By 2006, some 730 American cities had a street named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In addition, the records at the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) indicate that by 1998, 110 public schools were bearing some reference to Dr. King’s name. Each of these communities, mainly in central cities of large and mid-size urban areas, had hoped that residents would feel obligated to live out the noble tenets of Dr. King.
It was hoped that many persons would emulate the six-point non-violent philosophy adopted by Dr. King. As a student of the New Testament, Dr. King was familiar with the non-violent teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. In addition, he was familiar with the non-violent practices of Mahatma Gandhi of India. That knowledge became the basis of his philosophy.
In the first place, King believed that non-violent resistance was not for cowards. It was not a quiet, passive acceptance of evil. One was passive and non-violent physically, but very active spiritually, always seeking ways to persuade the opponent of advantages to the way of love, cooperation and peace.
Secondly, the goal of non-violence was not to defeat or humiliate the opponent but rather to win him or her over to understanding new ways to create cooperation and community.
In the third place, non-violence was viewed as the force that was attacking evil. As Dr. King said in Montgomery, Alabama, “we are out to defeat injustice, not white persons who may be unjust.”
In addition, non-violence accepted suffering without retaliating. It accepted violence, but never commit violence. It was Gandhi who contended that “Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.” Both King and Gandhi understood that suffering by activists had the mysterious power of converting opponents, who otherwise would refuse to listen.
In addition, in non-violent resistance, one learns to avoid physical violence toward others and also learns to love the opponents with unconditional love – a love that does not depend on what it receives in return, but acts solely for the sake of love. According to Dr. King, “along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate.”
Finally, non-violent resistance was based on the belief that the universe is just. There is God that was moving us toward universal love and wholeness. Therefore, “all our work for justice will bear fruit – the fruit of love, peace and justice for all beings everywhere.”
One would have hoped that with such a rich legacy of non-violence, especially within black communities, there would be a greater appreciation for the ideals of Dr. King. Even with the numerous institutions carrying King’s name, the high levels of violence in black communities is unacceptable.
A 2007 special report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that more than 8,000 African-Americans are murdered annually in the United States. This chilling figure is accompanied by another equally sobering fact that 93% of these murders are perpetrated by other blacks. In other words, in one year more blacks are killed in America than service men and women killed on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan in twelve years.
Whereas the statistics of killings are sobering, the number of violent crimes is frightening. Apart from the impact on the victims, we often forget the impact on the community. Last December, the Department of Justice released a little-noticed report that suggested that children exposed to community violence might turn to violence themselves as “a source of power, prestige, security, or even belongingness.” The report went on to recommend that these children should be treated by professionals.
Rather than resort only to professionals who often live far away from the crime communities, what about Christian churches located in the heart of those communities? Despite the silence from the media, stories of conversion continue to come from pastors and Christian workers. They are not only conducting funeral services for the victims of crime, many churches are witnessing genuine stories of conversion.
The non-violent vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is still alive in many churches as criminals turn from drugs and guns to a transforming faith in Jesus Christ. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote with confidence that conversion brings about change, old lifestyles fade and new desires emerge (2 Corinthians 5:17). For this reason we need to pray for Christian workers who risk their lives daily in taking the message of peace to our violent-torn cities. Thankfully, despite the reality of serious crime during this Black History Month, we have hope that Jesus still transforms broken lives.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Meteorite Worship
A fifty-foot wide, ten ton meteor streaked across Russia last week. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences, the meteor entered the earth’s atmosphere at a hypersonic speed of 33,000 miles per hour shattering into pieces about 18 to 32 miles above sea level.
The U.S. space agency, NASA, said the meteor was 33 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Reports from Russia indicate that more than 4,000 homes were damaged. According to the state-run news agency, glass shattered across more than a 75,000 square mile area. Thankfully, no one died and fewer than 1,500 persons suffered injuries, mostly from flying glass.
Whereas meteoroids are small particles from comets orbiting the sun, meteors are meteoroids that actually land on the earth’s surface. The pieces of the meteor that exploded in Russia are meteorites. Generally, meteorites are smaller than grains of sand and vaporize on passage through the atmosphere.
According to Russian scientists, the meteor that exploded comprised of rock and a bit of iron.
Scientists found 53 small meteorites on the surface of a lake and believe larger fragments are under water. The crash left a 26-foot wide crater in the ice on which it landed.
It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what happened in Russia. Because of the enormity of the explosion, some have begun to attach religious significance to what happened. History confirms that it is not that unusual to associate meteors with divine intervention.
For thousands of years, meteorites were venerated as sacred objects by ancient civilizations. The spectacular explosions of meteorites, along with the light, often as bright as the sun, are so enormous that they evoke fear and awe in persons who witness such events.
