From Womb to the Grave: A Biblical Perspective on Abortion

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16, ESV).

January 22, 1973 must have put a smirk on the devil’s face. Though none of the human participants may have foreseen, what happened effectively pronounced a death sentence on yet-to-be counted millions. On that date the U.S. Supreme Court issued its notorious Roe v. Wade decision, opening the door to abortion on demand. And since, tens of millions of unborn Americans have been terminated and discarded like a used Kleenex. In a single year, more unborn babies are intentionally killed than all of the soldiers America has lost in battle during the Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars—all her wars combined! Add up the total war casualties in American history and the sum will not equal the number of babies whose lives we take in a twelve month period. Abortion is big money, big politics, and an even bigger shame. Abortion has become a festering controversy, and totally without justification, since the Bible is quite plain on God’s perspective of human life. What light does the Bible shed on this subject?

Abortion Takes a Human Life

In making a point on faith, James wrote that “the body apart from the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). This is God’s definition, which overrules any medical or scientific attempt to define death. If death is the separation of human body and spirit, then human life is the union of body and spirit. If what is growing in the womb of a pregnant woman is alive, then, by definition, it is alive by virtue of its having a God-given spirit. The Bible does not draw a qualitative distinction among people based on how old they are. In other words, a man is not more human than a boy; a toddler is not more human than a newborn; a newborn is not more human than the just-conceived. When Mary went to visit a pregnant Elizabeth, “the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). And, when it came time to name the newborn Savior, “he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb” (Luke 2:21). Jesus was named, not just before he was born, but before he was conceived. What was he at conception, in God’s eyes—just a cluster of cells? We think not. Remember, those two verses were penned by an inspired medical doctor. Speaking of marriage, Jesus said that no man had the right to separate what God joined together (Matthew 19:6). If men have no authority to separate—without cause—a husband and wife, then why do we think we have the right to separate the body and spirit of the unborn by putting them to death?

Abortion Sheds Innocent Blood

Solomon said, “There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17). There is no blood more innocent than that of the unborn. And, no society has the right to practice, tolerate, or put its stamp of approval on anything the Lord finds abominable. Notice, God did not say he hates the shedding of any blood—just innocent blood. This is why the same Bible that condemns abortion can uphold capital punishment. Government wields its power by divine authority (cf. Romans 13), including the obligation to take the sword after the wicked.

Abortion Presumes to Put Man in God’s Place

The English Standard Version renders Ecclesiastes 11:5, “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” If God is the maker, does man have the right to assume the role of destroyer? “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Who formed Jeremiah in the womb? God did. Jeremiah was already Jeremiah to God, even before he was born. In fact, due to his omniscience, God can speak of the yet-to-be-conceived as already having existence. Thus, God tells Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb” (Genesis 25:23). Likewise, Levi is described as “still in the loins of his ancestor” (Hebrews 7:10), long before Levi was ever conceived. If Levi was in God’s mind prior to conception, then surely at conception and thereafter he existed in reality—even before birth. Abortion makes man the dealer of life and death, usurping a position to which he has no right.

Abortion Is Ingratitude for God’s Gift

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Psalm 127:3). If children are a gift from above, then abortion is a slap in the face to the Giver—a big “thanks, but no thanks,” written in innocent blood. Abortion views the unborn as a burden, a punishment, a curse, a problem, an inconvenience.

Abortion Tries to Eliminate Sin’s Consequence

Abortion on demand is the “get out of jail free” card of a wicked and selfish generation. The crux of the matter is this: we want sin’s pleasure without paying sin’s price. Abortion is most often the culmination of many sins, including lust, fornication, irresponsibility, and lack of love. Contrary to society’s advice, not everyone has the right to sex. Contrary to society’s practice, we are not barnyard animals and God expects every human being to conduct himself on an ethical level above what transpires in the hog pen. There are reasons why God placed sex solely within the confines of scriptural marriage, one of them being the potential of conceiving children. People may delude themselves into thinking they have escaped sin’s consequence by abortion, but it will certainly come back to haunt them in eternity and, most likely, long before then.

Abortion Hardens Hearts

The Lord raised the question, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?” (Isaiah 49:15). Looking at America, the answer is, “yes.” Some are heartless (Romans 1:31). Some are brutal (2 Timothy 3:3). Some have seared their consciences (1 Timothy 4:2). What kind of heart will pay money to snuff out a life growing inside her? What kind of heart encourages the practice? What kind of heart performs the procedure? Does the practice of abortion give a doctor greater respect for life, or less of it? Does abortion cause a young woman’s (or society’s) heart to be more tender or more calloused? Does it demonstrate the compassion of Christ? Paul wrote that older woman were to teach younger women to love their children (Titus 2:4). When tiny bodies are ripped limb from limb—when babies in process of birth are punctured and have their brains suctioned out—do these things fall under the heading of loving the children?

