Author

By In Scribblings

Mark Horne: when did the Church become like Syria?

If you go search the archives of Google News you will find plenty about our rendition program. Here is one example among many: “When Did We Become Like Syria?”

It was published in late 2007 and is asking the question about America and her government. Given the silence of Evangelicals on this issue–specifically Evangelicals who claim that Christians should “influence the culture”–I have to ask: When Did The American Church Become Like Syria?

Pontifications about how Christians are supposed to transform the world sound like fingernails scratching a chalkboard when those same preachers look away from the homicidal actions of their government, as if they aren’t worth mentioning.

I’m glad Rod Dreher is one of the exceptional voices:

You watch: we’re going to do this thing, and if it brings the rebels to power, they are going to do to the Christian churches and monasteries in Syria — among the oldest in the world — exactly what Muslim fighters did to Christian churches and monasteries in Serbia. And that will not matter one bit to most people in this overwhelmingly Christian country, the United States of America. Don’t get me wrong; I would be against this if there weren’t a single Christian in Syria. But the fact that there are millions of them, and they’re going to face slaughter and exile if the rebels win, makes it even more outrageous that the United States is taking part in this.

When did the American Church train itself to be mute about it’s government engaging in mass murder–even when it specifically targeted Christian populations?<>online gameподбор слова

Read more

By In Family and Children

If You Don’t Learn To Obey Orders You Will Never Be Free; Here’s Why:

romans 6 13Let me start with a brief story about a society in which some people had slaves and attempted to use those slaves for income:

David thought the interview had gone well so far. Huxley Industries needed a slave to answer phones, keep records, and do other office work. David needed some better income and he had a slave to rent. His slave could easily do the jobs that they needed to be done.

“So can your slave be here by 7:30 am every weekday morning?”

David’s heart lurched. “You start that early?”

Well, we need him ready to go before others come to work. We found this position works better if he starts a half hour earlier.”

“Oh.”

“Is that a problem?” Sharon, the interviewer sounded completely non-judgmental about David’s slave. He was thankful for her professionalism.

“Well, I have my slave during most of the day,” said David, hating to have to admit the truth out loud. “Body is a good slave and I’m sure he could do the work here.”

“But?”

“But I’m not completely his sole owner. His other master may make that 7:30 start time difficult to meet.”

“Someone else has ownership that early in the morning?”

David shook his head. Not in the morning, but usually late at night. Wine, Women, and Song are part owners from about 9 p.m. until pretty late. Getting up that early might be a problem.”

Sharon nodded. “That was actually why this position didn’t work with the last slave we tried to rent from someone.”

“Did Wine, Women, and Song have part ownership?”

“No,” said Sharon, “I think it was Late Night Television. It kept the slave up at night and when the other owner got full control back in the morning, the slave was too groggy to work for us effectively.”

David sighed.

“I appreciate talking to you about the job,” said Sharon. “But you have to understand lots of slaves can do the tasks we need done. Our problem isn’t the tasks themselves but the simple fact that the owners are not really total owners. You can’t really rent out a slave if you already share him with other masters.”

Now perhaps you understand the point of my story. To give a clear application of the point, lets think about a couple at their wedding making vows.

Giving Yourself Away In Marriage

When a man and a woman get married, they promise themselves to each other. The assumption is that they are each in a position to actually give the item that they are promising.

I wonder how often that is completely true.

Traditionally, there is a point in a wedding ceremony where the minister asks if there is any other relationship that prevents either person from being legally and morally capable of marrying the other. It is mostly just a formality–though it reminds us that marriage had to be carved out of social chaos.

But while the average couple in a wedding is legally free to marry the other, do they have any real freedom to truly offer and give themselves to the other?

To a certain extent, of course, you can’t learn how to give yourself in marriage until you get married. You are promising to learn how you need to change to become the perfect spouse (not perfect in a generic way but perfect to the particular person you are marrying) and then to do so. That can’t be all figured out before marriage. You have to grow and adapt.

But such growth and change require freedom. And by freedom I mean slavery.

Slavery to oneself.

Slavery to oneself as an integrated decision maker rather than slavery to the bits of you, whether only immature or downright sinful, that you can’t understand.

If you can’t master yourself you have no capacity to offer yourself to another. So two people take vows who have a hundred invisible spouses already chained to their hands, feet, eyes, and mouths. They are slaves to ambitions, greeds, vices, assorted addictions and, probably most of all, fears.

Marriage has to force real change on a person in order to work. The person has to realize that the vow to belong to another entails a vow to capture and dominate oneself so that one has a person to offer to another. That’s why my absolutist language should not be taken too literally. You can indeed offer yourself to your spouse, but it probably involves a promise to capture more of yourself and bring those parts into the family.

