Matt Postiff's Blog

I don't drink alcohol because:

Interlocutor Bob responded to my previous post about abortion.

Bob says the assertion that life begins at conception is an un-evidenced religious position not supported by science or modern philosophy. I am happy to stand against the consensus of both disciplines, because if they so say, then they are wrong in the eyes of God, who has revealed clearly His will on the matter of abortion. Further, I believe that any evidence I adduce for life beginning at conception will be rejected by the pro-abortionist anyway, because of their prior commitments. For example...what does begin at conception? Death? Nothing? It is evident that something is alive. Suppose we found a reproducing set of cells on Mars. Science would proclaim that they had found life on another planet. But they cannot recognize the same thing in the womb of a nearby mother!

Bob says that most pregnancies end before the mother is aware of it. I don't know the statistics on that, but let's suppose he is right. If they end naturally, we ought not be happy about that, but we can accept it as from the hand of God and because of the cursed condition in which we exist.

Bob says that the choice to stop pregnancy before viability is not a moral question for him. But I have to wonder, is getting pregnant a moral issue? Is the particular time of viability a moral issue? Is anything really a moral issue, or just an issue of convenience or cultural convention?

Bob says that a 20-week fetus doesn't even have a heartbeat. Here's where I have to really chastise Bob for a basic lack of knowledge. A quick search online reveals that an institution as highly regarded as the Mayo Clinic says that the heartbeat of a fetus starts in the sixth week. As they point out, the first two weeks of official "pregnancy" happen before fertilization, so are not really part of the life of the new baby. This means the baby's heart is beating 4 weeks after conception. I have to wonder with such a basic lack of knowledge if I should take seriously other things that Bob says. Nevertheless, I will give Bob the benefit of the doubt and consider carefully what he says because this is such a crucial issue.

Bob says that by week 25 a fetus doesn't have a sufficient nervous system control basic bodily functions, and by week 30 it still doesn't have fully developed bones. I respond that anyone who has had a child knows that the nervous system cannot control bathroom functions for quite some time after 40 weeks, and the same goes for bone development. These are not arguments for a position to terminate pregnancy, unless they are also arguments to terminate a baby after it is born.

Bob says that I am close-minded and the one in our conversation who is blinded by immorality. Such is the impasse that the believer comes to in conversations with one who does not believe in Christ. Our lives are built on two totally different foundations. I suppose I am close-minded, since I have carefully investigated the claims of the other side and found them sorely lacking. I see nothing new forthcoming on the horizon that would convince me it is OK to kill babies in the womb. But I would encourage Bob to be open to all the evidence as well. If you discard the Bible and God and Christian truth, you short-change your evidence collection and are doomed to come to some very bad conclusions.

Bob says that he is a nice guy and does good works, and that I should get to know him. I would love to get to know him better. But I am making a case that someone who supports killing babies in the womb is not nice in at least that one regard. It is a bloody business that Planned Parenthood does. Civilized human beings should not be involved in it.

Doing good works and being a nice guy are not sufficient to qualify one as "right" in the sight of God. Only by a transforming work of God through faith in Christ can one be brought into spiritual life and into a mind open to moral truth so that it can truly understand the things I am talking about here.

Bob, I'm thankful we can speak freely to one another, hopefully gain some understanding of each other, and not be jailed or killed for our views. Hopefully that liberal spirit of toleration will prevail in our country for a long time even in the face of strong disagreements such as these. Please consider that Christ died for your sins and rose again from the dead. If you come to acknowledge Him, then we can have this conversation again on a shared foundation, and the outcome will be a lot different.

Tri-Lakes Baptist Church in Brighton is offering a marriage retreat for couples. It is September 11-12, Friday and Saturday. Friday the retreat starts at 6:30pm and Saturday it starts again at 9:00am. The speaker will be Jim Newcomer.

Over at AEI Idea's public policy blog, I wrote in a comment:

I think this would be a good Venn diagram:

Circle 1: People who say unborn babies are not people but rather are tissue masses or somesuch.

Circle 2: People who sell human body parts like kidneys, brains, spinal cords, livers, and the like from aborted fetuses.

Overlap: People who don't have a great need for intellectual consistency.

If the unborn children are not babies, it would seem that they shouldn’t have all the normal people body parts. If it looks like a person, shouldn’t you think its a person?

A respondent named Bob replied:

Nonesense. So if I grow a liver in the lab that liver is a person? If I choose to be an organ donor I’m not a person? If dead people donate their bones and tissue for treatments they weren’t people? You’re ignoring the reality that people can and do donate tissue and organs all the time, and in some cases their family decides for them. You’re also conflating partially developed with actually developed. Is a blastocyst of 300 cells a person? That’s ridiculous. By that standard scratching your nose is a virtual genocide. I’m not saying it’s trivial to draw the line between mass of unviable tissue and potential human that has consciousness, but science isn’t completely ignorant either. And whether the tissue resulting from abortion should be used is a question of squeamishness, not ethics. Is it somehow more moral to throw aborted tissue in the garbage than to use it for something productive? Hardly.

There are a few obvious logical and moral flaws in what Bob has written.

Hi Bob, not nonsense. You've missed the point. In reply to your questions/points:

About livers grown in a lab: that is obviously not a person. I'm talking about a pie dish with all the baby's body parts dissected in it, not a liver in isolation from any other living tissue. You find all the body parts in that pie dish, and if they weren't chopped up like mince meat and hacked out of their mother’s womb, they would still be alive and in a few weeks or months would be born as a healthy baby. I'm all for growing a liver or heart or lung in a lab and transplanting it into a person to save a life, as long as doing so does not kill another life in the process.