Abortion Is Sanitized Child Sacrifice

Old Testament Israel grew so wicked they embraced the practice of child sacrifice. “And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” (Jeremiah 7:31). Americans don’t sacrifice children on the pagan altar of Baal; instead, we sacrifice our children on the altar of convenience, selfishness, and irresponsibility. And we’ve sanitized the process for minimum damage to our own psyches. There are no screams to hear, no blood to clean up, no bodies to bury, no faces to forget. In the sterile operating room, calculated murder is carried out as though a tumor were being removed.

Abortion Opens the Floodgate

Once a society rationalizes and accepts the killing of the unborn, there is no sustainable argument to be made against killing other people. If the sanctity of human life is not respected across the board—if it does not extend to the helpless on the unborn end of the spectrum—then, it does not extend to the helpless at the other end. Euthanasia (so-called “mercy killing”) is inevitable. And, why not kill the crippled, paralyzed, deformed, or anyone else whose quality of life does not measure up to our evolving standard? Why not kill those who are an economic burden on society, even if they are healthy? If not, why? We kill unwanted babies, don’t we? And, why not knock off those who disagree with us politically? If all life is not sacred, then no life is sacred.

Abortion Is Biblically Unauthorized

For anyone who respects the Bible, this is conclusive in itself. In light of Colossians 3:17, all we say and do is to be done by Jesus’ authority (i.e. authorized in his New Testament). Yet, there is not the slightest hint of divinely sanctioned abortion, either by statement, example or implication in Scripture. In fact, abortion is no more authorized by God than polygamy, pornography, or praying toward Mecca.

It was Ronald Reagan who observed, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” How telling that is. Everyone who has ever attended a “pro-choice” rally has already been born. They take the gift of life they were given and now exert their energy trying to deny it to the next generation. If the blood of a single murdered individual, Abel, cried out to God from the ground (Genesis 4:10), then what must be the sound in God’s ears of countless millions slaughtered for convenience and profit? During his suffering, Job reached the point he wished he had not been born. “Why did you bring me out from the womb? Would that I had died before any eye had seen me and were as though I had not been, carried from the womb to the grave” (Job 10:18-19). Such is abortion: an untimely journey from the womb to the grave. 

Church and State: A Christian Perspective

President Obama being sworn into office with his hand on the Bible

Caesar was neither righteous nor democratically elected. Yet, in saying we are to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Luke 20:25), Jesus affirmed that rulers have a claim on certain things owed them by virtue of their position. As we face an American society where turmoil, violence, confusion, godlessness and foolish policy seem ever on the increase, it is good to recall a few relevant—and comforting—Bible truths.

First, government owes itself to God. Along with the home and the church, civil government (a.k.a. the state) is backed by divine authority. Jesus taught that Governor Pontius Pilate’s authority derived, ultimately, from heaven (John 19:11). In a more extensive discussion, Paul said government does God’s work on earth, as it relates to the state’s duty to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-7). Christians owe government their obedience because government owes its authority to God. The exception to this is when obedience to the state puts one at odds with God, in which case “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Second, government is accountable to the gospel of Christ (cf. Matt. 28:18). The prevailing idea today is that Bible-believing politicians must check their biblical convictions at the door and not allow them to influence policy decisions. That is lunacy. The reason many have come to expect Christian beliefs to be kept under lock and key in the public forum is because men do not like what the Bible teaches. So, they tell us, it is okay to be a Christian in politics, as long as you do not allow your Bible beliefs to inform your politics. Thus, it is deemed acceptable to be influenced by feminism, Darwinism, pluralism, post-modernism, multi-culturalism, humanism, paganism, etc., but it is intolerable for public policy to be influenced by Christian theism (including creationism). This is a far cry from the founding fathers, who believed that the freedoms and constitutional government they set up in America could only work with a Bible-believing people. The “authorities” and “powers” have been subjected to Jesus (1 Pet. 3:22), and that includes every politician. Furthermore, God’s command for “all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) applies to Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and the Undecided. Every elected official ought to be—first and foremost—a member of the church of Christ. And every decision he makes ought to respect every principle in the New Testament. His duty, after all, is to endorse and reward what God says is good, and to condemn and punish what God says is evil. That does not mean church and state are the same, or that their jurisdictions overlap. Church and state are completely different types of institutions with totally different purposes. Government’s relationship to Scripture is simply that government ought to accept and promote a biblically informed definition of morality. Officials who treat evil as though it were good, and good as though it were evil, will answer to God for their indiscretion.

Third, Christians need to pray for national leaders from a motive of wanting to see the church prosper (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God knows better than we what circumstances will help the church most. And they may not be the circumstances I want.

Fourth, if things go from bad to worse, remember that Christians have endured it before. Jesus told the church at Smyrna they were “about to suffer” (Rev. 2:10). The church’s duty is to be faithful—not comfortable. Past brethren have lived with tyrants, insecurity, famine, inflation, economic depression, little-to-no freedom, violent persecution, and sin on parade in the public square. None of us, yet, has resisted the devil to the point of bloodshed (cf. Heb. 12:4).

Fifth, good can come from evil times. When Jesus was born, a murderer was on the throne. When Paul preached, he was persecuted, but the church still grew. The Lord knows what it will take to shake America’s self-absorption and godlessness. It might get darker before the daylight.