Why am I talking about a person as if he was a collection of opposing forces?

Because that is the way we are. Sin aggravates the problem, but anyone who sees a baby discovering it’s own hands and feet should realize that the process of maturation is a process of integrating parts into a whole.

Now, You Can Only Have “An Accident” On Purpose

Perhaps, if you doubt the way I’m describing a baby’s relation to his body parts, you might consider a specific issue (pun not intended).

Many claim that real character comes from “the inside” and must be truly “from inside you.” You are supposed to“listen to your heart” and “be true to yourself” and all that.

This was your way of life when you were first born and for a time thereafter: Once what “came from inside you” was messy diapers but now you would find it difficult to soil your pants even if someone offered you several hundred dollars to do so.

It was the most natural thing in the world to every single human being now reading this blog post to, at one time, let “poop happen.” No control. No concern. This was spontaneous human behavior unconstrained by outward, external imposition.

And now it is inside you, in your heart and in your mind. You have not only the ability to control your bowels, you have such a powerful impulse to do so that the idea of overriding that impulse seems almost beyond your reach.

You get trained and you change…. from the outside in and then from the inside out.

And this applies to much else.

A baby will play with his hands and feet and put them in his mouth because he perceives them as externalities. He doesn’t know how to control them at first. He’s not sure they are part of him.

By the time he is two, that stage is over. He has “brought” his limbs “into” his consciousness. Or he has “extended” his self into his hands and feet. They are part of him now. They are tools. He has dominion and from there he can do new things.

Learning To Drive

Or consider teaching a teenager to drive. Once you know how to drive you no longer think, “I need to slow down so I had better push the pedal on the left.” If you are thinking that way, then you don’t know how to drive yet. But when you do learn, the car is part of your body. You never need to think about the controls.

It is true of language. You can no more think of the individual letters in order and the sounds they make as you read this post, than you can drive by first thinking about what the controls for the car do. Language, both written and spoken, is experienced without noticing the different parts that, when you were young, you had to figure out.

This is called wisdom. The same principle applies to learning to listen before you speak or learning to restrain anger.

When a teen first gets in a car, the car’s power scares him. It bucks and jerks. Why is the engine so rough?

But it is not rough. You just don’t have control. The car couldn’t function without an engine and brakes. You need those things. But you need to know how to use them right. The same with your emotions. You have to learn to drive them or else they will drive you off the road.

Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,
and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding (Proverbs 17.27).

Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding,
but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly (Proverbs 14.29).

Good sense makes one slow to anger,
and it is his glory to overlook an offense (Proverbs 19.11).

The vexation of a fool is known at once,
but the prudent ignores an insult (Proverbs 12.16).

A fool gives full vent to his spirit,
but a wise man quietly holds it back (Proverbs 29.11).

These are barely decisions at all but much more habits of behavior. They are how you drive yourself in a way that glorifies God and keeps you out of unnecessary traffic jams. They are the habits that give you the time you need to reflect when reflection is called for.

It is all about how you train your body.

Sin In Your Body Parts

Sin complicates this process. But the Bible encourages us, in Christ, to conquer the enemies and bring them into submission to the Lord. Note the way the Apostle Paul describes the imperative of victory.

Romans 6.13

Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

And then Romans 6.19b:

For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Does this see an odd way to write? But (among many other parts of the Bible) it is right out of Proverbs wherein we are warned about wicked or foolish eyes, ears, hands, feet, and hearts, etc.  Just one example among many:

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,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.

The evil man is ruled by his parts.

This solution here is not intellectualism or a mind-good/body-bad-until-domesticated doctrine. The point is that the intellect or brain does not master the body simply by force of will. You would never get done tying your shoelaces if the brain/body system was supposed to work that way. When you integrate your body into the service of God you are changing both your fingers and your fore-brain. As I pointed out here, taking control of yourself is compared in the Bible to taming an animal. If I remember correctly, this has been confirmed by scientific studies measuring the brain activity of amateur and pro golfers. The amateur’s brain activity spikes as he thinks so hard about what he is doing, but the pro’s shows much less activity. He is simply riding the body that is already trained (as well as had a natural and inexplicable talent from the beginning, in many cases).

Parents Rule You So You Can Rule Yourself

I was recently reading a novel by a rationalist atheist who portrayed a heroine who, though she had never allowed anyone to make her do anything she didn’t want to do, and who despised labor, was able to engage and succeed at the pursuits of goals that she desired once she became an adult. There are prodigies and there are amazing leaps in progress in human life some times. But normally that is not the way it works.