Actually, several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the huge iron meteorite responsible for Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater. Native tribes from around the world have venerated meteorites for centuries. Ancient civilizations of the western hemisphere were no exception, and there are several examples of the worship of meteorites in Greco-Roman tradition.
Palladion of Troy, as well as the Cone of Elagabalus were actual meteorites – stones that had fallen from the sky, objects from heaven, believed to contain supernatural powers. In addressing the Ephesians, the city clerk said, “...doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven (Acts 19:35)?
The Roman historian, Titus Livius, tells the story of the meteorite in Phrygia - a conical object known as the Needle of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. After the Romans conquered Phrygia, the meteorite was conveyed in a gigantic procession to Rome, where it was worshipped for another 500 years.
Annually, millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Kaaba, a room in which a sacred black stone is housed. Each Muslim is expected to make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime and to walk around the Kaaba seven times. Pilgrims are then expected to pause at the southeastern corner of the Kaaba to complete the ritual, touching or kissing the sacred black stone.
Venerating the black stone was practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. Muslims inherited this practice and contend that it is done to show special reverence and veneration for its dignity after the example of the Prophet Mohammed. The Qur’an actually teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:125) and some believe that the stone became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it (Burton: Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah – Vol.2, page 300). Despite this practice, Muslims contend that they do not worship the stone.
In addressing the Athenians, the Apostle Paul confronted philosophers who thought the divine being was like gold, or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. He contended, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:29-30). In other words, our understanding of the Creator must not be equated to things He created – that is a display of ignorance.
Scientific knowledge has helped to dispel much ignorance, thus removing the need to associate divinity with meteoric phenomena. The Apostle Paul would agree – he did not only expose religious superstition among the Athenians, he challenged them to commit to the historical Jesus – “the person you killed and God brought back to life.” Some of those who heard believed, others disagreed, and another group deferred their decision – just like we do today.
The U.S. space agency, NASA, said the meteor was 33 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Reports from Russia indicate that more than 4,000 homes were damaged. According to the state-run news agency, glass shattered across more than a 75,000 square mile area. Thankfully, no one died and fewer than 1,500 persons suffered injuries, mostly from flying glass.
Whereas meteoroids are small particles from comets orbiting the sun, meteors are meteoroids that actually land on the earth’s surface. The pieces of the meteor that exploded in Russia are meteorites. Generally, meteorites are smaller than grains of sand and vaporize on passage through the atmosphere.
According to Russian scientists, the meteor that exploded comprised of rock and a bit of iron.
Scientists found 53 small meteorites on the surface of a lake and believe larger fragments are under water. The crash left a 26-foot wide crater in the ice on which it landed.
It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of what happened in Russia. Because of the enormity of the explosion, some have begun to attach religious significance to what happened. History confirms that it is not that unusual to associate meteors with divine intervention.
For thousands of years, meteorites were venerated as sacred objects by ancient civilizations. The spectacular explosions of meteorites, along with the light, often as bright as the sun, are so enormous that they evoke fear and awe in persons who witness such events.
Actually, several Native American tribes venerated pieces and fragments of the huge iron meteorite responsible for Arizona’s famous Meteor Crater. Native tribes from around the world have venerated meteorites for centuries. Ancient civilizations of the western hemisphere were no exception, and there are several examples of the worship of meteorites in Greco-Roman tradition.
Palladion of Troy, as well as the Cone of Elagabalus were actual meteorites – stones that had fallen from the sky, objects from heaven, believed to contain supernatural powers. In addressing the Ephesians, the city clerk said, “...doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven (Acts 19:35)?
The Roman historian, Titus Livius, tells the story of the meteorite in Phrygia - a conical object known as the Needle of Cybele, the goddess of fertility. After the Romans conquered Phrygia, the meteorite was conveyed in a gigantic procession to Rome, where it was worshipped for another 500 years.
Annually, millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to the Kaaba, a room in which a sacred black stone is housed. Each Muslim is expected to make the pilgrimage at least once in his lifetime and to walk around the Kaaba seven times. Pilgrims are then expected to pause at the southeastern corner of the Kaaba to complete the ritual, touching or kissing the sacred black stone.
Venerating the black stone was practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs. Muslims inherited this practice and contend that it is done to show special reverence and veneration for its dignity after the example of the Prophet Mohammed. The Qur’an actually teaches that the Ka’aba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael (Surah 2:125) and some believe that the stone became black as it took the sins of those who kissed it (Burton: Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah – Vol.2, page 300). Despite this practice, Muslims contend that they do not worship the stone.