Sixth, vote morality over all other concerns. Specifically, Christians must oppose the twin evils of abortion and homosexuality—two sins whose fangs seek to inject venom into the very heart of a decent and moral culture. If we allow human life to be devalued in the public eye and destroyed in the womb, and if we allow sexual perversion to redefine marriage itself, then the economy, the military, and questions of domestic and foreign policy will eventually cease to matter as society totters and falls, either crumbling apart or collapsing of a sudden. We must refuse to vote for a man or political party which endorses abortion and/or the giving of protected (or even privileged) status to homosexuality. This is more important than taxes, healthcare, the future of social security, immigration, and even national defense. We should not fear missiles from China, Russia, North Korea or Iran nearly as much as we fear God (read Lev. 18:22-28 for a sobering history lesson). God can take care of a people concerned with doing right. But a people bent on evil have no security from even the most advanced weapons.

Seventh, never forget that God is still on the throne, ruling and giving power according to his will (cf. Dan. 4:25). If the scenario looks bleak, this truth affords a silver lining. God has neither lost control, nor turned over the reins of the universe. Any apparent victory by the devil or his minions is short-lived, at best, and will soon be overwhelmed forever by “the armies of heaven” who follow the “King of kings” who will “strike down the nations” (Rev. 19:11-16).

Eighth, do not become so enamored with politics that it drags you to despair or drives you to worry about matters beyond control. Do not be so absorbed in the latest news that it distracts you from the purpose of life, the power of Christianity, and the peace that passes understanding. As great as it is to be an American, remember that, as Christians, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20). Ultimately, we are not waiting for an election. We are not waiting for a President. We “await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” Politics is peripheral; the church is paramount. Elections are fleeting; eternity is forever.

The Pearl Carpet of Baroda

Pearl Carpet of Baroda

According to a BBC News story,* a 150 year old carpet dating from the late 1860’s was auctioned by Sotheby’s in the capital city of Doha in Qatar. Bids were expected to begin around $5,000,000 with auctioneers predicting the rug could fetch as much as $20,000,000. What is this carpet’s claim to fame?

Known as the Pearl Carpet of Baroda, it was made in India and decorated with around two million natural seed pearls, along with hundreds of precious stones, including emeralds, rubies, sapphires and diamonds. More importantly — if tradition is right — the carpet was commissioned by India’s Maharaja of Baroda to be sent as a gift to decorate the tomb of the “prophet” Muhammad (who died A.D. 632) in Medina. But the Maharaja died and the carpet was never delivered to Muhammad’s tomb, remaining instead in India, taken later to Monaco.

Likely, none of us will ever have a multi-million dollar rug to hang on our wall. What the carpet can remind us of is the fact that Islam’s founder was a human being overcome by death. Muhammad’s tomb still exists. His tomb can be found. His tomb is still occupied.

Contrast that with two significant burials in the Bible. First, there was Moses. At the end of an illustrious career, Moses climbed Mount Nebo and died. Through him God had established a law for his people which would last all the way to Calvary. God himself buried Moses, and no one ever knew exactly where (Deuteronomy 34:5-6). Moses’ tomb could never have become a shrine or object of worship. No one could have ever laid a jeweled carpet at the tomb of Moses. God saw to it that the tomb of the man who was given on Sinai the divinely written tablets of stone could never be located.

Second, of course, there was the tomb of Jesus Christ. We are not sure today exactly where it was, though more than one location vies for the honor. Why the incertitude about Christ’s tomb? There were definitely many who knew its precise location when he was buried. But Jesus’ resurrection on the third day left an empty tomb, which became less important than what emerged from it when the stone rolled away.

So, Moses’ tomb was occupied, but its location never known. Christ’s tomb was only momentarily occupied, which is why its exact spot was only temporarily known for certain. Even if we could pinpoint Jesus’ gravesite, there would be no remains of Jesus inside. Which underscores one (of many) striking differences between Islam and Christianity. Muhammad lived six hundred years after the church of Christ was established. Muhammad founded his own religion, but it was not powerful enough to prevent his death, or to raise him from the grave, or to grant him eternal life. Christ, on the other hand, founded a religion based on the fact of his own deity — an identity so unique and powerful that he could conquer death both for himself and his disciples (1 Corinthians 15:20). And that’s worth more than all the diamonds that could be woven into any rug.

Death found all three. Moses’ body is a mystery. Christ’s body is missing. Muhammad’s is still in Medina. The first two cases are unparalleled because God’s hand was involved. The third typifies the fate of ordinary men. The auction of the Pearl Carpet of Baroda serves as a multi-million dollar reminder that there is a towering difference between eternal life and eternal lie.

*Julia Wheeler, “‘Prophet carpet’ set for auction”, 19 March 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7952003.stm).