About organ donation: if you choose to be an organ donor, that is wonderful. But notice the huge difference in three ways. First of all, you voluntarily choose to donate a part of your body. You may implement the donation after you are dead, say from a traumatic brain injury. You cannot give your organs before you are dead in that situation. Or, some make donations of themselves while they are alive. For instance, sometimes people donate a partial liver, or a kidney. In abortion, the "donation" is not voluntary by the donor.

Second, in the living donor case, the donation does not kill the person, if all goes well. The abortion does kill the subject.

Third, neither your nor your family can legally be compensated for donations. In Planned Parenthood's abortion situation, they are compensated. So, the baby does not voluntarily choose to donate, it loses its life, and another organization (PP) is being compensated for it.

To your question about a blastocyst of 300 cells: it is of the homo sapiens variety and it is alive. So, it is not so ridiculous to suggest it is a person. What else would you call it? You cannot convince anyone that it is another species, or that it is dead. It has all the qualities of a living human organism at that stage of its development, just like a 3 month old has all the qualities of a human at that stage of development, and you have all the qualities of a human at your stage of development.

You admit that it is not trivial to draw the line. So I challenge you to go ahead and draw the line--just when does it become life? And are you willing to kill a living organism on the flimsy "it's not trivial" logic? Or on the "I'm flexible...I might be willing to draw the line as far out as sentience or viability"? I wish the infant had the luxury of such flexibility! Yes, I do believe that life begins at conception. You are willing to commit discrimination based on age and level of development. So what if a child is born without arms and legs? It is only partially developed. Do you think it is OK to kill it? Your pushback that I kill living organisms all the time when I was my hands with anti-bacterial soap is irrelevant. I don't kill a living human organism when I wash my hands. I am free as a human, and as a Christian, to end the life of a bacteria if it is harmful, or an animal if it is a pest, or an animal if I need food, and even a human if it is a case of justified homicide as in capital punishment or self defense because of a criminal act done against another human. I am justified in such acts, in the proper contexts, because God has permitted those acts. You have no justification for taking the life of an infant in the womb--God has not sanctioned that act.

Fourth, if all ethical questions reduced down to ones of squeamishness, we would do a lot more things that are sick and perverted than we even do now. It is far too simple-minded ethically to suggest that once we make the decision to kill a baby, it is no problem to decide to donate its tissue. Your final question presents the logical fallacy called a false dilemma. I don't have a choice only between throwing aborted tissue away or donating it. I can choose LIFE and have a baby! Both donating the tissue AND throwing it away are morally wrong, and they are sourced in a prior moral wrong: murder.

Bob's type of thinking is an example of how darkened the mind of the unbeliever is. I don't know Bob personally, but for my purpose this afternoon, he represents a whole class of people whose thinking is blinded by immorality and simply does not see things they way those things really are.

Perhaps I should spell out my initial Venn diagram comment to make it more clear? On the one hand, abortionists say that the unborn baby is not a human, it has no right to life, and it is of no consequence to remove it from the mother. But on the other hand, apparently they market the human body parts of those babies for medical researchers who want to purchase human body parts. Oh, but wait, it wasn't a human that we removed from the womb. How can we market its body parts as human if it really isn't human? Hmmmm. Maybe we'll just live with the intellectual inconsistency so we can get what we WANT—federal funding and financial proceeds from body part sales and fees for abortions, and free sex without any responsibility!

Sometimes Christians are charged with "cherry picking" certain parts of the Bible to believe or practice, while ignoring others. For example, aren't Christians inconsistent when they rail against homosexuality but are pretty much OK with divorce? Isn't it foolish to accept the law against homosexuality from the Old Testament yet reject the food laws and slavery and laws against mixed textiles? My new article at Inside Sources answers this very question.

The article was picked up by The Intelligencer as well.

I think that most Americans would agree that Dylan Roof's killing of nine black church-goers last week qualifies as a hate crime, particularly because of his white-supremacist background and racist rant while he slew his victims. His act demonstrates the worst sort of depravity. But what is a hate crime and why is it a special kind of crime?

What most Americans do not understand is that all crimes are hate crimes, and that in God's sight, hate itself is a crime.

Let me address the latter assertion first: hate itself is a crime under divine law.

Leviticus 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart.
1 John 2:9 - He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.
1 John 3:15 - Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 4:20 - If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?
Matthew 5:44-45 - But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The Christian God commands that all people love God and love their neighbors as themselves. Hatred is the same as breaking this "great commandment" and God's assigned punishment for this crime is eternal death (Romans 6:23).

Now for the assertion that all crimes are "hate crimes."

Google shows the definition of hate crime to be "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."

My definition of crime is broader than the secular definition because I count a true "crime" as an act against the law of God. Some things fall into this category which are legal but are not right in God's eyes.

My definition of hate crime is also broader than the secular definition because the motivation of all crime, whether directly or indirectly, is hate. Looking at it from another angle, crime arises from the self-love of the perpetrator rather than love for the victim.

• Did Dylan Roofs love his victims?
• Regardless of the skin color of the perpetrator or victim, does a mass shooter love his victims?
• Does the abortion doctor love his victim—or his pregnant patient?
• Does the gay couple who sues a cake maker (for not making a cake for them) love their victim?
• Do followers of the homosexual movement love their opponents when they send them death threats?

Obviously the answer to the above questions is a resounding NO in each case. Unfortunately, in an age where boy means girl and white means black, it is not certain that this obvious conclusion will be accepted.

Undoubtedly someone who opposes what I've said above will ask about a minister refusing to perform a gay wedding or a pastor preaching against homosexuality—aren't those hate crimes? Absolutely not! Under God's law, they are acts of love, not hate. To share with someone that their conduct and beliefs are ultimately destructive is not to hate them; it is rather to show love and compassion.

