesque & confrontational, but why?  Why is it that pro-choicers don’t like people to see them?  She said it was inaccurate.  So you’re telling me all the physicians that declare that it a fetus is in essence a baby, and when it’s aborted, that abortion is killing a life and the descriptions of the way the baby, ‘er I mean “fetus” is sliced and diced and sucked out is all a hoax?  A lie?  A conspiracy to scare people?   And none of the pictures available that show tiny limbs and heads in pieces from an unborn baby being aborted is all made up?   What exactly is inaccurate about the pictures?  Babies are aborted anywhere from the first to 2nd trimesters and even 3rd in some states.  or is it you just want to deny that it’s real for the sake of your own pride and selfishness?

Forgive me for not feeling sorry for someone who chooses a selfish way out to avoid either shame or responsibility.  But I still need to pray for them. Some may think I’m being disrespectful & callous here by talking about a dead girl and her grieving family.   there’s bigger issues here.  Bigger than the girl and bigger than her death and her family’s grief.  LIFE.  Responsibility.  Intergrity.  GOOD “CHOICES”.  RIGHT “CHOICES”.

I”m pro-choice living in a pro-life world too.  I’m just pro-choice for the baby first.  take responsibility.  Give birth.  The other choices doesn’t “usually” involve killing anyone.  The choice for abortion always does.

Combined Book Review: Evangelism, Racial Reconciliation, and Community Development in Mississippi

• John Perkins, Let Justice Roll Down (1976)
• John Perkins, With Justice for All (1982)
• Dolphus Weary, I Ain’t Comin’ Back (1990, 1997)

On June 15, I’m heading down Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee with members of 9 different Chicagoland churches.  Organized by Willow Creek Community Church, the idea of the “Justice Journey” is to get white and black Christians together to visit prominent sites from the history of the Civil Rights movement and to discuss racial reconciliation in the church.  One of the speakers along the way will be John Perkins, and his autobiography (Let Justice Roll Down) was assigned reading.  Since I had some time, I decided to read two other related books, one by Perkins and another by someone who became part of his ministry, Dolphus Weary.

Let Justice Roll Down is a really powerful story of Perkins’ ministry in Mississippi through the mid-1970s.  He had grown up in rural Mississippi and seen his brother shot and killed by a policeman.  When his family moved to California, he eventually became a Christian in his mid-20s.  As he shared the gospel in the Los Angeles area, he eventually felt called back to Mississippi to spread the gospel and knowledge of the Bible in his native state.  With the early financial support of California churches that included Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, pastored by John MacArthur’s father Jack MacArthur, he returned to Mississippi to begin his work.  He named his ministry Voice of Calvary after MacArthur’s radio broadcast.

Integrating a Christian College

Dolphus Weary describes his predicament in mid-1960s Mississippi in I Ain’t Comin’ Back:

I also developed a vague idea that I wanted to so [sic] something similar to John [Perkins] and the others at the ministry.  I didn’t know what, but I wanted to prepare for it as best I could.  To me that meant finishing my education at a Christian college.  There was just one problem — I didn’t know of a single accredited four-year Christian college that would admit a black person.  I knew some Bible institutes that educated blacks.  But I wanted a full college education as well as Bible instruction. (52)

Fortunately, he met the director of admissions of Los Angeles Baptist College in Newhall, now The Master’s College, after chapel at Mississippi junior college (a young John MacArthur was also visiting).  LABC offered Weary and his friend Jimmie Walker basketball scholarships.

When they got there, they realized that they were the first and only full-time black students at LABC.  While they noticed the more open racial climate of California and soon made good friends with many other students, they found that some students purposely ignored them and that others were openly hostile.  Weary recalls the cheers that he heard from some students after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

Weary writes that he and Walker committed to confronting this prejudice without resorting to hatred.  They were eventually able to get more of their friends from Mississippi to come, including Dolphus’ future wife, Rosie.  Weary’s story is a testimony of the power of God to give courage to the downtrodden.

Perkins on the importance of informed solutions

After John Perkins essentially fought the Mississippi court system to a draw twice, dropping his charges against the local authorities when they promised to drop theirs against him, he believed that the most important part of his experience was informing people about the injustices of police misconduct and brutality:

One of the things for Christian observers is that there are times when the biggest need is for information rather than exhortation.  We need to know more about what really goes on before we solidify our theoretical ideas about what a Christian “ought” or “ought not” to do.

Whether we admit it or not, our reading of biblical ethics is colored by our perception of the world around us.  If we think that there are only a few “bad guys” such as burglars or murderers, and that all the given political, legal and economic structures around us are basically okay, then we are bound to read our Bibles in a certain way.  We will assume that it tells us to “lay low,” whether we are a part of the law or only under the law; that the person who speaks out is a rebellious agitator.