Christians and Christmas

Though I’ve never experienced chestnuts roasting on an open fire (does anyone still do that?), I can relate to tree decorating, present wrapping, secretive shopping, holiday tunes in the background, families converging, reading to the kids about Ebenezer Scrooge, all the Who’s down in Whoville, candles burning, spiced tea brewing, lights twinkling, turkey carving, mistletoe hanging, carolers caroling, and Jack Frost nipping at your nose. But, with all that also come the nativity scenes, religious hymns with added musical instrumentation, and pressure from the denominations to “Keep Christ in Christmas” since “Jesus is the reason for the season.”

So, what’s a Christian to do with Christmas? Answers run the gamut from those who advocate total abstention from the holiday so as not to be tainted by it (or leave others thinking they keep it in any way), to those who think members of the church should dive right in and observe Christmas religiously as Jesus’ birthday. The right answer, as is often the case, lies between the extremes. We would do well to keep in mind several biblical principles.

First, in Christianity, there are no set days to observe, religiously, other than Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). When Paul wrote to the saints in Colossae, the brethren were having to deal with outsiders trying to pressure them into observing days and rituals—evidently carried over from a now defunct Judaism. Paul told the Christians not to let the world pressure them into feeling guilty for not celebrating those things. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col 2:16-17, ESV). No one has the right to religiously bind on others any special day carried over either from pagan practice, or an expired divine religion (i.e. Judaism). And, when attempts are made to do so, Christians should not let themselves be pressured to conform.

Second, no one has the right to combine authorized with unauthorized practice. When he wrote to the churches of Galatia, Paul was fearful the saints were beginning to mix true religion with false. “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain” (Gal. 4:8-11). Notice, the Galatians were religiously keeping certain days as though such days were part of Christianity, when, in fact, they were not. This mistake—mixing the truth into an alloy with error—was so serious that Paul feared for their souls.

Third, there is leeway for Christians to emphasize certain days above others, as long as (1) nothing sinful is done, and (2) it is not bound on others. For example, it would be inherently sinful for a Christian to keep the Jewish Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), since it involves ritual and sacrifice that have been superceded by the law of Christ. On the other hand, a Christian could set aside a specific day (e.g. January 1) to focus his thoughts on his duty to God in the coming year, but he would be wrong to try to religiously bind the practice on the brethren. “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God” (Rom. 14:5-6). I could devote an hour each Tuesday evening with my family to worship God. But, I could not insist that anyone else follow suit, since the New Testament does not command the practice. Likewise, no one could condemn me for the practice, since it is an authorized option left up to my individual judgment. If I set aside July 1 as a special time to concentrate on the birth of Christ, that would be fine. As a father, I could even bind it on my immediate family. Just so, an entire congregation could, if it chose, set aside July 1 as a special time to study Jesus’ birth. If there is nothing sinful in pondering Jesus’ birth in July, then there is nothing sinful to ponder it on December 25. Let’s not overreact to Christmas to the degree we end up with the silly concept that Jesus should not be remembered at all on December 25. To be sure, the gospel does not demand anyone celebrate Jesus’ birth on any given day. But, it does not condemn anyone for remembering Jesus’ birth on any given day, either.

Now, to Christmas itself. Anyone honestly investigating the evidence will have to admit no one knows Jesus was born on December 25. The best that can be said is that December 25 is Christ’s birthday, by tradition, but that is a long way from provable fact. For anyone to contend that Christmas Day is actually Jesus’ birthday is to reveal his own ignorance. Had God wanted us to know the exact date, he would have told us. The very fact that no one knows Jesus’ date of birth is evidence God never intended for it to be religiously observed. The first mention of celebrating Jesus’ birth in the extant historic records does not occur until A.D. 336 (centuries after the church began).

Even though December 25 is not Jesus’ birthday, some may ask, “Isn’t it still good that so many think about Jesus on that day?” Well, it is certainly good to think about Jesus. The problem is, most do not think about him enough. They do not meditate on his message. They do not let the gospel bring them to obedience. In the end, what good does it do a person to keep Jesus’ birth in his thoughts during a particular season of the year, if he is not going to obey the Lord throughout the year? As Jesus remarked, “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:14). Jesus commanded many things, including repentance (Luke 13:3), baptism (Mark 16:16), and putting God first in everything (Matt. 6:33). Jesus never demanded we celebrate his birthday. To remember his birth while forgetting his commands does no one any lasting good. If one wants to focus on the Lord’s birth at Christmas, then he ought to follow up by focusing on the Lord—including his commands—every day. The gospel is not seasonal (2 Tim. 4:2).

It is probably true that some Christmas traditions have roots (in the long, long ago) in pagan festivals. Ancient Rome held end-of-the-year festivals to honor Saturn and Mithras, the gods of harvest and light, respectively. Ancient northern Europeans held harvest festivals in mid-December, including special foods, giving gifts, decorating homes, and singing. Do these roots taint our modern traditions? Not necessarily. A practice can evolve to such an extent that it loses its former meaning altogether. For example, when we mention the days of the week, we give no thought to a god of war named Thor (Thursday), or to an idol called Woden (Wednesday), or to a god of seed sowing named Saturn (Saturday), or to a sacred day of the moon (Monday), or a day devoted to the sun (Sunday), etc. The fact is, those names incorporated into our days of the week have lost their former connotation. If anything traceable to something unwholesome is perpetually tainted, then we need to find other names for our days of the week. Likewise, traditions that may have sprung from pagan festivities centuries or millennia ago, if they are no longer associated with the active pursuit of paganism, can be observed today. Modern Christmas trees, the singing of carols, exchanging gifts, and house decorating have no pagan overtones now. Some cultural traditions are harmless.