Normally, if you haven’t been forced to get up in the morning, you aren’t going to be able to make yourself get up as an adult. If you haven’t been forcibly stopped from yelling, or shooting your mouth off, when you are angry as a child, it will be extremely difficult to stop yourself as an adult. It isn’t impossible, but it is going to be difficult. You will struggle to arrive where others already are. (Of course, if it encourages you to humility, you might be better off in the long run than some others. Self-control doesn’t guarantee you will evade the traps of sin. It only promises you that your sins will tend to be more self-consciously chosen, though perhaps under the power of a delusion.)

But the point here is that learning to force yourself to do things to avoid unpleasantness with an external authority can actually help you grow up and, when you have left that authority, take authority over yourself. As far as I know, if children survive their parents, they can spring back from all sorts of horrible situations. But, if memory serves, feral children are virtually feral forever. To be completely ignored is deforming to the human personality. And the next worse thing may be a childhood in which one’s parents spoil you.

In the Bible slavery leads to dominion. The primary instance of this truth is growing up with parents and then leaving home or becoming master of the estate. Thus:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Galatians 3:23-4:5, ESV)

And the mark of childishness, it seems, is instability–the inability to stand firm for a purpose:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:11-14, ESV)

How Service To God Gives Autonomy

We often hear Christians oppose autonomy to “theonomy” or to obedience to God. But the word, “autonomous,” can mean simply the ability to rule oneself. And with that in mind we might notice that the only path to autonomy is theonomy:

  1. If we take the -nomos suffix as “law” then theonomy is good and autonomy is evil, because one should submit to God’s law rather than be a law to oneself.
  2. But being “autonomous” does not typically mean being a law unto oneself in all contexts. It can means simply being self-governed. A child becomes “autonomous” to a degree at the age of eighteen because the child becomes an adult and is permitted to make choices for him- or herself. One becomes “autonomous” when one is given space and time to make one’s own decisions without immediate supervision.
  3. In other words, you are autonomous when you are expected to supervise yourself rather than be supervised by someone else.
  4. Autonomy can be a matter of degree: you can be told to report back in two weeks or six months on a project. You are autonomous in that you are “on your own” until the appointed time of review. Or you can be given a mission without being given minute instructions on how to succeed at the mission. Determining your best strategy to complete the mission is part of the mission itself. So in both cases you have a lesser or greater degree of autonomy without denying a higher authority.
  5. So God has left us largely autonomous, or rather, with the charge to become autonomous and thus complete the mission He assigned to us.
  6. In other words, God wants us to grow up. We have to learn to supervise ourselves rather than come under someone elses’ perpetual supervision.
  7. And if we are supposed to supervise ourselves, then each one of us must be obligated to bring one’s self under one’s control as a unified person in order to be a fit instrument and weapon for for an end.
  8. But to what end? If we don’t have at least an overarching plan for human beings in mind, then how can we unify our desires, perceptions, and impulses toward an intelligible goal? With no goal, we become slaves to vices. With a false goal, we will eventually find that our “autonomy” is actually slavery to some principle that doesn’t truly suit us.
  9. If God is truly the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed in the Bible and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then only by governing ourselves to serve him and model ourselves on him can we be truly self-integrated and self-governing.
  10. So, this is the conclusion of the matter: The only real autonomy is found in theonomy.

Is This Why God Subjects Us To Unpleasant Or Hostile Forces?

Let us consider two common statements by Evangelicals:

1. “we are more wicked than we ever dared believe, but

2. more loved and accepted in Christ than we ever dared hope.”

Yes, but what about the third truth?

3. We can be greater than we would ever dare attempt.

So, if one accepts only 1. and 2., one will find great comfort. But if one accepts 3. along with 2. then one might suspect that Jesus is gong to make one’s life a living hell for quite some time.

In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Notice that the writer of Hebrews is not telling them to repent of any particular sins. He is simply promising them that their troubles are to help them gain mastery over sin. By being slaves we become masters. But if we never become masters of ourselves we will always be slaves to others, and to our own passions or desires.

To Be A Profitable Soldier In God’s Army You Need Trained Soldiers In Your Army

No matter how awesome your battle plan or how ingenious your general, a conflict can only be won by trained troops. If the soldiers run in the face of danger, don’t listen to orders, or don’t follow orders; if they get into arguments that distract them from their duties, they are doomed.

Soldiers can’t expect to do well without weapons and armor, but also weapons and armor will be wasted if the soldiers aren’t trained to constantly care for their equipment.

Likewise, sports. The greatest coach in the world cannot bring a team to victory if the players won’t exercise or practice.

