Sunday, February 24, 2008

Black Genocide in Your Backyard

From John Piper:

"Ms. King refers to abortion as genocide. Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. goes further and refers to black genocide. In 2002, he birthed a website by and for African Americans called The lament at that website reads like this (referring to statistics in 2002):

[The] incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions [probably up to 13 million now]. Michael Novak . . . calculated, "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

Does this grieve you? TEN MILLION black people have been ripped from the womb and killed in the United States. There is a genocide in our own back yard.

On a remarkable note, Norma McCorvey (Roe) laments the decision she fought for:

HANNITY: Do you want to make abortion illegal now, even though it was your case that made it legal? Do you want to now -- you want abortion on demand to be illegal now, Norma?

MCCORVEY: I would like to see children stop being killed and women maimed and dead themselves.

HANNITY: Do you feel -- I mean, I don't know what burden you take on yourself, because this is your case. This is the one that opened the door in many ways for legalized abortion. Do you -- is there a sense of guilt over the millions of abortions that have taken place, or do you put the blame on the conscience of the person that makes that decision?

MCCORVEY: Well, you know, for a long time there, Sean, I did take on the burden and the guilt of the 45 million children that have died through legal abortion. But then, you know, we have to back up and look at the women who have died from legalized abortion, also.

Allan, how does this work now? You're the attorney in the case. How does it work that you go to the Supreme Court? I mean, do you ask them to reopen your case, mitigating circumstances? What is the legal procedure?

ALLAN PARKER, ATTORNEY FOR NORMA MCCORVEY: Under rule 60, Norma, as a party, can ask the court to vacate her judgment, set it aside as if it never was, on the grounds it's no longer just. And we have to show changed factual conditions and legal conditions.

And the world has changed in 32 years. We now know that abortion hurts women, and we didn't know that. It was rare and illegal in most places at the time. We now know what it is inside a woman.

Something to remember when praying for our nations.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

More Hypocrisy, and a Terrible Statistic

To continue the theme of abortion that Mike's article began, I thought I'd republish an article I wrote on my other blog (now suffering almost five months of continuous neglect!) back in the summer of 2005. Here it is:

An article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, studying the question of whether an unborn child feels pain during an abortion. Their conclusion was that before the 29th week of gestation, an unborn child is incapable of feeling pain. Predictably, reactions were loud from both sides of the debate...

And, initially, I couldn't understand why this article touched off a controversy in the first place! The issue of abortion isn't whether it's a painful procedure or not. The issue is whether it's murder or not!

Whether or not the baby (and that's what it is, people!) feels pain during an abortion is absolutely irrelevant to the debate. If, in fact, a fetus is a human being, as Christians believe, then the painfulness of the procedure is irrelevant. If I were to pump carbon monoxide into a sleeping man's bedroom, knowing that carbon monoxide poisoning is painless, I would still be committing murder. The issue is the intrinsic nature and worth of human life.

Now, I've learned that it's an issue in the US, where pro-life legislators wish to make it mandatory for abortion providers to ask the mother whether she wants her baby to receive an anaesthetic prior to the procedure. The pro-life side wants this to be law in hopes of encouraging mothers to realize that they are cruelly killing another human being. In that light, I can understand the controversy...

Interestingly, I read an article on Albert Mohler's site that two of the article's researchers are active in the abortion-rights movement! It seems that one researcher directs an abortion clinic, while another is an attorney for the National Abortion Rights Action League.

The funny thing is, that attorney apparently isn't a very good one. No one involved with the article thought to make note of the conflict of interest. Apparently, they don't think this situation qualifies. In my opinion, I hardly think that they'd hold the same view, if a JAMA article proved that a fetus could feel pain, and if two of the researchers worked for Focus on the Family or another pro-life outfit. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

But, of course, NARAL and the rest of the infanticide movement has a major problem with consistency anyway.

In another related, and sad, note, Mohler ran an article about the abortion rate in Russia. I thought the Canadian rate was awful (it was 22% of all pregnancies in 1995). It appears that in the former Marxist paradise, there's about 1.7 abortions for every live birth there, and that rate's been consistent for decades. Funny how so many university professors and left-wingers still dearly love Marxism - if their parents had lived in that place of "collective freedom," the odds of them actually being born would have been less than one in two...

A final thought: It's horrifying, but Russian kids probably would have had a better chance of survival, had they been born in ancient Canaan to a family of Molech worshippers. They only slaughtered their firstborn.

Pray that the Gospel becomes known in that country, and in our own....

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Moral Dissociative Identity Disorder

A while back I came across this article. It begins by saying:


They were not much bigger than an outstretched hand when they were taken from their parents and given blood transfusions against their parents' will and religious beliefs.

The surviving four B.C. sextuplets have returned home but the fight is not over for their parents and it's not over for Canadian courts.


The courts forcibly removed the babies from the care of their parents and gave them blood transfusions, something forbidden to Jehovah's Witnesses.


I don't want to discuss the exegetical error made by the Witnesses in interpreting the mandate in Acts 15 to prevent blood transfusions.


Rather, I want to examine this idea that was brought up in the article:


Prof. Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, said the state usually doesn't intervene in a parent's autonomy unless it's a life-saving situation. He believes the Supreme Court of Canada could establish a question for the lowers courts to ask that may help settle the issue. "Is this the decision that a loving, a reasonable parent could make?" he asked. "And if the answer is 'no loving and reasonable parent would make this decision,' then you intervene."