If a Christian wants to abstain from Christmas, that is his prerogative. If I want to observe it, that is mine. Neither of us can condemn the other. Neither of us can bind his practice on the other. There are some things that Christians who celebrate Christmas need to avoid. First, I would shy away from nativity scenes and anything which might tend to leave the impression that I believed Christmas was really Jesus’ birthday. Second, it is still wrong (in the absence of New Testament authority [cf. Col. 3:17]) to sing hymns with musical instruments. Many so-called Christmas songs are actually religious hymns. If I’m playing a CD of holiday music and a hymn with instrumental music starts playing, I skip that song and find “Silver Bells” or “White Christmas,” etc. Third, I would not let the world make me feel guilty for failing to “Keep Christ in Christmas” in a religious way. The world does not even know what Christianity is, so why should we take its advice on how to remember the Savior? Fourth, I would not get overly exercised about trying to correct everyone I came in contact with about December 25 not being Jesus’ birthday. People outside the Lord’s church have far more serious problems they need brought to their attention than a misconception about the date of Christ’s birth. If a conversation about that can lead to a Bible discussion that helps a person see and obey the gospel, that is great. But, if the world insists on a mistaken concept of Christmas, at least for me and my house (cf. Josh. 24:15), we will try to have a more accurate view of things.

Is Christmas a religious holiday? No, not if we respect simple New Testament teaching. Yet, there is much about it to enjoy to the full, so long as we strain out any element not in harmony with Bible truth. In Charles Dickens’ 1843 classic, A Christmas Carol, Scrooge, having been scared by the third ghost to within an inch of his life, mended his ways, adjusted his attitude, and took a whole new outlook on life—

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world…and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!”

“Halloween Candy”

Trick or treat, time to eat

Fill my bag with something sweet

Weighted on the sugar side

With mono- and diglyceride

BHT preserves with letter

The artificial-er, the better

Processed cocoa, lecithin

Citric acid, albumen

A witch’s brew with bubbly boil

Partly hydrogenated oil

Caloric cacophony, I can’t wait

For dextrin and sodium acetate

Corn syrup makes me come alive

FDC Yellow #5

My taste buds nearly jump the tracks

For dextrose and carnauba wax

I may be stunted, I may be shorty

But I can’t quit Red #40

Potassium sorbate makes me smile

And malic acid gives me style

The flavor is too high to rate

With glyceryl monostearate

So let’s hit the street, it’s time to march

In quest of modified food starch!

(Copyright 2009, Weylan Deaver)

“How Dare You Presume I’m Christian”

Bumper stickers say or advertise anything you can imagine. It’s not unusual to come to a traffic light and stop right behind a car plastered with all manner of stuck on slogans designed to reveal the views of the driver. And you can’t help but read them, just like the ridiculous tabloid headlines staring you in the face in the checkout line at Wal-Mart.

While driving to work, I pulled up behind a car decorated with various stickers. One was particularly memorable. Against a background of symbols from religions around the world, the bumper sticker said, “How Dare You Presume I’m Christian.”

Just think—the Son of God died on a cross for the sake of that driver, who, with abysmal ingratitude and appalling temerity, acts like he (or she) would be offended were anyone to make the assumption that he was a follower of Jesus. Let’s consider two points from that ill-conceived bumper sticker.

First, Christianity really is offensive to some. Not only are they unwilling to obey the gospel, but they actually cringe at the thought of anyone thinking they would have anything to do with anything pertaining to Jesus. Their “enlightened” mindset has no need for a Savior and they don’t mind letting you know it. They may even hold in derision the Bible truths we hold dear. Remember that Jesus himself said, “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake” (Mark 13:13).

Second, perhaps this bumper sticker points out to us that we do, at times, make unwarranted presumptions and assume someone is a Christian when, in fact, he is not. And, sometimes we’re guilty of using the word “Christian” in a broader sense than God used it in the New Testament. For example, our religious neighbors who stray from the pattern of Scripture are not Christians, and we need to refrain from endorsing them as such. Or again, we often hear America referred to as a Christian nation. I understand that America was established on Bible principles by people who esteemed the Bible, and that is certainly a good thing. However, if members of the Lord’s church comprise less than 1% of more than three hundred million Americans, then it is a stretch of the Bible definition to call us a Christian nation. Now if all Americans were members of the Lord’s church, then we would have a Christian nation. Let’s all work toward that goal.

Impressions of a Not So “Great Debate”

On November 7, 2008 I attended a debate with my dad (Mac Deaver) and oldest son (Orrin). It was held from 7:00-10:00 p.m. at the Will Rogers Auditorium in Fort Worth, Texas. The discussion was billed as “The Great Debate: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God.” There were probably 600-700 in attendance.