But that assumption can be badly shaken up by a good look at what happens to many people who are simply crushed by, rather than helped by, these social structures and institutions that we take for granted.  If sin can exist at every level of government, and in every human institution, then also the call to biblical justice in every corner of society must be sounded by those who claim a God of Justice as their Lord. (Let Justice Roll Down, Ch. 21, pg. 195, 1976 edition)

This is a great reminder that we need to see if justice goes beyond rhetoric and good ideas and is actually carried out.

After John Perkins essentially fought the Mississippi court system to a draw twice, dropping his charges against the local authorities when they promised to drop theirs against him, he believed that the most important part of his experience was informing people about the injustices of police misconduct and brutality:

One of the things for Christian observers is that there are times when the biggest need is for information rather than exhortation.  We need to know more about what really goes on before we solidify our theoretical ideas about what a Christian “ought” or “ought not” to do.

Whether we admit it or not, our reading of biblical ethics is colored by our perception of the world around us.  If we think that there are only a few “bad guys” such as burglars or murderers, and that all the given political, legal and economic structures around us are basically okay, then we are bound to read our Bibles in a certain way.  We will assume that it tells us to “lay low,” whether we are a part of the law or only under the law; that the person who speaks out is a rebellious agitator.

But that assumption can be badly shaken up by a good look at what happens to many people who are simply crushed by, rather than helped by, these social structures and institutions that we take for granted.  If sin can exist at every level of government, and in every human institution, then also the call to biblical justice in every corner of society must be sounded by those who claim a God of Justice as their Lord. (Let Justice Roll Down, Ch. 21, pg. 195, 1976 edition)

This is a great reminder that we need to see if justice goes beyond rhetoric and good ideas and is actually carried out.

When the church looks irrelevant

From John Perkins’ autobiography Let Justice Roll Down:

You see, in all my years growing up in Mississippi, I had never heard the simple truth of the gospel: the fact that Jesus Christ could set me free and love His life in me.  I grew up knowing nothing about Jesus Christ.

In fact, I had always looked at black Christians as sort of inferior people whose religion had made them gullible and submissive.  Religion had made so many of my people humble down to the white-dominated system with all its injustices.  Religion had made them cowards and Uncle Toms.

But I was a Perkins and I wasn’t like that at all.  No way was I like that.  So I did not see the black church as relevant to me and my needs.

And I did not see white Christianity as meaningful either.  To me it was part of that whole system that helped dehumanize and destroy black people; that system which identified me as a nigger.  So how could the white church really be concerned about me?

I had lived in the South.  I had drunk at separate drinking fountains.  I had ridden in the back of buses.  And never in the South had I heard one white Christian speak out against the way whites treated blacks as second-class citizens.

I had never accepted the falsehood that I was a second-class citizen.  Nor had I ever accepted the myth that I was a nigger.  So I did not see the white church as relevant to me and my needs. (Ch. 7, 57-58, 1976 edition)

Perkins eventually found forgiveness for his sin and meaning for his life in Christ, as well as a passion for justice that he found so lacking in his boyhood home.

Pro-Choice=Abortion=baby torture

For those who oppose torture & are pro-choice, I ask you, how can you declare equality & justice for terrorists & lawbreakers (especially repeat offenders), & luxurious amenities in jails (like cable tv, workout gyms, etc) yet you are ok with the slaughter of innocent human babies who have committed no wrong, though you would sentence them to a brutal death by the means of “legal abortion”?    As early as at 10 wks, all the baby’s organs have already formed & they are conscience & aware of their surroundings & although a hot debate among some medical professionals other medical evidence shows that feel the pain of being aborted.   This is what a baby looks like at 10 weeks.  Many pro-abortion sources I’ve read tout that most abortions happen at 10 weeks and under, like this is a great compromise.  Even at a few weeks earlier, 7 weeks shows that the fetus is not just a ‘clump of cells’ as many want to claim to detach themselves from responsibilty in killing a human baby.  The baby is already taking form, having also formed the bodily organs.

So I pose this question, why is it so inhumane to torture a criminal/terrorists and the like, but totally within alledged bounds of ‘rights’ when cutting up a baby in the safety of it’s habitat, namely the womb of the woman?  How cruel & unusual is the punishment upon the unborn baby that it should be subject to being chopped up then suctioned out, then thrown in the trash like left over roadkill.  This is just sick & twisted.

I was questioned in one of my other older posts about the correctness of my using a picture of an aborted baby when it actually wasn’t an aborted baby but a stillborn.  The man also then admitted that though that particular picture wasn’t of an  aborted baby of that size, actual abortions of babies that size ARE being aborted.  There are plenty of other photos or even videos on the net to prove such.  Although, you don’t need the actual aborted picture to tell you so.  You just look up abortions & when they occur & look up fetal development & what they look like BEFORE they are aborted.  Then imagine what they look like after they get aborted using the procedures available today.   This act is just sick, twisted & sadistic.  Simply Horrific.