Solomon knows that God has given the law. But he also knows that you can’t follow it naturally. No, I’m not talking about “the natural man,” I’m talking about the impossibility of relying on thoughtless habits and untrained impulses to guide you in a course of action.

Any course of action.

God made us this way. Sin had nothing to do with it at this level. If all humans were supposed to do one and only one thing throughout history, then it could have been wired into us. But God had more diversity in mind. So we can shape ourselves (or commit to shapelessness). We can drive ourselves (or be driven by forces outside our control).

And since this is the way we are, submitting to God’s commands takes a similar form. You can promise yourself not to say unpleasant things if you get angry, but until you’ve trained yourself to keep quiet and think before you speak it won’t mean much. Oh, you can “decide” all you want. But until you’ve got your body parts working in formation, it will be a fruitless promise. “Let not him who puts his armor on boast as he who takes it off.”

I was talking to one of my sons about some of these concepts. He watches basketball a fair amount. He told me that he’s noticed that some players, when they disagree with the referee, simply cannot shut up. They end up getting their whole team penalized–a situation that was worse than the original problem and one which the player could have avoided. Or maybe he couldn’t because his mouth or his temper is not under his control.

Here are people who have forced their bodies into shape doing amazing things and yet they unable to overpower their own mouths?

You are not just a soldier in God’s army, you are a heavenly host. Your eyes, hands, feet, and mouth are your soldiers. Your soul is your drummer keeping time. You need to get him to slow down if he is prone to charge at the wrong occasion.

Conclusion

Self-mastery must be learned. Without it, freedom is meaningless. But the easiest way to master yourself is to serve another for a time as a child. If you can’t obey orders you will never be able to command yourself.<>сумки для macbook air 13 cozistyleконтекстная реклама а от гугл

Read more

By In Scribblings

Mark Horne: But I thought inflation did great things for industry…

So Indian currency is suddenly losing value. This should be a huge boon for Indian exports, giving them a competitive advantage, right? Doesn’t seem to working out so well. How many items for export from any country can be produced without using imports for material?<>раскрутка ов в google

Read more

By In Scribblings

Mark Horne: How Kuyperian.com is unique among Reformed “Worldview” Web Sites

We condemn mass murder.

If you want a web site that will find some other–any other!–social issue to discuss besides our government’s latest move to rain death and destruction down on people without any moral or legal justification, you have plenty to choose from.

Here at Kuyperian.com, we let the Sixth Commandment count for something.<>game online rpgкак проверить свой пинг

Read more

By In Politics

Self-Righteousness & Exploitation: The Welfare State

whited sepulchresA question I have been thinking upon: Should we take Jesus description about the one who does his good works to impress others at face value?

Here is the passage:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-4, ESV)

By itself this is a straightforward instruction. However, the people Jesus singled out for us to be sure we do not emulate did more than trumpet their help for the poor. They also exploited the poor and looted from them to add to their own wealth.

And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” (Luke 20:45-47, ESV/ also Mark 12.40; some MS have it also in Matthew 23).

So the hypocrisy of trumpeting how you help people is much more obvious once your realize that they are victimizing this same group of people, becoming wealthy off them, and then offering them a pittance, and expecting to be thanked and praised for their generosity.

The application to the US welfare state with its political interventions in the economy is obvious: What Jesus attributes to scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, is official US policy. The US government cripples the impoverished and then offers them dependence on measly aid, most of which is used to give a cadre of social welfare bureaucrats a job. (No, I’m not saying it is sinful to apply for a job in a social welfare agency; that kind of legalism would lead to the same kind of traps Jesus diagnosed in Pharisaism.) One example among many can be found by looking at how regressive the Social Security system is. College graduates typically are getting a great deal of largess from the working class, who typically begin working much earlier and dying sooner than college graduates.

Or one can consider the activists leading the campaign for minimum wage law are typically going to be the relatively educated who won’t be forced into unemployment by the change. And as unemployment increases, the same group will lobby for, or boast in, other forms of government aid.

The US economy systematically hurts those in or closer to poverty and officially boasts in the anemic “help” provided by those who benefit from this damage.

Of course, just like in The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy with the talking cow that presented its body parts for the menu, and then went into the kitchen to slaughter itself, exploiters find ways to train the exploited to cooperate with them and be grateful to them for the privilege. It seems to me we something close to this in Mark’s Gospel:

And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny. And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Mark 12.38-13.2, ESV)

So notice the sequence:

  1. Scribes condemned for devouring widows’ houses
  2. Widow said to give more than others because she gave all she had to Temple.
  3. Temple condemned to destruction.