The debate was sponsored by St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church of Fort Worth. I assume this church wanted to spark interest in the community and spur people toward what they consider to be Christianity. If that were their goal, then the selection of speakers was quite curious, since there was not a single Bible believer on the panel. Of the four panelists, the only one who claimed to be a Christian was an ardent evolutionist who actually sided with the atheist against the concept that intelligent design (ID) theory has any usefulness for science.

Unlike a typical debate with each speaker behind a podium, this was more a round table discussion, with all speakers seated. Each was given twelve minutes to make an opening speech, then each speaker was allowed to ask another speaker a question. After a break, questions collected from the audience were asked of the speakers, during which there was give-and-take among the panelists. The four panelists were Dr. David Berlinski, Dr. Bradley Monton, Dr. Denis Alexander, and Dr. Lawrence Krauss, all of whom have impressive academic credentials and achievements unnecessary to document here.

Berlinski is a secular Jew and an agnostic. Ironically, he was there to represent the “Pro-ID Theist Position.” In the course of discussion, he made cogent observations and served to counterbalance the strident atheist sitting across from him. But the best he could do was poke holes in the anti-ID position, since he, himself, is not yet convinced that God really exists and/or that intelligent design has been proven. That the man closest to the truth (i.e. Berlinski) was a Jewish agnostic, we wonder why the Episcopal Church could not field a man to debate who was convicted of God’s existence, intelligent design, and even the inspiration of the Bible.

Monton was a curiosity. He was there to represent the “Pro-ID Atheist Position.” He began by describing himself as an atheist who believed there was evidence of intelligent design in the universe, that this evidence deserved to be taken seriously, and that this evidence should not — a priori — be ruled out as unscientific. He said the evidence was not enough to convince him that design exists, but that it was enough to make him less confident in his atheism. So, though he was there to represent an atheistic viewpoint, he seemed more agnostic than atheistic from the get-go. Monton, along with Berlinski, believes that ID ought to at least be considered by the scientific world. Furthermore, and most ironic, Monton actually argued that science should not dismiss the possibility of the supernatural as a legitimate explanation for certain phenomena!

Alexander was a disappointment. Of the four, he alone claimed to be a Christian. Yet, he fought tooth and nail (with soft-spoken British reserve) against the concept that ID has anything to do with science. To his way of thinking, if ID does not lead to experiments and doctoral dissertations, then ID is useless. Berlinski (the theistic-leaning agnostic) tried to convince Alexander (the theistic evolutionist) that a truth can have inherent value even if it does not lead to scientific experiments, but Alexander would have none of it. He has drunk deeply at the Darwinian well and, in his mind, has somehow wedded Christianity to evolution so that he thinks both can be true. Monton (the agnostic-leaning atheist) was taken aback that a “Christian” would argue against ID, since it would seem to be only natural that a Christian would be in favor of the concept.

Krauss was the staunch atheist, there to argue in favor of the “Anti-ID Atheist Position.” Unlike the two agnostic-leaning panelists (Berlinski and Monton), Krauss was completely secure in his convictions. Unlike the theistic evolutionist (Alexander), Krauss had absolutely no use for God or the Bible. Krauss was the bombastic, no-holds-barred, in your face atheist who was not embarrassed to say the most blasphemous things in an effort to make a mockery of Scripture. He was witty, obnoxious, and dominated more than his share of the conversation. Krauss bows at the altar of science, believing that science must inform religion, and never vice versa. Thus, if the Bible and current scientific theory ever clash, science should never be the one to reevaluate its conclusions to accommodate Scripture (rather, the Bible should be considered to be wrong). Krauss argued that God is not falsifiable; thus the concept of God has no bearing on science. Krauss argued from both sides of his mouth, on the one hand that scientific laws (e.g. gravity) are immutable, while on the other hand criticizing the suggestion that there is constancy in the universe (which, if it existed, would lend credence to ID theory). Though the subject of miracles was not explored to any depth, one can imagine Krauss (or any thoroughgoing atheist) using the perceived constancy of scientific laws as an argument against the supernatural. The fact that he argues against constancy when someone suggests that the observed regularity of the planets is evidence in favor of design only shows that this atheist wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Krauss was upset at the idea of ID being taught in schools because, to his thinking, evolution is a settled fact and to suggest that evolution is controversial would be lying to students. What Krauss fails to realize is that, if atheism is true, then he has no reason to value truth at all, and there is no more good in telling truth than there is harm in telling lies. Again, he wants it both ways: to kick God out of the picture while still trying to value truth — an unjustifiable position.

To Krauss, evolution is a proven, uncontested fact of science. He said there was much evidence proving this to be the case; yet, given opportunity, he refused to comment on the “origin of man.” Berlinski pointed out the arrogance of modern science, and Krauss came across (to me, at least) as exhibit #1 for science’s complete lack of humility as a discipline. Dr. Krauss would do well to back away from his idolizing of modern science. After all, it is very limited in what it can do. For example, consider this:

• Science alone cannot give us a reason to value science.
• Science alone cannot give us a reason to value truth.
• Science alone cannot explain the nature of a “fact.”
• Science alone cannot demonstrate an obligation regarding any fact.
• Science alone cannot explain purpose.
• Science alone cannot prove that we should reject lies.