“peace if possible, truth at all costs.” -MartinLuther

Rising numbers of ProLifers

Newest gallup poll in May 2009 shows an increase of pro-lifers in America @ 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice. I just wonder if these same people who consider themselves pro-life also deem it so important that they vote accordingly?  Or is it one of those, “well, “I” personally believe it’s wrong but who am I to say it’s wrong for someone else” type thing, which I think is utterly cowardly.  In this case of life, it’s either wrong or it isn’t.  Which is it?  Why can this be wrong for one and not another?

It’s such a sad day when a people or country will say that it is more important to save a species of plants (trees, flowers, etc), animals, insects even, but not a human life.  It was troubling humorous when I was searching about some insect I sometimes found crawling in our bathroom when we lived in upstate NY.  I searched the internet to find out what it was & if it was harmful in anyway.  There were people who were pleading for others not to kill the million-legged creepy crawler!  I mean, c’mon!  I smashed that thing everytime I found one & the thing’s legs would still wiggle for a while after being chopped & smashed.  I bet some, if not all those people were also pro-choice.

I also find it ironic that many who are involved in helping the poor of third world countries value those struggling lives of the people over there, including children & babies, when those are the very babies that democratic leaders & those of the left mindset find abortion worthy or necessary to curb this dilemma.  While I don’t condone the sexual ignorance, irresponsible  practices of those who abuse sexual pleasures that in turn can create hardships for themselves & others, life is life once conceived, & therefore inherently valuable.  right?

Peter Berger on Globalization and Religion

I listened to Speaking of Faith program (transcript and audio here) from 2006 today that talked about how globalization has impacted religion.  You might be familiar with the rather Eurocentric thesis that said that secularism would accompany modernization, just as it had in Europe.  In fact, sociologist Peter Berger held this view as well, before realizing that it just hasn’t played out that way.

Rather, he said, modernity has brought pluralism and increased contact with multiple points of view.  People don’t live in areas where everyone shares a common belief system, where religion is taken for granted.

Now, this taken-for-granted status is lost with the coming of pluralism because you realize there are other possibilities of belief and of life. And therefore people are forced to make choices, and that is a very big change.

I’ve described modernity as a gigantic transformation from destiny to choice. People must choose what they believe, how they define themselves, how they are to live, which is quite a burden. I mean, it can be a liberation, but it’s also a burden. And then you have to ask, what are the ways in which people can cope with this loss of taken-for-granted status?

There are three options, as he sees it:

One is to try to restore taken-for-grantedness in the entire society, the totalitarian system. Now, the other little more plausible project is to forget about the larger society and to create a taken-for-granted subculture. So, if you like, it’s the sectarian option. You create little groups, tightly controlled, and within those groups, whatever the religious tradition is, it again becomes taken for granted. There are lots of examples of this. It’s also difficult because of the turbulent pluralism outside. So you have to keep very tight controls over your members. The third possibility is to engage with the pluralism and to enter into dialogue with the alternatives that exist to your own traditional belief system. That is difficult also. There are no risk-free options in any of this. But it’s possible, and many people go that way.

This helps to conceptualize the different responses we see around the world to modernization and globalization, I think.

the conservative black vote

I know this a little late but I had it drafted during the elections but just forgot about it but still wanted to post anyway b/c this problem didn’t stop just b/c this election is over.

Why were black conservatives who voted for McCain being ostracized for their conservative beliefs?   People want to claim that only white people are racists or prejudice.   I’m not even white.  There are people among their own races are prejudice against another just because they believe or think differently.  There’s a difference between not liking a person’s idea or philosophy but to hate them or threat or accuse them of being traitors, isn’t that just the very thing black people are supposedly fighting against?  I’m not prejudice or anything but black people think they have the right to live by this double standard where they can call other people of any race, names or stereotypes and it be ok, but all hell breaks lose if it’s the other way around?!  Why can a black person joke about and say the “voodoo” words or labels and it be funny but if other races do it, the ACLU is quick on their tail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A&feature=related Here’s a guy expressing his conservative views and you can read some of the negative comments he received as a result.   Why isn’t he “black enough” just because he shares conservative views?  Ridiculous.

I watched a segment on DL Hugley’s show where he was interviewing Michael Steele and saying how the republican party is just a bunch of white old folk.  Hello?  Do you not see just as much white old folk in the democratic party?  At least Mr. Steele was quick to point that out leaving DL staring into space.