While Jesus believed the widow was righteous, the way the text reads does not indicate that he was happy with widows being further impoverished for the sake of the Temple. At face value she devoured what was left of her own house to give to God’s house in the presence of others who got credit for more but actually gave less.

My basic take away from this is that the propaganda of the Religious Left, supporting the welfare state and other economic interventions, is all condemned by Jesus as rank hypocrisy. It is not appealing to generosity or asking for charity. It is offering spiritual pride while it defends and lobbies for the expansion of a system that exploits the victims it boasts in helping.

The fact that such “socially conscious Christians” accuse those who uphold property rights, peace, and voluntarism of “selfishness” is just another layer of hypocrisy shoveled on top of a pile of it.<>racer game daownloadметоды интернет рекламы

Read more

By In Scribblings

Mark Horne: Drop the Filioque already!

Should we “Drop the Filioque?” – Kuyperian Commentary.

This almost gave birth to my impending, “Why I Hate The Trinitarian Blogosphere” post, but I don’t have time. Suffice it to say, I find all the argument for the truth of the Filioque completely convincing and the arguments against it unconvincing or just plain indecipherable. If anything I am even more convinced that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son than I was before.

I still would be fine dropping it from the Nicene Creed.

Look, the original affirmation, as included in the original Nicene Creed, was a quotation from Scripture. Inserting an alien clause in that phrase really bothers me. Yes, a Confession can and sometimes should say more than what is in one passage of Scripture. But editing an actual verse is still unnecessary. As a Bible-believing Protestant I can’t think that God is happy with such a procedure.

Secondly, I don’t see why the Western Church had to unilaterally change an Ecumenical creed and then , essentially, pass it off as the ancient creed itself.

As a Presbyterian, I still have the filioque affirmed and required in the tenth Q&A of the Westminster Larger Catechism. That strikes me as about the right place for such a definition at that level. But even if it was put in a creed for congregational worship, I don’t think it should be, or be called, “The Nicene Creed.”

I already believe plenty of things that are not affirmed in the Nicene Creed, and break with other professing Christians over these matters. I don’t need the Nicene Creed to affirm all my particular beliefs, even truths I do not think others should deny or teach against. If I did, it would be a longer document.

So I don’t understand why the fact that the filioque happens to be true, or even important, counts as an argument that it should remain in the Nicene Creed as we recite it in the Western Church.<>веб контент этояндекс директ цена

Read more

By In Pro-Life

Are Christian Arguments Against Abortion Any Different Than Atheist Arguments?

Kirsten Powers - Focus On The FamilyI believe that God not only exists and that Jesus is His Son raised from the dead and elevated by the Spirit, but I believe all this matters a lot. Jesus is the king of the universe and he will, one day, judge every creature–both the living and the dead.

So why do I find it so easy to agree with (some) atheists and secularists on the issue of abortion?

I’ve wondered about this before, but this article recently disturbed me with the question once again:

Kelsey Hazzard is a 24-year-old, pro-life University of Miami alumna and recent graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law. She was raised in the United Methodist Church, but as an adult began having doubts about God.

“I took a break from religion for a while, and soon realized that it had no impact whatsoever on my morals,” she said. She now describes herself as an “apatheist,” meaning she does not care whether God exists or not, although she says she finds God’s existence “highly unlikely.”

“I was pro-life the instant I learned what abortion was,” said Hazzard, who is a legal fellow at Americans United for Life. “But my position became much stronger in college, when I took a course on prenatal development.”

In 2009, Hazzard founded Secular ProLife (SPL), a group whose vision is “a world in which abortion is unthinkable, for people of every faith and no faith.” Hazzard, SPL’s president, created the group in part to attract non-religious people to the pro-life movement.

OK, unlike Hazzard, I think God’s existent is immediately evident, and so firm that there is no possible world in which he could not exist. I was raised by Christian parents and, unlike in the case of Hazzard, a temporary break from it was not conceivable to me except as self-conscious (and dangerous!) apostasy.

But on abortion?

I don’t remember my parents ever giving me a specific religious or theological objection to abortion. Exactly as Hazzard describes, I only remember opposing abortion from exactly the same time I learned what it was.

And then there is this:

Hazzard points to opinion polls showing the US becoming less religious but more pro-life as compelling reasons to use secular arguments to support the pro-life position.

What other arguments has anyone used? Do I even know an argument that is different from Hazzard’s?

According to SPL member Julie Thielen, who identifies as a gnostic antitheist atheist, the best ways to reach secular people with the pro-life message are through biology and an appeal to human rights.

