As everyone knows, our new President, over whom we have rejoiced, does not share this reverence for the beginning of human life. He is trapped and blinded by a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said, “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.â€
To which I say . . .
No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women’s health; you are authorizing the destruction of half a million tiny women every year.
No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for a million helpless people every year.
No, Mr. President, killing our children does not cease to be killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. Call it what you will, they are dead, and we have killed them. And you, Mr. President, would keep the killing legal.
Some of us wept with joy over the inauguration of the first African-American President. We will pray for you. And may God grant that there arises in your heart an amazed and happy reverence for the beginning of every human life.
John Piper discusses what it is like to be a pro-life Christian under a Pro-Choice President. He writes:
That is the title of a sermon I preached January 17, 1993, three days before Bill Clinton was inaugurated president. It is just as relevant—or more—today.
The text was 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor the king.†I closed with eight ways to honor a pro-choice president. The seventh was this:
We will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. We would not expect this from a con-man, but we do expect it from an honorable man.
For example,
Are you willing to explain why a baby’s right not to be killed is less important than a woman’s right not to be pregnant?
Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the “Freedom of Choice Act†by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
Perhaps you have good answers to each of these questions. We will honor you by expecting you to defend your position forthrightly in the public eye.
You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.
My wife and son had a very funny conversation today about his snack and going over the Mamaw and Papaw’s house tonight for dinner. Here is it. Enjoy!
Wife: What snack do you want? Son: Fruit snack. Wife: Ok, do you want to go see Mamaw tonight? Son: Mamaw and Papaw’s house – ok. Wife: Papaw will not be there, just Mamaw. Son: Mamaw, eat? Wife: Yes we will eat, is that ok? Son: No, not really… want a fruit snack!
Penn, from The Penn and Teller magic show, posted a video log on a recent experience he had with a Christian businessman after one of his shows. It is very telling and absolutely spot on. I encourage you to listen to it and see how you stand up in light of Penn’s analysis.
Note: Penn is a very loud and outspoken atheist and believes that much of “religion” is bad for the world. This video is simply amazing in light of what I’ve heard him say before about Christianity and other world religions.
Penn says:
I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, and you think, ‘Well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward’… How much do you have to hate somebody not to proselytize?
This is an update from previous posts I’ve done on the same topic. I wanted to pass along this good news for the Christian parents that were facing the possibility of jail time for the homeschooling of their children. Read below and be thankful to God for providing them with this amazing deliverance!
===========================================
POLICE STATE, GERMANY Homeschoolers win when government charges dropped
Mom, dad no longer threatened by penalties including jail
Authorities are dropping criminal child-neglect charges pending against a German mother and father who could have faced up to two years in jail and loss of custody for homeschooling five of their children, according to a report from the International Human Rights Group.
Spokesman Joel Thornton said his group, which has been working on the case involving the Brause family from Zittau, Germany, heard from local counsel about the government’s decision.
“We received word from our German counsel in this case, Johannes Hildebrandt, that the court and the prosecutor are dropping the charges against Mr. and Mrs. Brause. This means they no longer face up to two years in prison and the potential loss of their children. The decision of German officials is a huge victory for this family and for homeschool families in Germany,” Thornton told WND.
Let’s start with the obvious. It’s quite common to find Muslim apologists appealing to the most radical, anti-Christian, atheistic writings in their attacks against Christianity. For instance, this past April, as James and I debated Jalal Abualrub, Jalal said that Christians don’t have any evidence that Jesus ever existed. Here he could only be basing such a claim on the hyperskeptical nonsense of some of the self-proclaimed “infidels” who write for the Secular Web. (Note: Some of the writers there are actually reasonable scholars–but not the ones who hold that Jesus was a myth.) The Jesus-myth theory has become quite popular in some circles, and Muslims seem quite happy with this (though I’m not sure why Muslims would be so delighted to hear that Jesus never existed; wouldn’t this refute Islam?).
But what happens when the same radical skepticism that has been applied to Christianity for the past two centuries is applied to Islam? Kalisch gives us the answer: Muhammad probably never existed.
Dinesh D’Souza was interviewed by Marcia Segelstein for our Salvo Magazine in “The Apologist.” An excerpt::
Segelstein: How has Islamic terrorism played into this new “missionary atheism”?
D’Souza: Quite simply, it is what has given atheists the confidence to market their claims. For a long time now, atheists have been accusing religion of being ignorant—of being unscientific and preferring blind faith over critical reason—but that could have been attributed to just harmless error. Atheists can now argue, however, that religious people are not merely ignorant; they’re also dangerous. Religion is not merely irrational; it’s also toxic. It sets man against man. It produces carnage. It causes people to fly planes into buildings after reading holy books. Atheists have been able to surf on the wave of 9/11 by generalizing the crimes committed in the name of Islam to crimes committed in the name of God. This has given modern atheism a certain sort of relevance, currency, and confidence.
The interview is worth your time. D’Souza lets Hitchens, Dawkins, and others get away with precious little. Hitchens, he notes, is not an atheist, but an “anti-theist.”
John Dickson of the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX) interviewed my friend and mentor, Donald Hagner, on various issues related to New Testament history. The interview has been chopped up into smaller bits each around 4 to 8 minutes long.
The interviewer was well prepared and asked excellent questions. He interacted with Don’s areas of expertise (the rabbinic model of oral tradition, the Gospel of Matthew, the apostolic fathers) and proposed questions that gave him an opportunity to answer common skeptical objections to the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels.
It will be evident, as you watch the interview, that Don does not subscribe to a doctrine of inerrancy such as that enshrined in the Chicago Statement. And yet he adopts a believing posture toward the New Testament as historically reliable and apostolic in origin.
First Things has published a thoughtful article by Peter Leithart regarding missions and culture. I encourage everyone interested in understanding how missions should be done in light of various cultures to read this article. It addresses the issue of compromise and the gospel and much more. Enjoy!
Excerpt:
Time was when Christian missions occurred “over there.†Every now and then, the missionary would show up at church dressed like a time traveler, to show slides of exotic places and to enchant the stay-at-homes with tales about the strange diet and customs of the natives. Foreign missions still happen, but that model seems like ancient history. With the new immigration and the increased ease of travel and communication, the mission field has moved into the neighborhood, and every church that has its eyes open is asking every day how to do “foreign missions.â€
That poses a problem. Missions has always been the place where the bookish question of “Christ and culture†turns practical. Now, at the same time that missions has become a challenge “right here,†multiculturalists question the very legitimacy of missions. Since the gospel always comes clothed in culture, how, on the premises of multiculturalism, can missionary work be anything but a veiled form of cultural imperialism? From Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart to Barbara Kingsolver’s Poisonwood Bible, missionaries are depicted as tools of Western hegemony. But, if we’re all missionaries now, are we all cooperating in genocide?
Under the regime of multiculturalism, mission efforts face a cruel dilemma. Either missionaries can preach an uncompromising gospel that will cause everything to fall apart, or they can soft pedal the gospel of God’s judgment and grace in order to permit non-Christian cultures to survive. But is the situation as dire as this? Does the Bible perhaps offer a model for re-conceiving the question in a way that avoids the unhappy choice between compromise and cultural cataclysm?