I looked on the blogosphere to check this kind of prejudice and saw the hate comments directed towards anyone black that was voting for McCain, especially that radio show host that stood up at one of McCain’s rallies.  It really angers me to see this stuff.  What a shame that he would have to endure that kind of treatment just because he’s black & he’s conservative. 

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/30825819.html

What a shame indeed.

Ashley Judd, get a clue, and a “real heart”.

I have enjoyed Ashley Judds’ performances on film but sadly, her recent confrontation of Sarah Palin has tainted my image of her sweet face.   Are you kidding me?? Is she serious?? She’s going on about how “cruel and senseless” (“It’s time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery,” said Judd in a new Internet video for the group Defenders of Wildlife, http://www.wsbtv.com/atthemovies/18646684/detail.html#- ) these killings of wolves are yet she is a staunch pro-abortionists!! IS ABORTION OF A HUMAN BABY FOR ANY REASON, SELFISH, “CRUEL AND SENSELESS”??!!   IF there ever was a cause you should support and lash out for is LIFE… LIFE OF A HUMAN, NEVER MIND THE STUPID WOLVES!!  Ashley Judd, if you by some strange chance should be reading this, or if you are her fan, I emplore you to reconsider your ideas of “cruel and senseless”.  Live babies have been thrown out like garbage!  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1137486/Newborn-baby-thrown-trash-ALIVE-botched-abortion.html LIVE BABIES!!  HUMAN BABIES!!  What makes these pro-abortion people so passionate to save nature and animals that they would lack the common sense that the life of a human baby should warrant more fight and energy than they put into these “causes”.   On CNN,  ” Actress Ashley Judd says a wolf management program backed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is “incredibly savage … it’s not right, it’s not appropriate, it makes no sense on any level.”

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/alaska.judd.palin/index.html?section=cnn_latest

ARE YOU FOR REAL??  This is just simply DISGUSTING!!  Makes no sense, on any level??  Does slaughtering a baby make any sense??  On any level??  Is this not “cruel and senseless, inappropriate, unethical, and unrighteous”??

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n187/MAP_DMD/baby%20malachi/malachi.jpg

This only one of the many millions of  human babies that have been slaughtered to their deaths, all because people want to think it’s protecting a “women’s right”.  yeah, a women’s right to murder.

Heeding the Call to Defend the “Mute” AND to Defend the Poor and Needy

Proverbs 31:8-9 (ESV) 8 Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

As I was reading Scripture today, this passage really spoke to me. The people of God are told to defend the “mute”, those who are disabled. At the same time, it applies to the preborn who are “mute” in the mother’s womb. We are also to defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Unfortunately, in today’s political spectrum and social justice forums, emphasis is placed on ONLY one aspect of this passage…either defending the rights of the preborn or defending the rights of the poor and needy. In God’s perspective, these mandates are wedded to each other and inextricably connected. Defending the rights of the preborn, which is rooted in the dignity of mankind as a bearer of God’s image, is the very foundation for why we should even care about the poor and needy. They work hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other, which is so puzzling about the modern spectrum of thought, applying in both major political parties. Republicans defending the pre-born, but yet seemingly unconcerned about the poor and needy….while Democrats advocate the causes of poverty, but yet advocate abortion rights. Of course there are exceptions to the norm, but this is the general lay of the land. I pray for a day when both Republican and Democrat will be united in defending the right to life. Unfortunately we are moving more and more into a political philosophy which views the government as the bestower of such rights rather than the defender of such rights.

John Piper: “Be Courageous, Mr. President”

Thank you Brother Piper for your powerful words to the president. I stand with you in prayer for him and for what’s best for his daughters as well.

Hippocratic Oath is Pro-Life

I made mention of this oath in a previous post, but failed to cite where this 4th Century B.C. oath made explicit mention of abortion. Here it is:

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary (instrument) to cause an abortion.”

Again, if President Obama pursues the “Freedom of Choice Act”, he will be spitting in the face of medical oaths that have bound care-givers for centuries. He will also force thousands of doctors to perform abortions against their conscious. He will also be battling 1/3 of the hospitals in America which refuse to kill innocent life in the womb.

I wonder if our forefathers would ever imagine the day when we would mandate that care-givers be obligated to kill innocent human life if requested from a patient, or risk legal action, or be terminated from such a vocation. I pray that the Hippocratic Oath will not be replaced by the “Obama Oath”, which would also overrule such legislation as parental notification laws. I still don’t get the logic of a kid who can’t take asprin to school, but will be given a medical procedure without parental consent. I’m not a “doom and gloom” guy, but I fear that we are increasingly calling that which is good, evil; and calling that which is evil, good.