“When the sperm meets the egg, a genetically complete human being is formed, and all that is required for maturation is time and nutrition,” Thielen said. “As complete human beings in the most vulnerable stages, there should be protections afforded. As a society we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable—the young, the aged, the infirm, those who can’t speak for themselves. The unborn belong here.”

OK, this is just getting surreal. I’m so old, I can remember when another name for the “pro-life” was “right-to-life.” That statement about sperm and egg uniting to be a new person is the only argument I have ever heard against abortion. What makes that a distinctively “secular” argument? And when have religious believers not appealed to human rights? The comparison between protecting the unborn and the infirm is also straight out of the “religious” movement.

I have to admit, as one raised under the tutelage of Cornelius Van Til from my late teens, and thus a Kuyperian believer in the antithesis, all this disturbs me. There is, in my view, not supposed to be any “real”  common ground in the beliefs of believer and unbeliever. And yet, on abortion, the issue that is a major piece of contested territory in the culture war, I find the thinking of these secularists completely familiar.

It is what I and all my insular religious friends have always thought.

For many, the historical argument for human equality is the strongest secular argument in favor of life.

“History has many lessons about human beings who were not legal ‘persons,’” said Hazzard. “What seems like common sense to one generation—‘Of course Negroes aren’t real people’—is horrific to the next. What criteria can we set that will prevent this from happening? Every criterion proposed to exclude the unborn can also be used to exclude others. Consciousness? Then it’s fine to kill someone in a temporary coma; they merely have ‘potential.’ Physical independence? So much for conjoined twins. Human appearance? Discrimination based on appearance has been some of the most insidious of all. Birth? Totally arbitrary; there is no ‘personhood fairy’ residing in the birth canal, conferring rights upon exit. At the end of the day, human rights are for all humans. If we don’t protect them for the weakest among us, they’re rather worthless.”

This is again, the only argument that has ever been used. Is there any non-secular argument against abortion that Christians or other religious believers have ever invoked?

The article goes on to describe to long-time atheist heroes of mine, the Randian (except on this issue!) Doris Gordon and Nat Hentoff. I had never heard Gordon’s story of how she dealt with the illogic and self-contradiction from the likes of the ever-disgusting Nathaniel Brandon (my opinion; not Gordon’s as far as I know). So reading this article was a treat for me. And I had never heard how Hentoff came to his views either. Quite fascinating.

Toward the end of the article it finally dawned on me that this was a Catholic article so perhaps “religious argument against abortion” is simply the Church’s or the Pope’s infallible declaration.

But I’ve seen an Evangelical Protestant seem to worry about the same kind of things–not wanting listeners to think she came to a pro-life position on the basis of a religious dogma even though her change of mind on abortion was related to her conversion from agnosticism to Christianity. When Kirsten Powers was interviewed by Focus on the Family, she said, about sixteen minutes in:

My views of abortion really have almost nothing to do with believing in God. It is a pure ethical/ scientific decision. I was very very pro-abortion rights before I became a believer. But I didn’t switch my position because I read the Bible and thought it was in the Bible. I did it because I started to meet all these people who were pro-life, and they kind of peaked my curiosity about it. And I thought, “Well, these people seem very smart, and they don’t seem like they hate women.” And I started doing research–a lot of research, a lot of scientific research. And I was shocked at what I didn’t know. I did not know that a fetus has a heartbeat at three weeks. I mean I learned that at the Body’s Exhibit, not in the Bible… You have to talk to people in their language. And if somebody doesn’t believe in God, that’s just not the way to approach it. You have to approach it from a pure ethical standpoint and say, “Look, what kind of society are we that we allow people to dismember a baby inside the womb, that if the mother wanted and gave birth to, we would do everything we could to save it?”

But Powers could have and should have universalized her experience. No one ever learned from the Bible that a fetus has a heartbeat in three weeks.

Of course, because abortion is homicide and God forbids homicide in the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, one can articulate the case against abortion in a theological manner. Likewise, because there will be a Final Judgment for all people, and the Gospel tells us that we should think ahead to that Judgment Day in evaluating our own present character and conduct, a Christian can and often does invoke theological rationales in his ethical discussions and assertions. But surely any atheist can see that the basic affirmation, that abortion is homicide, is not a religious dogma but an application of a belief (in the case of believers, a religious dogma) that homicide is evil along with the scientific inference that a woman is pregnant with a baby human being if she is pregnant at all.

After all, everything said about about theology and abortion equally applies to Christian opposition to rape, theft, etc. Did any secularist say that Martin Luther King Jr arguments against apartheid in the United States were incapable of convincing secularists?