Under United States secular law as construed for the entire history of the nation, such actions (or lack of action) are protected as free exercise of religion and speech; they are not criminal acts; and they certainly don't involve violence. These acts are not motivated by sexual prejudice, for the Christian motivation is not a mere preconceived opinion. Rather, the motivation is love for God and love for neighbor.

Judging the internal motivations is a very slippery task. I think we should forget about categorizing crimes into different types by motivation, and simply punish crimes uniformly.

Murder is murder—whether it it arose out of personal malice or impersonal prejudice. It took a life, no matter what the color, gender, sexuality, etc. Murder is a hate crime, and all hate is a crime too.

This post came out of a study of 1 John 3:10-24.

I applaud Ken Ham for reminding us tonight that the human race is ONE race, not many, not black and white, not brown and yellow, but one race, from Adam and Eve. He wrote some helpful comments in his related twitter posts @aigkenham:

There is only one race of people biologically—Adam's race. Everyone has the same skin color, brown. There are no black or white people—all are shades of brown. Next time you fill out a form that asks what race you are, write "Adam's"

Unfortunately, his post was briefly sullied by a commentator named Gary (full name not included here) who says that God cursed Noah's son Ham (not to be confused with Ken Ham), sent him to a tropical climate, and darkened his skin in punishment for what he did to his dad.

I wrote to Gary directly on his Facebook page, and also tried to write a reply to challenge his comment on Ken's post. My reply was disallowed, I believe because either he himself or Facebook quickly deleted his racist comment. That happened, by the way, less than 25 minutes after he made the remark at about 10:30 eastern time. So, I am copying what I wrote here in my blog so that others searching online will be able to find yet another refutation of this deplorable interpretation.

Gary, yours is an old and very bad interpretation of Genesis 9:21-27. This interpretation is especially odious because it was used to justify the enslavement of black people. I challenge you to review the passage and show us from the text (1) that Ham uncovered Noah; (2) that God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) that God miraculously darkened Ham's skin; and (4) that God cursed Ham at all. I don't find those assertions anywhere in the text, yet you make all of them in your three lines of false teaching. Here are the facts: (1) Noah became uncovered by himself because he was drunk; (2) The text doesn't say God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) The text doesn't say that God darkened Ham's skin; and (4) God did not curse Ham—the text says that God cursed Canaan!

The Christian pastor's job description includes silencing those who are empty talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:11). This is just such a case. Hopefully the truth will embarrass Gary into silence. It is impossible to make an apologetic for racism out of Genesis 9.

Conventional wisdom says that if your church has mostly old people, it is dying and will soon be buried and forgotten.

What qualifies as old is somewhat slippery, with no one wanting to admit that they fall into that category, but we'll say, for sake of argument, the cut-off age is 55 years.

I grant there are a lot of situations that have made the adage work out well. And the church needs to reach everyone in its community, including younger people and families so that it does not simply "die off."

But in some cases, the idea behind the conventional wisdom has led to an age-based discrimination in which some churches take older folks for granted or even actively marginalize them. That is a big mistake. Here's why:

1. An article in The Atlantic shows that the distribution of the population by age is markedly shifting toward the older end of the spectrum. The "age pyramid" used to be a triangle; now it is more rectangular, and in China it is an upside-down trapezoid because of government birth control policies.
2. Older Christians often have a lot of Biblical and experiential wisdom, so it would be shortsighted to marginalize them. One church I know of drove all the older folks away with their "new methods" and destroyed the church as a true gospel witness. To ignore the elders smacks of the youthful "wisdom" of Rehoboam that rejected good counsel (1 Kings 12:6-8).
3. Older Christians may be driven away from such churches and need a church home that is not so culturally relevant (with loud music, for instance) that it is irrelevant for the older culture.
4. Older Christians have more time (especially if retired) and more disposable income to support God's work.
5. The church must reach out to older people as well, for there are many who do not know the gospel of Christ. The Great Commission knows no age limits.
6. The body of Christ is supposed to diverse, and I would argue it should be about as diverse in terms of ethnic and age makeup as the culture around it. A church with only young people might be "exciting" but it would not be right.
7. The church needs older men and women to teach the younger men and women. In our culture, with the teen-ification of twenty somethings, I don't think this means that 30 year-olds qualify as "older" so as to teach the 20 year-olds. We need men and women in their 50s and 60s who have some Biblical meat on their bones to train the younger people how to conduct themselves, how to dress, how to run the home, how to participate in church, etc. (Titus 2:3-5)
8. The fact is that all of us are getting older. I hope there are plenty of elderly-friendly churches when I reach that stage!

Consider how your church might reach older folks. That will please God.

As they were on the verge of entering the promised land, Moses reminded the people of Israel how God had cared for them over the preceding years. But a danger would come when they began to enjoy rich material blessings:

Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments, His judgments, and His statutes which I command you today. (Deuteronomy 8:11)

when your heart is lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; (Deuteronomy 8:14)

Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish. (Deuteronomy 8:19)

The same danger applies today to us. Many readers of this post are extremely rich by comparison to the rest of the world. Consider the following quotation from economist Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute:

For example, nearly half of the world's richest 1% of people live in the U.S., and the threshold required to make it into that elite group is only $34,000 per person, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic.

If your household income is over $34,000, you are the 1%! This can pose a serious danger because riches can beget a self-sufficient disposition. Such a disposition is death to reliance upon God. Do not forget your God! If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you cannot allow money or material wealth to have the mastery over you.