Science must eventually defer to philosophy (and, dare we say, to revelation?), whether it likes it or not. Those who bow to the god of science fail to grasp where the more important truths lie, including truths about why science should even exist, how it could be useful, and the nature of the knowledge it seeks.

Overall, the debate was an intellectually stimulating disappointment, at least compared to what might have been. In 1976, Thomas B. Warren debated renowned British atheist, Antony Flew, on the existence of God (in Denton, Texas). Flew’s atheism suffered a relentless and withering attack from Warren, who deftly wielded religious, philosophic, and scientific truth in such a way as to leave Flew with the newfound notion that he was not going to say as much about God in the future as he had in the past. Amazingly, thirty-one years later (in 2007), Flew published a book making the case for why he now does believe in God. Why couldn’t those who arranged this Fort Worth debate have found somebody willing to defend ID who was neither an agnostic nor evolutionist? The truth deserved a better defense than it got.

There is obvious design in the universe, and this design does point directly to a Creator. Moreover, I would even argue that the capacity and tendency to recognize design are — like the laws of thought — inherent in man’s mind. God made us to perceive design and expects us to use our design-perceiving nature when we analyze the universe. Consider two passages. “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God” (Heb. 3:4, ESV). A man who looks at a house and concludes that it was not designed is being false to the way God made him to think. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

I left the debate that night thinking of two passages, in particular. “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:20). Here was a panel of men of erudition and the highest attainment of academia; yet, they all rejected the facts as stated in Genesis 1. Truly, some are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

“Six Save Sodom” (A Headline That Never Was)

Genesis 18:16-33 recounts a conversation between God and Abraham wherein the latter pleaded on behalf of a den of iniquity called Sodom. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, lived there and he did not want Lot’s town to be wiped from the map by the wrath of God. So Abraham asked whether God would destroy Sodom if there were fifty righteous people in it. God said he would spare Sodom for the fifty. Less than confident fifty could be found, Abraham asked whether God would spare Sodom for forty-five righteous souls. God said he would. Abraham, who must have had a grasp of Sodom’s nefarious ways, felt compelled to get the number even lower. He asked whether God would spare Sodom for the sake of forty godly citizens. Yes. What about thirty? Yes. Twenty? Yes. Even as few as…ten? Yes, God would spare Sodom for the sake of ten, should they be found. Notice, God did not insist that the righteous had to outnumber the wicked. God did not insist the number of good had to equal the number of evil. God would have spared a host of people for an extreme minority of ten.

As the story unfolds, only four make it out of Sodom alive, including Lot, his wife, and their two daughters (Lot’s wife quickly perishes when she later looks back, disregarding God’s warning). Think of it. It would have taken only six more people, combined with Lot’s family, to spare the entire city from death by fire and brimstone. Military might could not have saved Sodom. Unbridled patriotism could not have saved Sodom. But righteousness, on the part of only six more people, could have saved Sodom. Alas, the six did not exist.

Solomon wrote, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34, ESV). The United States has been here over two centuries, in which time God has blessed us to an historically unprecedented extent. To our shame, America has, in the last 100 years, become increasingly skeptical in outlook, materialistic in lifestyle, and wicked in practice. We have lived to see God removed from the classroom, hedonism glorified, and the Bible vilified. Surely the blood of countless aborted (i.e. murdered) American children calls to God, as did the blood of Abel (Gen. 4:10). We have turned all the way from denouncing homosexual perversion to embracing its practitioners, allowing them to have a societal influence out of all proportion to their true numbers. In many cases, we have even tried to sanction the evil with legislation. Imagine it. God obliterated Sodom for its sin—not the least of which was homosexuality—and now our own country seems bent on making sure that same kind of people are coddled, protected, endorsed, and unoffended.

And yet, America still stands. Why? It is not due to our military prowess. It is not because of our highly touted diversity. And it is not because of our much vaunted attitude of toleration. America stands because God allows her to stand (Dan. 4:25; John 19:11). And it may well be that God allows her to stand because of the righteous people (i.e. true Christians) who are still here.

Christians are the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13), and righteousness exalts a nation. If Sodom is any indication, the number of faithful Christians in the land may be a huge factor in God’s determining the country’s fate. Will the United States continue for 500 years? Will it end tomorrow? It may hinge on the Lord’s church. A sobering thought, is it not? There seems to come a time when a people’s sins are so numerous God considers them to be full, or complete (cf. Gen. 15:16), after which that people is destined to ruin. It falls on our shoulders to be the preserving influence for righteousness, which, in turn, will lift up this nation. Is there a ratio of saints to sinners in America that, even now, God is keeping his eye on? For our souls’ sake, as well as the country’s, we had better fall on the right side of that equation.