Of course, I could try to find the antithesis. Modern Darwinism seems like it should open up the ethical pandora’s box that we see most secularists embracing.

But as much as I think that Creational Monotheism and Trinitarian Christianity are the only rational foundation for life and thought–and that they are true to ultimate reality–I am frankly too happy to have any friends I can get to try to stop the homicides. I’ll certainly witness and try to persuade any unbeliever who will listen to me. But trying to draw a line in the pro-life movement between “us” and “them” does not strike me as a rational allocation of resources. Sometimes Christians get pagan companions who help them in an important area.

The proper response is to appreciate them and give thanks for them, even as you pray for their conversion.

But…

That being said, I think a lot of secularists and some Christians seem to think we’ve got a better chance of convincing secular people by using exclusively secular arguments. But the secular people themselves demonstrate to my mind that the arguments are out there, and even if they have some weird theological language attached, and secular person of reasonable intelligence should still be able to “get it.” I suspect one reason Christians don’t try that approach more often is because, while they are thankful for all the atheist/agnostic pro-lifers that are out there, they don’t find the response to such argumentation or presentation all that impressive. People want their legal homicides because they find it preferable to the constraints that would be imposed by acknowledging an unborn baby’s right to not be agressed against. So the appeal to God and Christ comes in the hopes that God will convert people to do the right thing. I realize that sounds silly to secular pro-lifers, but there it is.<>индексация а в google

Read more

By In Scribblings

Mark Horne: We condemn Assad for using them while we ship them to the Saudis

Cluster bombs.

Just another day of enlightened foreign policy. Remember, isolationism is evil and we are the good guys.<>как проверить индексацыю страницы а в поисковиках

Read more

By In Theology

Does God Care About Numbers?

church attendanceYes, he does.

Here is the prophecy he gave to Isaiah (chapter 49):

Listen to me, O coastlands,
and give attention, you peoples from afar.
The LORD called me from the womb,
from the body of my mother he named my name.
He made my mouth like a sharp sword;
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me a polished arrow;
in his quiver he hid me away.
And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;
yet surely my right is with the Lord,
and my recompense with my God.”

And now the LORD says,
he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him;
and that Israel might be gathered to him—
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength—
he says:
It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

It is “too light a thing,” too small a thing” (NASB) for God to save a tiny remnant. After all, he didn’t call Abram/Abraham for the sake of a tiny remnant:

Now the Lord said to Abram,

“Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3, ESV)

Thus, from the first time God spoke to Abram, he identified himself as the god who justifies the ungodly–who saves the entire world.

How do Christians avoid acknowledging this plan for the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of the human race? They find quotations like:

And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ (Luke 13:23-25, ESV)

But this is not a reasonable application of what Jesus says. Jesus does not say that only few will be saved in all world history. He says that salvation is going to spread to the nations but that his own generation of fellow Israelites are in danger of being, uh, left behind.

He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” (Luke 13:22-30, ESV)

People will be gathered at the Table of the Lord from all points of the compass, but many who witnessed Jesus during his ministry are rejecting his message.

I submit that all remnant passages are of this nature. The majority rejects but the ones who repent and believe are the seed of a great multitude. Worldwide salvation follows from the crisis and judgment. Jesus’ own parables about seed and mustard seed and leaven teach this expectation.

Many people think it is shallow and superficial to “worry about numbers.” But obviously God is not shallow and superficial. Yet he would not tell us of “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7.9) if he had no concern for quantity.

Of course, they probably get the idea because some Christians who worry about numbers seem shallow and superficial. I agree–for many contexts in the Christian life but not all. Furthermore, identifying oneself with the “few who are chosen” can be just as shallow and superficial. People who act as it if is a matter of piety to be satisfied with a world going to hell because their small group is elect of God are not people who are obedient to the Great Commission. The Great Commission, I submit, cannot be obeyed by people who don’t believe it is possible:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The real reason I think some Christians are shallow in their numbers-fixation is because they have self-glorification goals corrupting their desire for the kingdom and/or they don’t really believe the Great Commission is about discipling all nations and training them to obey Jesus. Instead they believe the Great Commission is about getting professions of faith and then training them to get other professions of faith. That, while better than nothing, will tend to produce shallow Christians.

But the fact that God wants a countless number of trained disciples rather than a countless number of ignorant professing believers doesn’t give us any reason to think God doesn’t care about numbers. Concern for quality does not eliminate concern about quantity.

Accepting this basic Biblical mission probably won’t change as much as I would like it to change. God’s providence and timing are still a mystery. Once you believe in what God wants for history, you may, in fact, find you are now frustrated by the lack of results you see in your own place and time.