I've been doing some study in Acts 19. We have in that chapter the interesting situation that Paul, the Christian, is debunking the imaginary polytheistic beliefs of a whole community that believes in the goddess Diana (goddess of the hunt, moon, and birthing). He did the same in Athens (Acts 17) and elsewhere on his missionary tours. In these cases, the Christian confronted a polytheistic world for its belief in imaginary gods and calling it to abandon those beliefs in favor of the belief in the one true God.

Today it is in vogue for atheists to mock the "imaginary" beliefs of Christians in a God they cannot see, who is written about in a Bible that contains all kinds of supposed evil. To them, God is an imaginary friend on the one hand, and His book and practices are unspeakably evil on the other.

This mocking is done by those who imagine spontaneous generation occurred in a primordial pea soup of unknown origin that created complex and varied living systems. These organisms are now in a life and death struggle for survival in a world filled with natural and man-made evil. It seems like the atheist/evolutionist believes in something you cannot see or replicate and which resulted in a world full of evil.

I'll take the Christian Theistic explanation any day! Especially since I understand things a lot differently than the caricature that atheism makes of Christianity. God cannot be seen? True...except that God came as a man in the incarnation and He was seen for over three decades on this earth. The evidence for that is quite overwhelming. God is evil? That simply reflects sinners laying blame for sin at the feet of God instead of at their own feet. God is not a sinner; man is. Just like Adam and Eve tried to shift blame for evil onto someone or something else, so the sinner today does the same thing and shifts blame onto God. But once blame is assigned properly--to people--then God's actions in judging the blameworthy can be understood properly.

Some more "anti-advice."

So says Acts 18:3. It got me thinking about working in the trades.

I'm convinced that we need to elevate the status of "the trades" in our day. What I mean by "trades" are those professions where a person works with his hands, physically building, fixing, etc. Far too often people in the trades are looked down upon as not having a college degree and maybe even belonging to a lower class of society. Blue collar or white collar? Plumber, electrician, carpenter or accountant, lawyer, doctor? Sure, we appreciate the plumber when we have a leaking toilet, but do we have a level of prejudice the rest of the time? Consider James 2:1-12.

The Bible says that three famous Christians—the apostle Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla—worked together in the same trade as tentmakers. Whatever "tent making" looked like, it doesn't seem that they were big businessmen with MBAs and hundreds of employees working for them. They worked with their hands (1 Corinthians 4:12), and Paul admonished others to do the same (Ephesians 4:28, 1 Thessalonians 4:11).

For our high schoolers, we should extol the value of hard work and reinforce to them that a job like Paul's doing manual work is a fine occupation. Perhaps that would mean foregoing a four-year college education and the $100,000 of debt that it could create—so much the better!

Let us not look down on our brothers and sisters who do work that is viewed poorly by society.

Guest post by Bill Goodwin

Editor’s note: This seemed to be an interesting observation of our culture that I publish here to stir up your thinking.

Sometimes my wife and I play a little game in restaurants.

While eating, we notice a young family in the next booth or table. They have one, two or three children, some, or all, of which are not the best behaved. Mother is busy feeding one or trying to correct or control the others while trying to grab a few bites for herself. This activity continues throughout the mealtime while dad feeds himself and once in a while injects a comment into the scene.

About this time, either my wife will say to me, or I to her, “I’ll bet he’s a Ceiling Tile Counter.”

By and by they finish their meal. Mother gets up, starts packing up the kids’ coats, hats, toys, and grabs one of the kids, then her purse and the guest check. Our suspicions are beginning to play out. She heads for the cash register. The rest of the family trails along with dad bringing up the rear. He has that hump-shouldered look with a shuffle to match. Mom has now reached into her purse and hauled out the necessary currency and offers it with the check to the cashier.

Guess what dad’s doing?!!! He stops behind the last kid, looks at his wife, then looks at the action at the cash register, and.....WALLAH!, his head tilts up and he slowly gazes at the ceiling for what must seem to him an eternity, hoping this indignity passes quickly! Why does he count ceiling tiles? HE’S EMBARRASSED, because his responsibility has been usurped! A pitiful sight, just standing there, fidgeting, and he can’t do anything but count ceiling tiles!!

By the way, according to our survey, seven of ten Ceiling Tile Counters grow beards! Why?! Because it’s the one thing his wife can’t do! He’s got to let his male hormones show somehow!!

This is not meant to be critical, but merely an observation based on years of combined experience. Comical? Somewhat, but sad. Sad to think that simple, basic principles of God’s Word are not put into play. First of all, the man’s relationship to God is the same relationship his wife has with her husband, as is the children’s relationship to their parents. Like dominos, each one affects the other. It all falls on the man, his relationship, or lack thereof, with God.

P.S. If you receive a birthday card or Christmas card from the “Ceiling Tile Counter” couple, you’ll notice the signature usually has the wife’s name first. The same is true if you receive a check from them.

Fox News reports on the recent American Bible Society survey that revealed some interesting facts:

• A steady increase in use of online Bibles versus print Bibles.
• A decrease in ownership of Bibles in homes (92% 20 years ago, 88% today).
• The most read and searched version was the KJV, a fact which Fox does not note is probably due to the fact that it is far more widely available due to copyright restrictions on other versions.
• The YouVersion Bible app surpassed 100 million downloads.

Thanks to Andy Bennett for the heads-up.

Yesterday morning, as every weekday morning, I drove my two boys to school. On our way, we pass a short street that leads to an abortion mill. Sometimes there is someone visible on the main road who is protesting abortion. Yesterday, my boys took note of a woman doing just that. They asked about it. I told them she was protesting abortion.

"Dad, what is abortion?"

Let that sink in for a second. And while it is sinking in, ask yourself how you would answer a 7- and 8-year old who asked that question.