In addressing the Athenians, the Apostle Paul confronted philosophers who thought the divine being was like gold, or silver or stone – an image made by man’s design and skill. He contended, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:29-30). In other words, our understanding of the Creator must not be equated to things He created – that is a display of ignorance.
Scientific knowledge has helped to dispel much ignorance, thus removing the need to associate divinity with meteoric phenomena. The Apostle Paul would agree – he did not only expose religious superstition among the Athenians, he challenged them to commit to the historical Jesus – “the person you killed and God brought back to life.” Some of those who heard believed, others disagreed, and another group deferred their decision – just like we do today.
Monday, February 11, 2013
An Appeal for the Unborn
This column is the third in my trilogy on abortion. Last week, my guest discussed the need for compassion to be shown to the woman who chose to terminate a pregnancy. As a medical doctor she took the position that she would rather provide the woman with the opportunity to have an abortion “in an informed, medically safe and legal way”, rather than suffer the consequences of unprofessional intervention.
Agreed, unprofessional intervention or botched abortions have an ugly history of barbaric procedures often leading to tragic consequences for the mother. It is believed that one woman dies every seven minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. In the United States the death rate for abortion is currently 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Hence, it would be safe to say that in the U.S., legalizing abortion has reduced reproductive barbarism significantly.
However, with safer procedures has come increasing frequency of abortions and casual sex. Researchers tell us that some 22% of the 1¼ million pregnancies in America will be terminated in abortion. More than 48% of these women would have had at least one previous abortion. But why would a woman want to abort her baby? The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
- Birth Control – more than 50% of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant;
- Economics – inability to support or care for a child/to end an unwanted pregnancy;
- Birth defects – to prevent the birth of a child with severe medical problems;
- Physical or mental conditions that endanger the health of the mother; and
- Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Although much has been said of the mother’s health and forced sex as legitimate reasons for abortion, many analysts are reluctant to tell us that such cases are rare among women seeking abortion. Actually, fewer than 3% of all women who abort fall into these categories.
So often we forget that the biggest victim in abortion is the child that is aborted. For convenience, we sometimes ignore that the child is a person. Legally, one is charged for double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed. Already, 29 states practice fetal homicide laws. The law grants personhood status to a fetus, thus affording legal rights for a fetus, separate from those enjoyed by the mother. The killer is usually charged for double homicide.
In addition, the use of ultrasound in early pregnancy enables medical personnel to examine the gestational sac within the uterus as early as the fourth week of pregnancy. There should be no doubt then, that an abortion is the surgical removal of a person from a woman’s womb.
The purpose or method of removal does not legitimize the act of removal. Fearful young women sometimes attribute their pregnancies to rape in order to avoid possible condemnation. For instance, Norma McCorvey was the young woman called “Roe” in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade case of legalizing abortion. Norma elicited sympathy in the court and media because she claimed to be a rape victim. However, years later, she admitted that she lied and was not raped.
The courts and the media fell for that lie because we have been led to believe that abortion should be expected whenever someone is raped. Under no condition should rape be trivialized. It is a horrible crime for which rapists should receive the full extent of the law.
Rape traumatizes women and as a society we should do everything to reduce the impact of that pain. However, is abortion the only option and does it bring authentic healing to rape victims? Feminists for Life contend that “some women have reported suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma has faded.”
In their book Victims and Victors, David Reardon and his associates draw on the testimonies of 192 women who experienced pregnancy as the result of rape or incest – and 55 children who were conceived through sexual assault. Nearly all the women interviewed in Reardon’s anecdotal survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90% said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.
Today Jennifer Bowman has three beautiful children. However, looking at her one could never tell that she was a victim of rape. Her passion for this forgotten group of victims is evident on her website.
The impact of such stories is not merely statistical for me. I thank God daily, that although a victim of rape, my mother-in-law did not opt for an abortion. The child that resulted has changed my life forever.
Agreed, unprofessional intervention or botched abortions have an ugly history of barbaric procedures often leading to tragic consequences for the mother. It is believed that one woman dies every seven minutes around the world due to an unsafe illegal abortion. In the United States the death rate for abortion is currently 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Hence, it would be safe to say that in the U.S., legalizing abortion has reduced reproductive barbarism significantly.
However, with safer procedures has come increasing frequency of abortions and casual sex. Researchers tell us that some 22% of the 1¼ million pregnancies in America will be terminated in abortion. More than 48% of these women would have had at least one previous abortion. But why would a woman want to abort her baby? The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
- Birth Control – more than 50% of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant;
- Economics – inability to support or care for a child/to end an unwanted pregnancy;
- Birth defects – to prevent the birth of a child with severe medical problems;
- Physical or mental conditions that endanger the health of the mother; and
- Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Although much has been said of the mother’s health and forced sex as legitimate reasons for abortion, many analysts are reluctant to tell us that such cases are rare among women seeking abortion. Actually, fewer than 3% of all women who abort fall into these categories.