What about patriotism? Like many, after the September 11 attacks, I flew an American flag on my car for months, till countless miles of wind had whipped it to tatters, but that is not true patriotism. Patriotism is loving your country and wanting the best for it. With that in mind, the most patriotic thing you can do (not to mention the most important) is to become and remain a Christian. The destiny of your soul depends on it. The future of America may too.

A Unique and Historic Event

Saints of the Lakes Region church of Christ, Tilton New Hampshire

The 14th Northern New England Lectures (October 9-11), hosted by the Lakes Region church of Christ in Tilton, New Hampshire, are now history. They were grand in many ways. The brethren there are like new family. Though small in number, the Lakes Region congregation is big in heart, and shepherded by three able pastors: Dave Coombs, Robert Blouin and Robert Monts.

The scenery in which they get to live and worship is incredible, and a far cry from what we’re used to in Texas. Mountains, cool temps, and dense forests in fall colors make quite a picturesque landscape (not to mention that major highways are posted with “moose crossing” signs).

The theme for 2009 was “The Holy Spirit and the Providence of God.” The church is very enthusiastic about the gospel, and eagerly soaked up the in-depth studies. This was the first year they had focused on a particular subject to this depth, and it was great to look into God’s word and be stimulated to grow in our understanding. The speakers came from places as distant as Illinois, Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas. The challenging topics, in order presented, were:

“The Godhead: Its Manifestations and Relationship to the Incarnation of Christ and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” (Weylan Deaver)

“The Difference Between Both General and Special Providence and the Difference Between the Expressed and Unexpressed Will of God” (Mac Deaver)

“The Difference Between the Miraculous and the Supernatural Non-Miraculous” (Dick Sztanyo)

“The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit—A New Testament Concept” (Weylan Deaver)

“What It Means to be Born of Water and Spirit” (Glenn Jobe)

“The Work of the Indwelling Spirit and the All-Sufficiency of the Scriptures” (Mac Deaver)

“How the Holy Spirit Helps the Saint from Within” (Kerry Duke)

“The Relationship of Providence and Prayer to the Controversy Over Direct Help from the Spirit Within” (David Hill)

“The Claim that Sinners Cannot Receive the Holy Spirit, the Case of Cornelius, and the Concept of Time Lapse in Some Cases of Conversion in Acts” (Mac Deaver)

“Holy Spirit Help and the Catholic Claim for Continuing Revelation” (Kerry Duke)

“Question and Answer Session” (Jobe, Sztanyo, Deaver, Deaver)

The subjects of the Holy Spirit and divine providence are too often neglected and misunderstood. The speakers do not claim to have all the answers to every question, but surely what the Bible teaches is clearer than a soupy fog. And the topics deserve better treatment than they have received in some quarters. Brethren everywhere would do well to give these lessons thoughtful consideration. One of the best things? The Lakes Region congregation will send the recorded lectures free to anyone who asks (you can reach them via their website at www.lakesregionchurchofchrist.org). The Lord bless them for their faith and efforts on behalf of Christ’s kingdom. I look forward to seeing them again!

Speakers on 14th Northern New England Lectures: David Hill (Cookeville TN), Glenn Jobe (Chicago IL), Dick Sztanyo (Pelham AL), Weylan Deaver (Fort Worth TX), Mac Deaver (Denton TX), Kerry Duke (Cookeville TN)

Northern New England Lectures

Lakes Region church of Christ meeting house in Tilton, New Hampshire

The Lakes Region church of Christ in Tilton, New Hampshire will host the Northern New England Lectures on October 9-11, 2009.

Theme: The Holy Spirit and the Providence of God

October 9, Friday

• 7:00 p.m. “The Godhead: Its Manifestations and Relationship to the Incarnation of Christ and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit” (Weylan Deaver)

• 8:00 p.m. “The Difference Between Both General and Special Providence and the Difference Between the Expressed and Unexpressed Will of God “ (Mac Deaver)

October 10, Saturday

• 10:00 a.m. “The Difference Between the Miraculous and the Supernatural Non-Miraculous” (Dick Sztanyo)

• 11:00 a.m. “The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit–A New Testament Concept” (Weylan Deaver)

• 1:00 p.m. “What It Means to Be Born of Water and Spirit” (Glenn Jobe)

• 2:00 p.m. “The Work of the Indwelling Spirit and the All-Sufficiency of the Scriptures” (Mac Deaver)

• 7:00 p.m. “How the Holy Spirit Helps the Saint from Within” (Kerry Duke)

October 11, Sunday

• 10:00 a.m. “The Relationship of Providence and Prayer to the Controversy Over Direct Help from the Spirit Within” (David Hill)

• 11:00 a.m. “The Claim That Sinners Cannot Receive the Holy Spirit, the Case of Cornelius, and the Concept of Time Lapse in Some Cases of Conversion in Acts” (Mac Deaver)

• 1:00 p.m. “Holy Spirit Help and the Catholic Claim for Continuing Revelation” (Kerry Duke)

• 2:00 p.m. “Question and Answer Session”

[See http://www.lakesregionchurchofchrist.org for more info.]