I thought it was a good time to delicately expose them to one of the very dark sides of our nation and world. I asked them if they understood what it means for a woman to be pregnant. Then I asked them what would happen if a baby was born too early and helped them think of the possibility of the baby dying. They have a friend in school who was born very prematurely, so I was able to relate this matter to that situation. Then I said that sometimes, accidents happen where the baby in the mommy's tummy is killed, or sometimes for reasons we don't understand the baby is born too early and cannot live. Then I said that sometimes a pregnant woman has people take away the baby out of her tummy so the baby dies. (I hesitate to call the "people" by the title "doctors" since they don't follow the Hippocratic oath.) That is what an abortion is.

The conversation was not more than a few minutes. But with it, another level of childhood innocence and ignorance was shattered. I hate that this sin-cursed world makes that innocence depart with age. But there is nothing stopping it.

My older son then thoughtfully said, "Dad, I don't understand why someone would want to do that."

I don't either, son.

We associate pretend things with childhood. There is something endearing about watching a child in pretend play. There are valuable developmental things going on in children as they pretend and emulate what they see in their world. But it seems out of place for adults to play like younger children (1 Corinthians 13:11).

The thought I'd like you to think about is this: how much of your life is pretend? It is probably not a very high percentage of overall hours if your life is close to the average American's. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, working and sleeping take about 16.4 hours out of 24. These are fixed costs associated with "just living."

But on average, Americans have five daily hours of leisure activities where they have more control over what they choose to do. Well over half of that segment of the day is devoted to watching television and playing games.

Setting aside the possibility that you are watching documentaries and educational television, I would venture to say that most TV and games are pretend activities. You are watching and vicariously experiencing the made-up activities of others. You see pretend violence and pretend relationships. You view pretend situations. You become actively involved in your pretend mind with simulated reality video games. I would argue that adult pretend of this nature is not substantially different from child pretend.

Does there seem to be something wrong with such pretend? Besides the fact that it seems out of place for adults to have so much pretend in their lives, there are other thoughts you can ponder. For example, pretend has a real effect on the mind and body. Have you ever experienced an elevated pulse when watching something with suspense or violence? What do you think repeated exposure to that sort of pretend does to the mind and body? Pretend TV shows teach (preach!) real values, whether bad or good. What about the numbing effect of pretend on our interaction with the real world? If our leisure time is filled with pretend, it can have an anesthetizing effect on us, removing awareness of the things that are really going on. Perhaps Satan lures our flesh through pretend in entertainment in order to dull our senses to what he is doing in the world. Pretend can distract us from global trends, political realities, personal relationships, and the needs of others in view of the ultimate reality that life is short and each person will soon be called to judgment.

Don’t pretend your life away!

A common argument for keeping abortion legal is that if it were made illegal, many pregnant mothers would die from clandestine abortions, otherwise known as "coat hanger" or "back alley" abortions.

A new study of the maternal mortality ratio in Chile disproves this unproven propagandist assertion. Dr. Elard Koch and colleagues have written a study entitled Women's Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007.

Chile has outlawed basically all abortions since 1989. Yet, Koch concludes his article with these telling sentences: "Finally, prohibition of abortion in Chile did not influence the downward trend in the maternal mortality ratio. Thus, the legal status of abortion does not appear to be related to overall rates of maternal mortality."

Translation: if you make abortion illegal, you are not therefore necessarily going to raise the number of mothers who die from clandestine abortions.

I'm thankful for evidence-based medicine concluding, in this case, the same thing we know intuitively. Making abortion illegal will not cause mothers to flock to back alleys to potentially harm themselves. Their self interest will help them be more responsible about their sexual activity, and also encourage them to give birth to children they have conceived. Making abortion illegal has the added benefit of protecting another segment of the population: the unborn!

For further reading, check out the following:

• Chilean Study Proves that Outlawing Abortion Does Not Lead to "Coat-hanger Deaths"
• A ground-breaking abortion study from Chile, an interview with Dr. Koch

August 6, 2003

News Summary

Minneapolis, Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003: The Episcopalian Church yesterday elected Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson to the New Hampshire Diocese. He is now the first openly gay bishop of that denomination. The vote was by the Episcopal general convention. He was previously the assistant to the New Hampshire bishop. He is a divorced father of two, currently living with a male partner.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, head of the church, said the bishops voted 62-45 to confirm Robinson's election. Two bishops abstained, but their ballots under church rules were counted as "no" votes. The Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member global Anglican Communion. The vote is causing quite a stir among conservatives of that denomination.

The Episcopalian denomination has for some time accepted gay and lesbian people into its fellowship. Listen to the same article: "Robinson said he attended a gathering of gay Episcopalians Tuesday night where some were in tears, saying their gay children had called to tell them they would now return to the church." Or, "Later this week, the Episcopal convention is expected to consider a measure on drafting a same-sex blessing ceremony."

In an interview Wednesday [August 6, 2003], Robinson said he hoped his critics would not leave the church, though he disagrees with their view that gay sex violates Scripture. "I think they're wrong about this," he said. "I think they'll come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one." (Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout, By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer).

Commentary

This decision is only one further step in the downward spiral that the Episcopalian denomination (among others) is taking in its apparent effort to keep up with the ways of the world: note the Supreme Court decision in June overturning Texas' sodomy laws, and recent Canadian movements toward legalization of homosexual marriage. Certainly we are in the midst of a great movement away from the truth of God, as Paul tells Timothy in 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-5, 13, 4:3-4.

It is unfortunate that we must even talk of these things (Eph 5:12) but in the interest of declaring the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) we will reproduce here the Biblical teaching on the issue of homosexuality.