My Letter to President Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

President Obama, I read your comments on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, where you wished my son and daughter well in their pursuit of a “world class education”. Thanks for your concern for my childrens’ pursuit of happiness, but I care, and I pray that my very children would care, more about the denial of the fundamental right to life for others. Answer me one question: What makes my children intrinsically valuable in your sight, worthy of a college education, etc? Is it only because I “wanted” them? You are a “smart” man and I want to believe you know the answer. If so, please stop suppressing the truth on this fundamental issue and defend the right to life for the preborn, because their value is assigned them from God, not you, not mom, not anyone else. The baby in the womb that is a piece of trash to one, was a source of joy to me when I realized I was to have my first daughter, Kira. Can we both be right? That she is both a piece of trash and a precious life? Not for one minute did I think that Kira was precious because I said so….rather I simply affirmed that she was precious. Mr. Obama…Is my daughter Kira, when in the womb, precious or not? Is it really left up to me to decide as a “choice”? Are your daughters precious to you and Michelle only because you “wanted” them? Were they not created equal and endowed with rights from their Creator? I’m not trying to impose my Christian faith in your public policy, I speak to you as a fellow citizen, quoting not from Scripture, but rather from our very Declaration of Independence. It isn’t even the Government which assigns value to human life, but rather it is the Government’s duty to affirm human life and bind itself in the protection of such “self-evident” truths. We owe our existence not to parents, nor to the Government, but to what our founder’s called a “Creator”.

Mr. Obama, I do pray that you would walk in the tradition of former president Lincoln, and stand tall for human rights. Please heed the words of our country’s very declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights“. I pray that such truths will be “self-evident” as they were to Abraham Lincoln, who said: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Mr. Obama, in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence, in the spirit of our founders, in the spirit of patriots’ blood,  in the spirit of Lincoln, please dedicate yourself to that proposition “that all men are created equal”. The many babies who are dying today were created just as equal and just as valuable as yourself. May the “brotherhood” that Martin Luther King  Jr. sought extend to the youngest and most vulnerable among us…the baby in the womb.

I know you are busy and likely didn’t read this letter, but if so, I thank you. I happen to be a pastor and am committed to praying for you and your family. May the God of all strength bless you through His Son Jesus Christ and guide you in all your counsels and deliberations for the good of these United States of America. 

Kindest Regards,

Richard T. Hogaboam

My Response to Obama’s Comments on 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.”

Obama uses flattering rhetoric regarding our son’s and daughter’s interests, etc. What he failed to include was that if your son or daughter is in your womb and should have an extra finger, or be an undesired gender, go ahead and kill them in the womb because “government should not intrude on our most private family matters”. According to your logic, Pres. Obama, can I go ahead and kill my children because I don’t want them anymore? I don’t want you intruding on “private family matters” now, which you so highly value, trumping life itself.

Okay, I am being facetious if you haven’t already noticed. I do pray that abortions would be reduced. I do pray that we can offer help to mothers who abort for lack of financial resources. I say amen to those things. I also do hope that Obama will make adoption more accessible and less expensive. I give him credit for those things, but he is still flunking because those things aren’t important…my child’s college education isn’t important….none of those things are important unless we say with a united voice that the reason why those things are important is because you are human being with intrinsic worth, not a worth that is assigned from society from without, nor determined at the whims of mom, but intrinsically valuable. It all begins with the right to life. There is no pursuit of happiness for the pre-born who are painfully punctured in mom’s womb, sucked out, tied up in a bag, and thrown away in the garbage with candy wrappers and dirty tissue.

congratulations Mr. Obama. now what?

I tried to simplify the scope and depths of what was going on to my children.   Later in the evening, as I sat on my bed last night playing with my girls and watching the unfolding of the votes and then the declaration that Obama won the presidency, my stomach empty, my heart heavy, my head ached.  Then to my shock, my tears started to flow, uncontrollably.

Although I have been in the U.S. for 29 years (legally, that is), I hadn’t completed citizenship until 2 years ago so I had never voted before yesterday.  I have never even really been involved in politics until a few years ago, mainly because my husband is into it and his perspective and knowledge can be pretty impressive (most times). 

So anyway, here I am, my tears are rolling down my face, trying to hide the disappointment of the Obama win to my girls, to which my 4 year old asks why I’m crying and my 2 year old asks if I’m sad.  “I’m ok”, I said.  The tears came because as I watched my girls playing and laughing, my heart was troubled and saddened at all the silenced voices of laughter and playing as a result of abortion.  I was troubled to know that our world is calus when it comes to killing innocent unborn babies.  To think that my girls, life of whom I obviously love and cherish so much, in their beginning stages (in the womb) has been a cause for which some have declared their right to decide whether one should live or die, according to one’s “situation” or “choice”.  Pro-choice is indeed NOT pro-choice.  Pro-choice is in essence, -PRO-ABORTION, which abortions translated means:

According to wikipedia.com: “An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced. Abortion as a term most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, “

so selfishly deprived basic rights to life.