Now, I'm not so much commenting on the ethics of Arthur Schafer here. I know practically nothing of him except for this article (and a quick glance over his homepage). What I do want to talk about is the general moral position of North Americans regarding the JW blood transfusion issue.


It has been my experience that most non-Christians strongly disagree with the JW position at this point. Now, I will grant that I draw from a fairly small sample size. But those to whom I refer think that the state should mandate the transfusion for the babies. They find it appalling that a "primitive" belief would interfere with the health of the babies.


And yet, these same individuals will generally support abortion. They will support a woman's so-called 'right' over her body (and apparently that of her child's as well, as long as the child is inconvenient). So, what you get is a moral dissociative identity disorder. You get hypocrisy and confusion.


As an experiment, then, why don't we ask of abortion:


"Is this the decision that a loving, reasonable parent could make? If no, then you intervene."

So, would a loving, reasonable parent have someone disintegrate his or her child with a high-power vacuum?


Many aborted babies are no bigger than an outstretched hand when they are taken from the womb and ripped to shreds according to their parents' will.


The article goes on:


Carlson doesn't think the solution is that simple.


"I think that the Jehovah's Witnesses would be very offended by that notion that because you have certain religious values you're not a loving parent," she said.


But for parents, these court fights aren't about religion, Burns said.


"They're thinking about treatment. Which is what they should be thinking about," he stated. "Religion from that standpoint, you want to accommodate, we live in a diversified religious society, which we respect."


This seems like nonsense. The Jehovah's Witnesses adopted this based on a reading of Acts 15. This looks to me like an attempt to gain some kind of syncretistic credibility for refusing the blood. Not that I care that much if someone is consistent about untruth. But it is interesting to see the argument put forward by the family's lawyer.


Burns said the Krever Inquiry into Canada's blood system has shaken up the assumption that blood is always safe and these parents are simply looking for an alternative.


Schafer said no matter what the high court rules these cases will likely continue to funnel through the courts.


"We will because society has an obligation to protect children," he said. While the courts long ago decided that adults can refuse treatment, he said society won't view children in the same way.


I find it difficult to see how a seemingly intelligent philosopher could make a statement along these lines. Maybe the paraphrase was off. But our society has long ago started viewing children as masses of tissue that can be removed and tossed aside if they are inconvenient. This is wishful thinking.


But I like his idealist sentiment: "… society has an obligation to protect children."


How about the basic protection of being allowed to remain in the womb, intact, until birth?


"You could follow your wacky views right over the cliff, if it's you and you're a competent adult," Schafer said. "But you can't push your kids over the cliff."


If you change "push" into "suck" and "over the cliff" into "into the high-suction vacuum cleaner," well, sure you can.


Indeed, Schafer himself comments on the trends about abortion in Canada:


The lack of action reflects the prevailing view of Canadians, most who are content to leave a woman's legal right to an abortion where it is, says Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.


"In fact, so overwhelming is the consensus that even the political party known as the Conservative political party of Canada... probably a great majority whose members, are passionately opposed to abortion and would love to reintroduce it," he said, "that party won't mention it."


Sentiments like "You could follow your wacky views right over the cliff, if it's you and you're a competent adult. But you can't push your kids over the cliff" and "society has an obligation to protect children" and "While the courts long ago decided that adults can refuse treatment … society won't view children in the same way" seem somehow at odds with "the prevailing view of Canadians, most who are content to leave a woman's legal right to an abortion where it is."


Such moral confusion is the sorrowful result of the error our culture and the individuals therein have made in increasingly casting God's word behind them.


The Scriptures give us answers to both problems – transfusions and abortions. And in both cases the Scriptures preserve life.


Not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses and their redacted New World Translation, nor with the morally confused secular North Americans. When you continue to walk in utter darkness, it is no surprise to find yourself tripping all the time.

A Consistent Arminian View on Substitutionary Atonement

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition."

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.80

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

By Constant Practice

Hebrews 5:11-14
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of he oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
One of the fundamental God-mandated duties of true Christians is to distinguish good from evil. Each of us is to "be transformed by the renewal of [his] mind, that by testing [he] may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2) So it is clear that as believers in Christ who are justified by His perfect work and righteousness we are to be able and willing to seek out "what is good and acceptable and perfect" before God.

In an age of tolerance and varying degrees of uncertainty and relativism the importance of this practice of distinguishing good from evil along with the desire to truly please God by abstaining from evil and discerning what is the will of God are under constant attack from all sides. Those Christians who would cry out for the sake of righteousness are branded as bigots, "fundamentalists," and hateful. Those who do not know the works and words of Jesus of Nazareth claim that those who desire holiness are actually opposed to Jesus!

But the apostle Paul explained why Christians are called to this practice of discernment. He wrote to the Philippians these words:

Philippians 1:9-11
9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
The reasons for being able to "approve what is excellent" are given: That we might be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, as a perfect flawless bride for her Husband, and that in all this praise and glory would be given to God.

Thus, this blog exists to the praise and glory of God. We love the truth. And along with Jude and Peter, in an age that despises the bloody religion of our Lord Jesus, with wolves both without and within our walls, we will "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and in our hearts we will strive to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks [us] for a reason for the hope that is in us; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (2 Peter 3:15)

Therefore, this blog serves to honour the Lord by reasoning for the truth, giving an answer for the hope that we have, contending for the once-for-all-time faith, and discerning right from wrong, all by way of the grace of God and faithfulness to Him as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures, that by constant practice we might distinguish good from evil - and perhaps help others to do the same.

Soli Deo Gloria.