But it is good to be frustrated. That is the Spirit praying for you to God to end the discrepancy between how things are and how they should be (8.26). Anyone who reads the promises of God and is not frustrated when he looks around at his life and world is not reading carefully. Better to be frustrated than satisfied with a situation so far from what God has revealed he intends to bring about.

Sometimes we are sent to plant and sometimes to harvest (John 4.35-38). If you are sent to a time of planting, you might not see the fruit you long for. But that doesn’t mean it is not coming.

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. (2 Corinthians 4:7-12, ESV)

One implication of this is you never have a right to consider your work for the Great Commission a failure. God does not promise a great rescue–Jesus has already done that part of the story. God promises to use your labors. He promises to accept your works just as he accepts you in Christ. He promises to say, “Well done.” So nothing was ever wasted. The seed vanishes and is forgotten and then later the tree grows. Most people will not notice the cause for the effect. Their eyes will be on the cause and effect relationships that are in close enough proximity to notice. But God never forgets. And he promises that nothing is without effect.

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:53-58, ESV)

<>вакансии копирайтерасоздание интернет а цена

Read more

By In Politics

Sometimes Smeagol is the reason the world gets saved, or Chelsea

mordor is DCNow that Bradley Manning has started campaigning for clemency on the basis of his alleged identity as Chelsea, a lot of Christians who are resisting the call to oppose mass homicide and tyranny are going to use his sexual perversions as an excuse to continue to resist that call. Since one of the other major players in this saga is the Leftist and homosexual Glenn Greenwald, the morality play is set for Christians to play the Punch and Judy show.

But we should know better. If Tolkien can make Gollum indispensable to overcoming Frodo’s faithlessness and breaking the power of the Dark Lord, we should know that such associations are not reasoned arguments.

Let us remember, what Bradley Manning showed us, no matter what he pretends about himself right now.

But that’s not enough. We can be more specific. Bradley Manning was homosexual with “gender confusions” (or is it transgender awakening? The narrative seems confused at this point). Iraqi veteran Ethan McCord was, as far as I can tell, solidly heterosexual.

Thus, we find that McCord could be controlled by his superiors:

I transcribed a couple of parts of the above video. [Note: vulgar army language! Content warning!] Beginning at about the 4-minute mark:

I picked him up in my arms and started running to the Bradly with him, the whole time telling him, “It’s going to be OK. Don’t die! Don’t dies!” At this point he looked up at me just for a split second. Then his eyes rolled back up into his head. At that moment I thought he had died in my arms. But I had gotten to the Bradley.

When I took him to the Bradley, my commanding officer, or [rather] my plattoon leader was there. He told me I needed to “quit worrying about these MFing kids” and to go pull security.

At the time the only thing I could think of was, you know, “Roger that,” and I went to pull security…

And now I’ll skip to six minutes in where we get to the point:

…but later on that night, while I was washing the blood of the children off of me, I couldn’t really cope with it. I was having a hard time dealing with the fact that we did that. The Apaches did that. So I went to my staff sergeant who was in my line, my chain of command, and I told him I think I need to go see mental health. I need to talk to somebody because I’m having a hard time dealing with what I had just seen, what I had witnessed, what I was a part of.

He laughed at me, and told me to get the sand out of my vagina and to quit being a pussy and to suck it up and to be a soldier.

And that, despite some internal pressure, put Ethan McCord back in line. His masculinity was used against him to get him to go against his better judgment.

So what would have happened if someone had tried to use that method of persuasion on Bradley Manning. He couldn’t be controlled that way. The handle wasn’t there to be grabbed.

I wish Manning was not seduced by the pansexual dark side. I wish he had done what he did from his integrity and courage without the sense of alienation making his decision easier for him to make. But the fact that the military’s culture was not able to keep him in line, even for a sinful reason, doesn’t mean the military was or is right to keep him in line.

Sexual perversity counts against Manning’s character, but it doesn’t count against what he was put on trial for. He revealed crimes that never should have been committed and never should have been kept secret. The cover up was directly related to the government’s propaganda efforts to manipulate the American public to comply with a act of aggression that was nationally self-destructive and deadly to the Iraqi people.

Whatever his other sins and evils, Manning fought the Beast and hurt it, however lightly. I can only thank God he did so. In my opinion, he stepped in while too many Christians were clutching after the ring of power.

Finally, one lesson here is that your virtues can be sources of weakness to anyone who knows them in advance. Your desire to be righteous and to have a righteous name can be used to intimidate you and make you doubt your own conscience. Be wary.<>в контакте рекламаseo оптимизация web а

Read more