Let it be emphatically said that the critics of Robinson are not wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Scriptures as immoral, ungodly, wicked behavior. The following paragraphs show this from five clear texts in the Bible. Note well that these are the clear teachings of the Bible, not of a radical man or denomination.

Lev 18:22, 20:13. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination...If there is a man who lies with a male as those who life with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood-guiltiness is upon them." The Mosaic law clearly prohibits homosexuality as something that is detestable. The law, as an expression of the holy will of God for the Jews, contains principles are clearly applicable to us today. While we do not have a civil law which functions as it did in Israel, i.e. the punishment today for such behavior is obviously not the death penalty, we do understand that God hates this practice, as he hates all sin.

Rom 1:26-27. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If some should argue that the Mosaic law has passed out of force in this age of grace, they would be correct. But they would not be correct to use this as an argument supporting homosexual behavior, for it is again condemned here, in the New Testament epistles. Paul carries the principle forward "from the creation of the world" (verse 20) all the way to the present (vs. 32) where he uses present tense verbs to speak of those who "know the ordinance of God...practice such things...they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." So, the Episcopal church has given approval to one who is practicing homosexuality. Such is a double-sin: one of allowing the sin and another of promoting the sin.

Paul is very clear in Romans that such behavior, first of all, is sourced in what the NASB calls "degrading passions." These are the evil lusts or passions which drive lesbian and homosexual behavior. These passions are only genetic in the sense that sin is genetic, i.e. all people are born with a sin nature. They are not a disease in the classic sense of that term; instead they come from the "disease" called sin.

Such behavior, secondly, is unnatural. The word used in Greek indicates that which is inborn or native, according to the laws of nature and the created order. There are plain physical indications of the order of God's creation, and homosexual behavior violates these.

Such behavior, thirdly, is indecent. This word means shameful, unseemly. These ideas do not lend themselves to support of homosexual behavior in the least.

Such behavior, fourthly, is error. This word has two related ideas. The first is a straying from truth or orthodoxy. Such behavior is indeed a departure from that which is right. Additionally, the word for "error" means deception. Many have deceived themselves into thinking that homosexuality is either natural, a preset human condition, a valid choice, or "ok for someone else but not for me." No! In fact, it is error. It is sin. Deception often comes, as in this case, by setting up a human standard (in our own autonomous minds) as opposed to looking to God's perfect standard.

Such behavior, fifthly, leads one into the judgment of God. This is indicated in the phrase "God gave them over to degrading passions" and they "receiv[ed] in their own persons the due penalty of their error." This is more than God permitting them to sin, because He had permitted sin already at the Fall. It is also more than God's withholding of his goodness, for the gospel is available to all today; none can say that God is not good. This judgment is God's confirming of the wicked in their lifestyle and His allowing them to experience the full penalty (temporal and eternal) of their error. These are indeed weighty words for those who are caught in such practice. For you Christians out there, this ought to burden your soul to witness to those caught in such behavior, to save a soul from death (James 5:20).

1 Cor 6:9. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals..." The word for effeminate refers to pedophilia and generally to homosexuality. The word "homosexuals" is translated by the KJV as "abusers of self with mankind." This means a sodomite or homosexual. Very clearly Paul is calling out these, among other sexual sins, as violations of God's will.

1 Tim 1:9-10. "...realizing the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching."

Here again the word for homosexual is used. Note that all of these deeds are paralleled with each other as being lawless and rebellious. They are all "contrary to sound teaching." Sure, teachers go about today saying cultural norms dictate that Paul is outmoded or a bigot or a homophobe. Not at all. In fact, Paul says that some of the Corinthians were saved out of such sin. He thanked God for them (1 Cor 1:4) and he sent his love to them in the final verse of his first letter (1 Cor 16:24).

Far from a homophobe, Paul was instead a sin-o-phobe. He wanted to see all men come to the obedience of the faith (Rom 1:5) and to be delivered from the power of darkness (Acts 26:18). This is God's continuing desire today (2 Peter 3:9).

The case is quite clear that Rev. Robinson is wrong. Pray for him to realize this soon.

A follow-up article can be read at The New York Times.

The UK Telegraph reported earlier today on a fresh rendition of an old idea: if abortion is OK, then so is killing young infants.

The report covers an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?" The authors write, "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual." Thus they extend the logic of abortion to cover infants outside of the womb. How can anyone doubt the parallel pro-lifers make of abortion to the Nazi extermination of Jews, or the treatment of Dred Scot and his brethren as non-persons?

I suppose I could spend a lot of time rebutting the article, but in the end, one of our church members is right: not much needs to be said. This article reflects the sick minds of people who are dead in their transgressions. They profess themselves to be wise but show themselves to be fools. Anyone that thinks it is OK to kill a baby is an extremely dangerous person promoting extremely dangerous ideas. Their ideas are so morally corrupt that they ought not to be given a hearing. --MAP

Some months back 20/20 did a report on so-called "IFB" churches (Independent, Fundamental, Baptist Churches) regarding allegations of sexual abuse and cover-ups by some leaders in those churches. The scandal in the Catholic church continues to rage on. Then there was the Penn State debacle with Jerry Sandusky that took down head coach Joe Paterno. What could be next?

Well, a couple of stories right here in Ann Arbor have hit the news lately. The first happened at the University of Michigan Medical Center. The second, at a local elementary school. Here are some links if you want to read up on them:

• University of Michigan hospital situation
• Eberwhite Elementary lawsuit and follow-up article

Just this morning another story of the same sordid sort was in the news in the Los Angeles schools.

To add further evidence of the massive problem, the CDC recently reported that one in five women in the U.S. have been raped (page 20 of this PDF report).