John Piper’s Article, “Lincoln’c Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion”

On January 12, 2009 Samantha Heiges, age 23, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for drowning her newborn in Burnsville, Minnesota. If she had arranged for a doctor to kill the child a few weeks earlier she would be a free woman.

What are the differences between this child before and after birth that would justify it’s protection just after birth but not just before? There are none. This is why Abraham Lincoln’s reasoning about slavery is relevant in ways he could not foresee. He wrote:

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. 

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. 

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you. (“Fragments: On Slavery“)

There are no morally relevant differences between white and black or between child-in-the-womb and child-outside-the-womb that would give a right to either to enslave or kill the other.

The Above article is found at http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1586_Lincolns_Logic_on_Slavery_Applied_to_Abortion/

2009 Sanctity of Life + Martin Luther King Jr. Sermon “Rescuing Life by Exposing Evil and Loving Jesus”

http://www.sovereigngracefellowship.org/topical/Life.mp3

 I just want to thank the entire congregation for their overwhelming feedback to my sermon. R.C. Sproul has lamented that many pastors choose to ignore the issue of abortion for fear of splitting the church or hurting feelings. I rejoice that this issue of abortion has actually impassioned our church, from what I can tell in teh feedback I have received. 

I also rejoice in the grace of God which covers all sin, including abortion. I pray that the amazing grace of our Savior would be so clearly proclaimed and modeled in our church that all sinners would find forgiveness in Him…and thus be grateful for such redemption…those who have been forgiven much, will be thankful much.

It Already Begins…Obama Supporting Pro-Abortion Policies…asking Doctors to Defy Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva

Sadly, President Obama has chosen to commemorate Roe v. Wade by reinstating taxpayer funding of abortions for NGO (Non Government Organizations) oversees. Read here.

He also is seeking to rescind the conscious clause for health care providers (link), which was supported and enacted by President Bush…see article below on Bush’s support:

Bush Admin Helps Pro-Life Doctors, Nurses Avoid Abortion Discrimination

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 15, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The Bush administration is continuing its efforts to help pro-life doctors and nurses avoid employment discrimination when it comes to opting out of participating in abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted new tentative rules that would guide hiring decisions.

The idea is to require hospitals and other medical facilities that receive federal funding to guarantee that they will not refuse to hire medical staff who refuse to participate in abortions.

The facilities would be required to sign written certifications as a prerequisite for receiving the federal funds.

The rules would go further and require state and local governments receiving federal funding to certify as well that they won’t discriminate against hospitals and medical facilities that don’t do abortions when making grant considerations with federal monies.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the proposed rules and HHS officials say they’re necessary to ensure federal funds do not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.”

The Bush administration also said the rules are based on legislation Congress has already approved to protect pro-life medical personnel.

Since the laws are often ignored, the rules would draw attention to them.

They would allow the administration to cut off federal aid to entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

Dr. David Stevens, the head of the 13,000-member Christian Medical Association, told LifeNews.com that he’s pleased President Bush is moving ahead with protections for pro-life doctors and nurses.

“It’s high time that the will of the people, as expressed over the past 35 years through laws passed by Congress, finally be translated into practical healthcare regulations,” he said.

“Americans on all sides of controversial issues such as abortion, reproductive technologies and assisted suicide can appreciate the need to protect everyone’s First Amendment rights of free speech and religious exercise. That means that healthcare professionals must be free to follow their individual conscientious convictions on these life-and-death matters,” he added.

Stevens said an internal survey of his group’s membership found 41 percent of pro-life physicians had been pressured to compromise their views on the job.

“Anecdotal accounts suggest that few persecuted healthcare professionals actually know their conscience rights and that they typically simply submit to pressure by resigning,” he said.

“Unless pro-life professionals are equipped to know and apply their conscience rights, they actually stand at risk of being weeded out from the profession altogether,” Dr. Stevens added.

The proposal is also drawing heat from abortion advocates because of its clear-cut definition of abortion — one that they say includes things like the morning after pill that can also work sometimes as an abortion drug.

The proposed HHS rules define abortion as “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, told the Times that the Bush administration is using the definition in an attempt to stop the distribution of birth control or contraception.

“Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?” she claims.

 

I thought Obama was smarter than to pick a fight with the thousands of doctors who reject killing babies.

The protection for human life has been watered down as it is in the revisions of medical oaths, but will suffer only more under a president who wishes to bind the conscious of doctors to a new oath: “Abortion on Demand No Matter the Reason”.

I am curious to see what will happen after the ACLU plants a pregnant woman seeking an abortion before a doctor known for refraining from providing abortions, only to sue him/her for not providing the abortion. Do we really want to run off a large perentage of doctors and force Christian/Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? By the way, about 1/3 hospitals in this country falls under that category, many of which are renowned for their level of care.