So often we forget that the biggest victim in abortion is the child that is aborted. For convenience, we sometimes ignore that the child is a person. Legally, one is charged for double homicide when a pregnant woman is killed. Already, 29 states practice fetal homicide laws. The law grants personhood status to a fetus, thus affording legal rights for a fetus, separate from those enjoyed by the mother. The killer is usually charged for double homicide.
In addition, the use of ultrasound in early pregnancy enables medical personnel to examine the gestational sac within the uterus as early as the fourth week of pregnancy. There should be no doubt then, that an abortion is the surgical removal of a person from a woman’s womb.
The purpose or method of removal does not legitimize the act of removal. Fearful young women sometimes attribute their pregnancies to rape in order to avoid possible condemnation. For instance, Norma McCorvey was the young woman called “Roe” in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade case of legalizing abortion. Norma elicited sympathy in the court and media because she claimed to be a rape victim. However, years later, she admitted that she lied and was not raped.
The courts and the media fell for that lie because we have been led to believe that abortion should be expected whenever someone is raped. Under no condition should rape be trivialized. It is a horrible crime for which rapists should receive the full extent of the law.
Rape traumatizes women and as a society we should do everything to reduce the impact of that pain. However, is abortion the only option and does it bring authentic healing to rape victims? Feminists for Life contend that “some women have reported suffering from the trauma of abortion long after the rape trauma has faded.”
In their book Victims and Victors, David Reardon and his associates draw on the testimonies of 192 women who experienced pregnancy as the result of rape or incest – and 55 children who were conceived through sexual assault. Nearly all the women interviewed in Reardon’s anecdotal survey said they regretted aborting the babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90% said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.
Today Jennifer Bowman has three beautiful children. However, looking at her one could never tell that she was a victim of rape. Her passion for this forgotten group of victims is evident on her website.
The impact of such stories is not merely statistical for me. I thank God daily, that although a victim of rape, my mother-in-law did not opt for an abortion. The child that resulted has changed my life forever.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Two Views on Abortion
There were at least two kinds of responses to last week’s blog on the anniversary of legalizing abortion in America. Because of limited space I can only share one view this week. The other I will share next week. The first comes from a medical doctor in the Caribbean. The second, from a religious scholar who lives in the United States.
I mulled over your latest blog and thought I would share some thoughts with you based on my work with young, and not so young, women in the Caribbean and Latin America. This piece is not intended to sway you but to present another perspective on the issue.
Like you, I wish we never had to have abortions - that no woman would ever make the decision to terminate a pregnancy - even if that decision might place her at physical, emotional, or moral risk. But, abortion has been with us as far back as 1550 BCE – the first recorded case of abortion was found in the Ebers Papyrus. Even before we had medically safe ways of terminating pregnancies, women found ways to do the procedure themselves – whether by drinking noxious potions, or striking themselves in places that they hoped would dislodge the fetus, or inserting herbal tampons or sharp implements into their uteruses expecting to remove the fetus. These practices persist even today among poor women.
In the absence of medically safe and legal abortion services, women who try to abort a pregnancy either die or end up in hospital with morbidities that render them infertile or worst. (Until recently, the majority of poor women on the gynecological ward of public hospitals in many Caribbean countries were women seeking post abortion care.) I should mention that there is an inverse relationship between maternal mortality and morbidity rates (related to abortions) and access to safe abortion services – that is, where access is poor, rates of abortion-related mortality and morbidity are high. Please note that ‘safe’ abortion is not the same as ‘legal’ abortion. In much of the Caribbean, not including Barbados and Guyana where terminations are legal in certain circumstances, women can get safe abortions from private practitioners. The so called ‘back street’ practitioners persist – they are more affordable for poor women.
Who are these women who will go to these lengths to terminate a pregnancy? The literature will tell you that a minority (less than 10%) of women who seek abortions are “repeat offenders”. They are women who, although they are sexually active and do not desire a, or another child, are not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy. The remaining 90% of women who seek abortions have: experienced a failure in their contraceptive method; been raped; or - mistimed or inconvenient pregnancies (woman has many children, woman is in school, woman has to protect a career, relationship with husband or partner is not healthy, woman is pregnant for a man who is not her husband, etc.); or pregnancies which, if carried to term, would place them at physical risk; or pregnancies that would result in a physically ‘defective’ child; or a fetus that has died.
When we read this list we may be tempted to make the judgment that the women who have abortions are women of loose morals. After all they have not followed the prescribed way – they may not have waited until marriage to become sexually involved, or may not have been faithful to their marriage partner, or committed some other moral infraction.