As I reviewed all these facts, a few thoughts came to mind. First, what in the world is going on? The frequency of these incidents, in all kinds of venues, is ridiculous. Our society is so debased. Second, I have small children. What do I do in order to help protect them? Third, what are best practices for our church and schools to prevent and to handle such cases? Fourth, I noticed that even though the religious institutions have taken a beating in the press, the problem is far more widespread than just some perverts in churches. Big secular institutions are being hit with this as well.

One common thread in many of these cases is the delay in reporting to the police. That is a bad mistake, and one that we need to resolve not to repeat. In some of the cases mentioned above, authorities were contacted, but they might not have been the right authorities. If we are in "management" and something like this comes to our attention, we cannot hide it, shelve it, or ignore it. The people below us on the authority ladder may not know exactly what to do, or may be apprehensive about getting involved. We can exercise appropriate leadership by being actively involved in reporting the incident and encouraging them to be as well. A call to the police with the person who has told us of the incident would be a good start. Hopefully we will find out about the problem in a timely manner.

We must do things right in the sight of the Lord, as well as in the sight of men (2 Corinthians 8:21).

The first sentence of Dr. Bauder's article "Let Me Tell You How to Vote" certainly captured my attention. It said, "Churches have no business addressing political questions." After reading the article a couple of times, I still was perplexed. Perhaps, I thought, he has simply made a too-broad statement that is inconsistent with the rest of his article. Maybe he purposefully said it with the intention of returning to the issue later to clarify things. Maybe he means something different by "political questions" than I do when I use that general phrase. Maybe the church is not supposed to address political questions, but the Christian academician is permitted to do so.

The article is helpful, and one of the ways it was helpful was that it prompted me to think on the issues. Generally I agree with the principles Dr. Bauder puts forth. I differ in where I draw the line as far as principle and application, and this affects my summary statement. That is, churches have to address political questions because those questions often have some connection to Christian morality.

So...here are some of my thoughts.

I wondered if we would be having the discussion in the way that Bauder frames it if we did not have to concern ourselves with 501(c)(3) constraints. In other words, if we were given totally free religious speech, would we just "spit it out" and avoid the circumlocutions?

When I say "circumlocutions," I am thinking of the ways in which Bauder frames his eight biblical concerns such that they are effectively recommendations on "who to [not] vote for" even though he writes in terms of "general principles." If you preach Bauder's list, most people are going to understand your message in light of the current political situation and candidates. Consider some of his concerns and how they would be "heard" by the contemporary audience:

1. Reputation for Integrity - Don't vote for Newt Gingrich.

2. Right to Life - Don't vote for Barack Obama, and maybe not for Mitt Romney either, and possibly not for Ron Paul either.

3. Rule of Law - Don't vote for Barack Obama, and maybe not for some of the other candidates because of their weak stand on the immigration issue.

4. Restraint of Evil - Don't vote for Barack Obama.

5. Respect for Property - Don't vote for Barack Obama or most other Democrats, nor many establishment Republicans.

6. Recovery of Moral Responsibility - ditto.

7. Recognition of Israel - Certainly don't vote for Barack Obama, and probably not for Ron Paul either.

8. Responsible Use of Nature - Don't vote for most everyone on the left.

Now, as I said, I am in almost 100% agreement with Bauder's principles. However, in a sin-cursed world it is tough to apply them with 100% consistency. Maybe Rick Santorum is left standing after all these principles are applied, but maybe not. Couldn't we just say what we mean in terms of contemporary application instead of talking around it?

Another thought on the point about integrity comes to mind. Bauder says "a man who will violate his marriage oath is one who will violate his oath of office." He does not say "a man who has violated his marriage oath in the past is necessarily of the same character now and will certainly violate his oath of office in the future." All men are inconsistent in some ways. Some would violate their oath toward their spouse but not toward their job. Others maybe have learned their lesson and do not want to repeat their past mistakes.

Another thought: I would add a ninth biblical concern to Bauder's list.

9. Reduction of Debt by Paying it Off Fully. Proverbs 22:7 tells us that the borrower is slave to the lender, and Psalm 37:21 says that the wicked borrow and do not repay. The United States is currently a slave nation as well as a wicked nation in this regard. The continual piling up of yearly deficits into the national debt is morally wrong. The weak dollar policy that causes inflation, lessening the value of debt that is paid back on the same face value, is morally wrong as well. A default on sovereign debt would be morally wrong. And the surreptitious reduction of the purchasing power of savings held by our citizens by means of that same inflation is also morally wrong.

The point about debt, then, brings me to my final thought. Bauder makes the popular appeal to downplay purely economic issues in one's decision to vote (the idea is "don't worry about your pocketbook, vote for life/integrity/property rights/etc.!"). The problem is that many economic issues are also moral issues. Most of the concerns enumerated by Bauder are not only spiritual concerns; they are also economic concerns; and they are also political concerns, at least in the common sense of the term "political." Since the Bible gives us wisdom for all areas of life, it does so also for political questions. In preaching the whole counsel of God, we will necessarily run into passages that have applications that deal with political questions. It is true that principles must guide our decisions as to how to vote, but these principles at some point have to come down to the level of application in answer to the question "who to vote for," or at least who not to vote for, as well. —MAP

So says Mark Harrington at CreatedEqual.net. I couldn't agree more.

Remember the SLED acronym - abortion is justified by its proponents by four main arguments: the baby's Size (small), Level of development (lacking certain capabilities), Environment (hidden away in the uterus), and level of Dependency. No other people are murdered based on these criteria. Why should the murder of unborn babies be based on them?