I thought it would be worth noting this downward spiral in the value of human life, especially in the “Declaration of Geneva”, which has revised the oath over the years to limit the protection of human life from conception. The article below is from Wikipedia on the Declaration of Geneva (the bold is my doing for emphasis):

Declaration of Geneva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article pertains to the medical profession. There is also the Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the 1923 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians‘ dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in NaziGermany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision ^[1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath’s moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.^[2]

The original Declaration of Geneva reads:^[3]

At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession

• I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity :
• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
• I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
• The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;
• I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
• I will maintain by all means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
• My colleagues will be my brothers
• I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads^[2]:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

• I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
• I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
• The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
• I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
• I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
• I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
• I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

The amendments to the Declaration have been criticised as “imping[ing] on the inviolability of human life” because, for example, the original made “health and life” the doctor’s “first consideration” whereas the amended version removes the words “and life”, and the original required respect for human life “from the time of its conception” which was changed to “from its beginning” in 1984 and deleted in 2005.^[4] These changes have been criticised as straying from the Hippocratic tradition and as a deviation from the post Nuremberg concern of lack of respect for human life. ^[5]

I Amen Al Mohler’s Prayer for President Obama

The following is a prayer offered by Al Mohler on behalf of our 44th president. I say a loud Amen to what he prays:

Our Father, Lord of all creation, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:  We pray today with a sense of special urgency and responsibility.  We come before you to pray for our new President, Barack Obama, and for all those in this new administration who now assume roles of such high responsibility.

We know that you and you alone are sovereign; that you rule over all, and that you alone are able to keep and defend us.  We know that our times are in your hands, and that “the king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord” [Proverbs 21:1].  Our confidence is in you and in you alone.  We come before you as a people who acknowledge our constant need for your provision, wisdom, and protection.

Father, we pray today for Barack Obama as he takes office as President of the United States.  We pray that you will show the glory of your name in our times and in these days, confounding the wisdom of the wise, thwarting the plans of the arrogant, and vindicating those who do justice and practice righteousness.

Father, we pray with thanksgiving for the gift of government and the grace of civic order.  Thank you for giving us rulers and for knowing our need for laws and ordered life together.  Thank you for this nation and the blessings we know as its citizens.  Thank you for freedoms unprecedented in human history.  We understand that these freedoms come with unprecedented opportunities.

Lord, we pray with thanksgiving for the joy and celebration reflected on millions of faces who never expected to look to the President of the United States and see a person who looks like themselves.  Father, thank you for preserving this nation to the moment when an African-American citizen will take the oath of office and become our President.  Thank you for the hope this has given to so many, the pride emerging in hearts that had known no such hope, and the pride that comes to a people who have experienced such pain at the hands of fellow citizens, simply because of the color of their skin.  Father, we rejoice in every elderly face that reflects such long-sought satisfaction and in every young face that expresses such unrestrained joy.  May this become an open door for a vision of race and human dignity that reflects your glory in our differences, and not our corruption of your gift.

Father, protect this president, we pray.  We pray that you will surround this president and his family, along with all our leaders, with your protection and sustenance.  May he be protected from evil acts and evil intentions, and may his family be protected from all evil and harm.

We pray that the Obama family will be drawn together as they move into the White House, and that they will know great joy in their family life.  We are thankful for the example Barack and Michelle Obama have set as parents.  Father, protect those precious girls in every way — including the protection of their hearts as they see their father often criticized and as he is away from them on business of state.  May their years in the White House bring them all even closer together.

Father, we pray for the safety and security of this nation, even as our new president settles into his role as Commander in Chief.  We know that you and you alone can be our defense.  We do not place our trust in horses or chariots, and we pray that you will give this president wisdom as he fulfills this vital responsibility.

Father, grant him wisdom in every dimension of his vast responsibility.  Grant him wisdom to deal with a global financial crisis and with the swirling complex of vexing problems and challenges at home and abroad.  May he inspire this nation to a higher vision for our common life together, to a higher standard of justice, righteousness, unity, and the tasks of citizenship.

Father, we pray that you will change this president’s heart and mind on issues of urgent concern.  We are so thankful for his gifts and talents, for his intellect and power of influence.  Father, bend his heart to see the dignity and sanctity of every single human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.  Father, lead him to see abortion, not as a matter of misconstrued rights, but as a murderous violation of the right to life.  May he come to see every aborted life as a violation of human dignity and every abortion as an abhorrent blight upon this nation’s moral witness.  May he pledge himself to protect every human life at every stage of development.  He has declared himself as an energetic defender of abortion rights, and we fear that his election will lead directly to the deaths of countless unborn human beings.  Protect us from this unspeakable evil, we pray.   Most urgently, we pray that you will bring the reign of abortion to an end, even as you are the defender of the defenseless.