I have counseled single and married women who are ardent Christians who made one stupid decision and now are faced with carrying a pregnancy they rather not have. I have watched them struggle. Many would rather commit the sin of abortion (for which they can ask and receive forgiveness) than face the unforgiving wrath and vengeance of the church family. There have been cases, where the woman has kept her baby but left the ‘church’.
In my limited experience, contrary to conventional wisdom, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a decision that the majority of women make easily or cavalierly –in fact, the majority of women who have abortions have only one. A woman’s motivation to have the procedure is personal and most times outweighs the immediate, as well as the perceived long term consequences. What I’ve observed, however, is that where a woman has access to pre-termination education and counseling and post abortion services that are non-judgmental, she can make a decision about her pregnancy outcome that leaves her with no regret.
As a public health practitioner, I take the position that I would rather provide the woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy the opportunity to do that in an informed and medically safe (and legal) way than have her dead or ill /damaged because of a self-directed or poorly executed intervention. As a Christian, I pray I will not be in a position to have to make that decision and for humility and the spirit of non-judgment for those who feel that they must.
The writer agrees that most abortions are as a result of lifestyle choices. However, she believes greater compassion and forgiveness are necessary. Please read last week’s blog. You must also read next week’s response to this perspective.
I mulled over your latest blog and thought I would share some thoughts with you based on my work with young, and not so young, women in the Caribbean and Latin America. This piece is not intended to sway you but to present another perspective on the issue.
Like you, I wish we never had to have abortions - that no woman would ever make the decision to terminate a pregnancy - even if that decision might place her at physical, emotional, or moral risk. But, abortion has been with us as far back as 1550 BCE – the first recorded case of abortion was found in the Ebers Papyrus. Even before we had medically safe ways of terminating pregnancies, women found ways to do the procedure themselves – whether by drinking noxious potions, or striking themselves in places that they hoped would dislodge the fetus, or inserting herbal tampons or sharp implements into their uteruses expecting to remove the fetus. These practices persist even today among poor women.
In the absence of medically safe and legal abortion services, women who try to abort a pregnancy either die or end up in hospital with morbidities that render them infertile or worst. (Until recently, the majority of poor women on the gynecological ward of public hospitals in many Caribbean countries were women seeking post abortion care.) I should mention that there is an inverse relationship between maternal mortality and morbidity rates (related to abortions) and access to safe abortion services – that is, where access is poor, rates of abortion-related mortality and morbidity are high. Please note that ‘safe’ abortion is not the same as ‘legal’ abortion. In much of the Caribbean, not including Barbados and Guyana where terminations are legal in certain circumstances, women can get safe abortions from private practitioners. The so called ‘back street’ practitioners persist – they are more affordable for poor women.
Who are these women who will go to these lengths to terminate a pregnancy? The literature will tell you that a minority (less than 10%) of women who seek abortions are “repeat offenders”. They are women who, although they are sexually active and do not desire a, or another child, are not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy. The remaining 90% of women who seek abortions have: experienced a failure in their contraceptive method; been raped; or - mistimed or inconvenient pregnancies (woman has many children, woman is in school, woman has to protect a career, relationship with husband or partner is not healthy, woman is pregnant for a man who is not her husband, etc.); or pregnancies which, if carried to term, would place them at physical risk; or pregnancies that would result in a physically ‘defective’ child; or a fetus that has died.
When we read this list we may be tempted to make the judgment that the women who have abortions are women of loose morals. After all they have not followed the prescribed way – they may not have waited until marriage to become sexually involved, or may not have been faithful to their marriage partner, or committed some other moral infraction.
I have counseled single and married women who are ardent Christians who made one stupid decision and now are faced with carrying a pregnancy they rather not have. I have watched them struggle. Many would rather commit the sin of abortion (for which they can ask and receive forgiveness) than face the unforgiving wrath and vengeance of the church family. There have been cases, where the woman has kept her baby but left the ‘church’.
In my limited experience, contrary to conventional wisdom, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a decision that the majority of women make easily or cavalierly –in fact, the majority of women who have abortions have only one. A woman’s motivation to have the procedure is personal and most times outweighs the immediate, as well as the perceived long term consequences. What I’ve observed, however, is that where a woman has access to pre-termination education and counseling and post abortion services that are non-judgmental, she can make a decision about her pregnancy outcome that leaves her with no regret.
As a public health practitioner, I take the position that I would rather provide the woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy the opportunity to do that in an informed and medically safe (and legal) way than have her dead or ill /damaged because of a self-directed or poorly executed intervention. As a Christian, I pray I will not be in a position to have to make that decision and for humility and the spirit of non-judgment for those who feel that they must.