Perhaps it seems a little out of character for me to comment on an issue like Medicare Part D. However, my soul is vexed when I hear misinformation and see elderly folks having difficulties with their medication because of shortcomings in the program and unhelpful pharmacies. My mother-in-law was in this very predicament and it took me some time to sort through it.

Medicare Part D provides a senior the ability to pay a (usually) small copay of $7 for a prescription medication. The insurance company picks up the remainder of the cost. However, this does not always work out so neatly. There are several tiers of medication, such as generics and common non-generics and "rare" medicines. These are not always provided at the $7 copay level. Furthermore, there is what is called the "coverage gap" or, in more picturesque terms, the "donut hole." After the insurance company pays so much, say $2000, then you are responsible for 100% of your medication cost until the coverage gap ends, at which time "catastrophic" coverage kicks in and the insurance helps you again.

The problem is that your elderly friend or relative may not be aware of just what the pharmacy is charging for a particular medication-so that you pay the $7 happily along, but the pharmacy could be eating up your coverage until, before you know it, you are in the coverage gap. This problem is further exacerbated by misinformation and incomplete information offered in pamphlets and advertising.

For instance, a pamphlet on the subject provided by the makers of Prilosec OTC (a heartburn medication) say this: "While generic prescription medications are often less expensive than brand name prescription medications, the full Medicare cost of a generic prescription medication still counts toward the total limit covered by Medicare Part D." Your elderly friend gets the impression that buying generics is a bad idea. Rather, over-the-counter medications are the best--and thus he or she would be induced to select Prilosec OTC instead of, say, the generic Ranitidine (Zantac) even though the latter may work just as well and be covered by Medicare Part D.

Worse yet, if you are in the Detroit area, you may have heard the Walgreen's radio commercial in which they claim that Medicare Part D eliminates price shopping, since all prescriptions are the same price everywhere. This smacks of a socialized approach to medicine, for one thing. But beyond that, it is simply not true. If Walgreen's charges $50 for a medication (and you pay $7), while CVS charges $40 for the same medicine (and you pay $7), your would arrive in the coverage gap much sooner with Walgreen's. This is a real problem for seniors who have complex health issues and who take many medications every day.

The solution that I found most helpful was to switch pharmacies and use generics as much as possible. We use the Kroger Pharmacy, and could just as well use the Walmart Pharmacy, because of their $4 generic programs. What this means is that we pay $4 for a generic for a month (or $10 for a three-month supply). Not only is the copay lower ($4 compared to $7), but Medicare Part D pays NOTHING and so you avoid the donut hole much longer than if your pharmacy is charging up your Part D account!

Here's a concrete example: For 90 tablets of Warfarin (Coumadin) at 3mg per tablet, we presently pay $10 at Kroger (this is a 3-month prescription). Medicare Part D does not have to pay a penny. However, before I figured all this out, we were using a pharmacy that charged $60.39 for the same number of pills--except that they were 1mg per tablet!!! Insurance allowed $41.63 instead of the higher amount; but after the $7 copay, insurance still had to pay $34.63. What a huge waste to the American taxpayer--the amount wasted is over three times the total cost of the prescription! Unfortunately, this scenario must be replaying millions of times over throughout the United States.

Another advantage is that you don't have to abide by some of the insurance companies silly rules since you are paying out of pocket. For instance, you might have heard, "You cannot fill this prescription because it is too soon after you refilled it before." But if you have changed dosages or just don't want to run to the store as often, and you are paying cash, you just say, "Look, I'm paying cash for this. Don't put it toward my Medicare Part D."

An interesting side note to this is that the market has produced a solution far superior to that of Medicare Part D. Kroger and Walmart are doing more to save senior's on their meds than the federal government!

I hope this will be helpful to someone out there. We learned the hard way--four months in the donut hole with some very expensive medications.

There is a stately building on the University of Michigan campus called Angell Hall. On the front is the following inscription:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

The text is taken from the Northwest Ordinance as written by the Continental Congress in the summer of 1787, shortly before the ratification of the Constitution later that year and the next. The full title of the Congress's document was "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, 1787".

You can see a picture of the building below. One of the men in our church helped me by putting together this picture along with a few minor alterations.

Need I ask the obvious question--at least it is obvious for those of us who live in Ann Arbor and are frequently on the campus--where did the religion and morality go, anyway?

I probably knew this before, but lately in the news I was reminded that the federal government is supporting Planned Parenthood with my tax money. I read in the "What in the World!" flyer from Bob Jones University, Volume 45, Number 3, the following: "Planned Parenthood took in just over $1 billion during the fiscal year ending in June 2007. They received $356 million in health center income, $337 million in government grants and contracts..." They were quoting a story from the June 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal.

Jonathan Falwell reported essentially the same facts in his weekly "Falwell Confidential" email on April 4, 2008. He added that Planned Parenthood performed nearly 290,000 abortions in 2006-7.

This is an outrage. Not only has a "right to choose" been foisted upon us, but so has a "right to have my choice paid for by someone else."

What is even more frustrating is that our current president, President George Bush, pledged not to allow federal funding for abortions. In the second Bush-Kerry debate on October 8, 2004, in St. Louis, Missouri, the questioner (ABC's Charles Gibson) asked "What would you say to a voter asking for reassurance that tax dollars would not go to support abortion?" Bush answered, "We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion..."

Certainly it is impossible with the type of government we have to please all of the people all of the time with the types of spending decisions that are made. Some things like national defense are mandated in the constitution, even though pacifists might strongly object to certain uses of the military. But abortion is a unique issue worthy of examining on its own. All Christians should do their part to oppose abortion and the means that allow it to happen, because human rights begin at conception. Those rights include the right to life. God never promises liberty and happiness, but He is clear that the unborn are to be protected (Exodus 20:13, 21:22-25).