Father, may this new president see that human dignity is undermined when human embryos are destroyed in the name of medical progress, and may he see marriage as an institution that is vital to the very survival of civilization.  May he protect all that is right and good.  Father, change his heart where it must be changed, and give him resolve where his heart is right before you.

Father, when we face hard days ahead — when we find ourselves required by conscience to oppose this president within the bounds of our roles as citizens — may we be granted your guidance to do so with a proper spirit, with a proper demeanor, and with persuasive arguments.  May we learn anew how to confront without demonizing, and to oppose without abandoning hope.

Father, we are aware that our future is in your hands, and we are fully aware that you and you alone will judge the nations.  Much responsibility is now invested in President Barack Obama, and much will be required.  May we, as Christian citizens, also fulfill what you would require of us.  Even as we pray for you to protect this president and change his heart, we also pray that your church will be protected and that you will conform our hearts to your perfect will.

Father, we pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, the ever-reigning once and future King, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  He and he alone can save, and his kingdom is forever.  Above all, may your great name be praised.  Amen.

_________________________

Christians are, first of all, citizens of a heavenly kingdom.  The followers of Christ know no allegiance of ultimate rank to any government or earthly authority.  Yet, the Bible clearly teaches that God has given us the gifts of law, government, and ruling authorities for our good.  We are instructed to pray for “rulers and all who have authority” and to be faithful in praying “so that we can have quiet and peaceful lives full of worship and respect for God” [1 Timothy 2:2].

As Barack Obama prepares to take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States, Christians should be thinking about how to pray for the new President.  I offer this prayer as a place to start, as we observe the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States together.

The Effects of International Aid

On Wednesday night, I listened to a great episode of public radio’sSpeaking of Faith.  Krista Tippett interviewed Kenyan journalist Binyavanga Wainaina about his perspective on international aid to Africa (you can listen to it or read the transcript if you want to).  He said that aid from both government and private sources are is oftentimes more about the giver than the receiver, and he even compared the mindset of those who believe that they can fix Africa to the old colonizers:

“A lot of people arrive in Africa to assume that it’s a blank empty space, and their goodwill and desire and guilt will fix it.  And that to me is not any different from the first people who arrived and colonized us.”

This was Wainaina’s reaction to Krista’s quote from a prominent American religious leader (she didn’t identify him, but her interview notes confirm that it was Rick Warren) who had experienced an awakening about AIDS and poverty in Africa.  It’s a great cautionary statement even if it’s a harsh comparison.

Aid, according to Wainaina often has great intentions (and he really does believe that they’re good intentions, despite his tough words) but often does not last, doesn’t take into account the knowledge of the people it’s supposed to help, or undermines the capacity of the society to build itself.  He’s got a darkly funny parody of the giver-centric attitude here.

That’s the bad news.  But here are two pieces of good news.  First, microlending, which actually puts capital in the hands of people in poorer countries, can do great things and also trusts the people of the country to do good things.  Secondly, although Wainaina is not a religious person, he said that local religious groups (both Christians and Muslims) often do great work because they are intimately connected with the people that they minister to.  I think that this is a reminder that Christian communities around the world, as the body of Christ, have the potential to fulfill God’s commands to care for the most vulnerable in remarkably effective ways. Perhaps this means that Christians hoping to truly help the world’s poorest need to think about supporting local solutions and that we need to make sure that large, global efforts based in the wealthiest countries really care about the perspective of local people and will have real staying power.

I’m no expert in this field, but Wainaina’s perspective makes a lot of sense to me.  Speaking of Faith is going to revisit this topic, so I’m sure my own thought on this will develop.

the evolution of puff daddy, or wait, is it..?

Or is it p. diddy? or peanut butter? Or…more like a identity crisis? So, now Puffy wants in on the political spotlight. I saw him on Larry King show briefly, looking like a preppy boy, acting like he knows something.  Has anyone seen clips from his youtube home videos before the election? What a freak show those were.  The guy was just silly, not in a good or even funny way. Mr. Sean Combs, stick to what you do better, your music and fashion.

Obama vs. any other vote

I know this is a little late but I just had to release this thought that’s been going through my head ever since the election and I just never wrote about it but I’ll keep it short. Basically, I think, even if you didn’t vote for Obama, adversely any vote for anyone other than McCain or not voting at all, was ultimately a vote for Obama. McCain was the only viable candidate against Obama and all votes counted big time for McCain.
Now I’m not trying to bash anyone, especially christians who voted according to their own consciences but I hope any christian who did vote for Obama doesn’t regret it.