The writer agrees that most abortions are as a result of lifestyle choices. However, she believes greater compassion and forgiveness are necessary. Please read last week’s blog. You must also read next week’s response to this perspective.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
An Unpleasant Anniversary
My wife and I are among many who will be celebrating fortieth anniversaries in 2013. Unfortunately, the insidious 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion is also on that list of anniversaries. Some 55 million babies have been killed since that January 22nd ruling. Seventeen million of those babies came from predominantly black communities.
To commemorate the 40th year of this scourge, tens of thousands of people showed up in Washington and other cities for a “March for Life.” Such support for anything would be big news – not this time. The reporting was sparse. Why? Simply put, the lack of coverage was consistent with the media bias for the pro-abortion perspective.
The media will quicker cover stories of a few hundreds showing-up for minor liberal issues. The absence of coverage of the recent “March for Life” by the major broadcast networks should be big news - news of bias and cronyism in the media.
Where is the media outrage about the following? After 40 years, it can be confirmed that some 80% of the facilities run by Planned Parenthood are located in minority communities. After 40 years, it is now evident that African Americans represent the only ethnic group whose numbers are declining. After 40 years, it can be verified that more than 1,200 babies die daily in African American communities. Why is the media silent?
Dr. Clenard Childress, a pastor and national advocate for life, believes, “for every two African-American women who get pregnant, one will choose to abort.” Imagine, about 60% of abortions done in New York City are done on black women. The Pennsylvania Department of Health reports that about 50% of black babies are aborted each year since 1973. Like me, the major networks have access to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – then, where is the outrage?
Like many in America, I was of the opinion that cases of rape provided a valid ground for abortion. That opinion was formed by the media’s portrayal of the abortion narrative. Well, I now know that less than 1% of abortions is as a result of rape.
Studies conducted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute indicate that 14,000 abortions per year are due to rape or incest – that figure represents only 1% of all abortions.
From that same Guttmacher study (2005), women were asked to provide reasons why they chose to have an abortion – 74% of these women felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life.” Some women felt that an unwanted child would interrupt their education or interfere with careers. Others cited their unmarried status and their inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life.
Those reasons provide enough reason for outrage. The decision to abort would never have been necessary had our lifestyle choices been different. Because of those choices the medical industry is faced with an increasing variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Honestly, we have been duped to believe that abortion enables our women to correct errors and to move on with their lives.
But that is not true – what about the post-abortion trauma issues? One British researcher described legal abortion as the best predictor of breast cancer trends. Actually, abortion is the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer. A black woman in America has a 10% risk of contracting breast cancer during her lifetime. However, black women under 40, who had an abortion, have a 50% increased risk of contracting breast cancer. The risk jumped to 370% for black women over fifty, who have an abortion.
In order to protect the abortion industry from litigation, women are not being told the truth about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Somebody needs to demand objective investigative journalism on this matter.
On this 40th anniversary of legalizing abortion, we must ask ourselves if we are better off as a nation. We have ignored the rights of the unborn and championed the rights of the woman. We have been dishonest in suggesting that abortion brings healing to victims of rape and incest. We have been led to believe that pregnancy due to rape is common, rather than rare.
I wish I did not have to celebrate the nobility of marriage at the same time with the scourge of legalized abortion. Whereas one event celebrates life, the other honors death. Whereas one recognizes the sanctity of life, the other destroys life for convenience.
To commemorate the 40th year of this scourge, tens of thousands of people showed up in Washington and other cities for a “March for Life.” Such support for anything would be big news – not this time. The reporting was sparse. Why? Simply put, the lack of coverage was consistent with the media bias for the pro-abortion perspective.
The media will quicker cover stories of a few hundreds showing-up for minor liberal issues. The absence of coverage of the recent “March for Life” by the major broadcast networks should be big news - news of bias and cronyism in the media.
Where is the media outrage about the following? After 40 years, it can be confirmed that some 80% of the facilities run by Planned Parenthood are located in minority communities. After 40 years, it is now evident that African Americans represent the only ethnic group whose numbers are declining. After 40 years, it can be verified that more than 1,200 babies die daily in African American communities. Why is the media silent?
Dr. Clenard Childress, a pastor and national advocate for life, believes, “for every two African-American women who get pregnant, one will choose to abort.” Imagine, about 60% of abortions done in New York City are done on black women. The Pennsylvania Department of Health reports that about 50% of black babies are aborted each year since 1973. Like me, the major networks have access to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – then, where is the outrage?
Like many in America, I was of the opinion that cases of rape provided a valid ground for abortion. That opinion was formed by the media’s portrayal of the abortion narrative. Well, I now know that less than 1% of abortions is as a result of rape.
Studies conducted by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute indicate that 14,000 abortions per year are due to rape or incest – that figure represents only 1% of all abortions.
From that same Guttmacher study (2005), women were asked to provide reasons why they chose to have an abortion – 74% of these women felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life.” Some women felt that an unwanted child would interrupt their education or interfere with careers. Others cited their unmarried status and their inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life.
Those reasons provide enough reason for outrage. The decision to abort would never have been necessary had our lifestyle choices been different. Because of those choices the medical industry is faced with an increasing variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Honestly, we have been duped to believe that abortion enables our women to correct errors and to move on with their lives.
But that is not true – what about the post-abortion trauma issues? One British researcher described legal abortion as the best predictor of breast cancer trends. Actually, abortion is the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer. A black woman in America has a 10% risk of contracting breast cancer during her lifetime. However, black women under 40, who had an abortion, have a 50% increased risk of contracting breast cancer. The risk jumped to 370% for black women over fifty, who have an abortion.
In order to protect the abortion industry from litigation, women are not being told the truth about the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Somebody needs to demand objective investigative journalism on this matter.
On this 40th anniversary of legalizing abortion, we must ask ourselves if we are better off as a nation. We have ignored the rights of the unborn and championed the rights of the woman. We have been dishonest in suggesting that abortion brings healing to victims of rape and incest. We have been led to believe that pregnancy due to rape is common, rather than rare.
I wish I did not have to celebrate the nobility of marriage at the same time with the scourge of legalized abortion. Whereas one event celebrates life, the other honors death. Whereas one recognizes the sanctity of life, the other destroys life for convenience.
Monday, January 21, 2013
“So Help Me God!”
At his request, President Barack Obama ended his inaugural oath with the words: "So help me God." Interestingly, those four words are not legally or constitutionally required.
According to the Congressional Record, the words, "So help me God," are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the Almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” In other words, the decision to add the words was the decision of the President.
The President’s only obligation was to recite the oath laid our in the US Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then, why would the President choose to add words that are not required? Historians have wrangled over whether George Washington established precedence by adding the phrase on his own during his first inaugural acceptance; but the Library of Congress website states he did. Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861 and other presidents over the years have followed suit.
President Lincoln openly addressed the concept of divine guidance in the Gettysburg address: "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." When the pledge of allegiance added the phrase "under God" in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower commented, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
American history is replete with examples of public appeals to a higher being for guidance and protection. For instance, The Declaration of Independence includes an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the world."
When used, the term “So help me God” implies an appeal for mercy because of the retribution that will come if vows are not faithfully kept. The appeal for mercy affirms the sovereign hand of God in human affairs. The term acknowledges God’s right to control and judge the life of the person swearing. In essence, no higher authority exists.
What a contrast when compared with the oath of office in the former Soviet Union: "If I break this solemn vow, may I be severely punished by the Soviet people, universally hated, and despised by the working people." Although that is quite a condemnation, in actuality it is less severe than the potential consequences for someone who has a strong moral or religious foundation.
According to one reference work, an oath is "a solemn appeal to God to witness the truth of a statement or the sincerity of a promise, coupled with an imprecation of divine judgment in the event of falsehood or breach of obligation."
This definition is captured in the Hippocratic Oath, one of the world's oldest and most famous: "I swear... according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath with purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art... While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”
Four years ago, a California atheist, Dr. Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from prompting the president-elect to repeat the "so help me God phrase." Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued that the words violate the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion. The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit two years ago. Interestingly, no such legal challenges showed up this time.
In light of the President’s decision to ask God’s mercy, should he fail to uphold the Constitution, it is now our responsibility to pray for him. Firstly, we need to thank God for the President’s willingness to acknowledge an authority higher than the Office of the President and even the US Constitution. We also need to pray that God would grant to him wisdom to preside over this great nation. Pray for his health, his family and the ability to balance the kaleidoscopic variety of activities in his life.
According to the Congressional Record, the words, "So help me God," are not a part of the obligation assumed upon taking the oath. They constitute rather an assertion of sincerity to undertake the duties of service in good faith and with the aid of the highest power recognized by the enlistee. It is directed solely to his or her personal conception of the Almighty, whatever that may be or whatever it may not be. There is no effort to impose on the enlistee any established religious conception, or even to require his acknowledgement of any religious conception.” In other words, the decision to add the words was the decision of the President.
The President’s only obligation was to recite the oath laid our in the US Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Then, why would the President choose to add words that are not required? Historians have wrangled over whether George Washington established precedence by adding the phrase on his own during his first inaugural acceptance; but the Library of Congress website states he did. Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861 and other presidents over the years have followed suit.
President Lincoln openly addressed the concept of divine guidance in the Gettysburg address: "This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." When the pledge of allegiance added the phrase "under God" in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower commented, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
American history is replete with examples of public appeals to a higher being for guidance and protection. For instance, The Declaration of Independence includes an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the world."
When used, the term “So help me God” implies an appeal for mercy because of the retribution that will come if vows are not faithfully kept. The appeal for mercy affirms the sovereign hand of God in human affairs. The term acknowledges God’s right to control and judge the life of the person swearing. In essence, no higher authority exists.
What a contrast when compared with the oath of office in the former Soviet Union: "If I break this solemn vow, may I be severely punished by the Soviet people, universally hated, and despised by the working people." Although that is quite a condemnation, in actuality it is less severe than the potential consequences for someone who has a strong moral or religious foundation.
According to one reference work, an oath is "a solemn appeal to God to witness the truth of a statement or the sincerity of a promise, coupled with an imprecation of divine judgment in the event of falsehood or breach of obligation."
This definition is captured in the Hippocratic Oath, one of the world's oldest and most famous: "I swear... according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath with purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my art... While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!”
Four years ago, a California atheist, Dr. Michael Newdow, objected and went to federal court to prevent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from prompting the president-elect to repeat the "so help me God phrase." Newdow, along with several non-religious groups, argued that the words violate the constitutional ban on government "endorsement" of religion. The high court ultimately rejected the lawsuit two years ago. Interestingly, no such legal challenges showed up this time.
In light of the President’s decision to ask God’s mercy, should he fail to uphold the Constitution, it is now our responsibility to pray for him. Firstly, we need to thank God for the President’s willingness to acknowledge an authority higher than the Office of the President and even the US Constitution. We also need to pray that God would grant to him wisdom to preside over this great nation. Pray for his health, his family and the ability to balance the kaleidoscopic variety of activities in his life.
Monday, January 14, 2013
YOUR TYPE...Not Qualified to Pray
Last week Louie Giglio was effectively disinvited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches what the Bible says.
In a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, "We were not aware of Pastor Louie Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection, and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged Wednesday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost 20 years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the "only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus."
Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, further commented that "due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
What Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times on Wednesday explains the issue: "It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues."
The statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee would seem to agree with Besen. The views of the person praying must “reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In essence, the person praying must pass a litmus test like – are you now or ever have been one who believes that any sexual behavior, other than what the Bible endorses, is morally unacceptable? Or, have your views evolved to the point where you now reject your biblical position and endorse what is inclusive and acceptable?
According to Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, “The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata.”
“By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program.”
“Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations, is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama's first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.”
From my current pulpit series on the Book of Romans, it is obvious that the Apostle Paul would not have been eligible to pray at the President’s inauguration. What Wayne Besen and the White House view as an evolution of ideas, Paul described as “indecent acts” and “perversion” (Romans 1:27).
It is very sad to admit, that this type of discourse is now the new normal. Christians are being challenged to choose between their beliefs and contemporary behavior. It is just shocking to see how intolerant the White House is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality, while disregarding Giglio's sterling work to combat human trafficking.
From all appearances, 2013 does not seem as though it would be a Happy New Year for many religious voices in the marketplace. For Christians, hatred and revenge are not options – like Pastor Giglio, we must continue to preach “the healing power of Jesus Christ.”
In a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, "We were not aware of Pastor Louie Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection, and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged Wednesday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost 20 years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the "only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus."
Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, further commented that "due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
What Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times on Wednesday explains the issue: "It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues."
The statement from the Presidential Inaugural Committee would seem to agree with Besen. The views of the person praying must “reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans."
In essence, the person praying must pass a litmus test like – are you now or ever have been one who believes that any sexual behavior, other than what the Bible endorses, is morally unacceptable? Or, have your views evolved to the point where you now reject your biblical position and endorse what is inclusive and acceptable?
According to Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, “The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata.”
“By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program.”
“Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations, is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama's first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.”
From my current pulpit series on the Book of Romans, it is obvious that the Apostle Paul would not have been eligible to pray at the President’s inauguration. What Wayne Besen and the White House view as an evolution of ideas, Paul described as “indecent acts” and “perversion” (Romans 1:27).
It is very sad to admit, that this type of discourse is now the new normal. Christians are being challenged to choose between their beliefs and contemporary behavior. It is just shocking to see how intolerant the White House is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality, while disregarding Giglio's sterling work to combat human trafficking.
From all appearances, 2013 does not seem as though it would be a Happy New Year for many religious voices in the marketplace. For Christians, hatred and revenge are not options – like Pastor Giglio, we must continue to preach “the healing power of Jesus Christ.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)