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.
Monday, February 4, 2013
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.”
Monday, December 31, 2012
Religion and The Fiscal Cliff
Modern secularism has succeeded in deleting religion from public discourse. The state has replaced religion and has become the greatest source of collective human power on earth. And so to that power we run, and ask of it, or take from it, all we long for and all we can get.
For this reason, religious opinion has been silent in this critical national debate. From my perspective, the debate is as much an issue of morality as it is of economics. Our crisis is a reflection of a godless philosophy, devoid of virtue. Simply put, it is the result of "the love of money [which] is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).
This is our story - the U.S. federal budget revenue for 2012 is about 2.5 trillion dollars, a bit over $8,000 of revenue/income per person. And our current U.S. debt is 16.5 trillion dollars, about $52,000 of debt per person. How come? Well, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, disability and so on make up about 62% of the U.S. budget.
The problem is not, as such, the state providing a safety net for its most unfortunate citizens. The problem is that the various entitlement programs go well beyond a safety net and provide ever more lavish benefits to more and more people so that now middle-income people are dipping into the federal entitlement pie.
In addition, we are spending much more money than we are earning. That is tantamount to living outside of our means. That is unsustainable so we are now attempting to adjust the problem.
Each year, the government spends more than it takes in, and this gap must be funded with debt. Hence the need for debt or credit limits. The debt limit is simply the maximum amount that the U.S. government can borrow at any given time. Currently, the limit is set at $16.4 trillion.
Because we (post-modernists) have removed any idea of the metaphysical (religion) from our discourse, we do not apply a religious understanding of ethics to our doing business. Consequently, we have become more crass. Some even argue that vice and greed are good, because the desire for wealth - especially if it is inordinate and all-consuming - will produce more wealth for oneself and others and spread technological, medicinal and practical benefits that enhance everyone’s life.
So what happens when some people realize that they can get a lot richer, a lot more quickly and with a lot less work, if they milk the system for whatever its worth? They make super-risky investments with other people’s money, sell rotten bundled loan packages to unwitting investors, strike secret deals with members of Congress, crush competitors by gaining control of regulatory agencies, set up exorbitant compensation packages in companies that then get government bail-outs, and rig and manipulate stock market trading.
According to author Dr. Benjamin Wiker, "Government covers the risky investments, rewards rather than punishes the chicanery and, even more, becomes the place where the money-makers increasingly go to control the market. And why not? Government will pick up the tab by bailing out banks, bailing out industries and subsidizing gross mismanagement and predatory monopolies" (North Carolina Register).
And, to whom is the state accountable? Well, since there is no one greater than the state, I suppose one should just eat, drink and be merry (Ecclesiastes 8:15). In the process, post-modernists are creating a society in which the human spirit is suffocated by a materialistic worldview.
Honestly, Congress’ understanding of debt is incompatible with our biblical worldview of debt. The Bible neither expressly forbids nor condones the borrowing of money. The wisdom of the Bible teaches us that it is usually not a good idea to go into debt. Debt essentially makes us a slave to the one who provides the loan. At the same time, in some situations going into debt is a "necessary evil." As long as money is being handled wisely and the debt payments are manageable, a Christian should be able to take on the burden of financial debt, if it is absolutely necessary.
Let us join with Senate Chaplain Barry Black and pray for our lawmakers. Pray that God would guide them with His wisdom. "Lord, show them the right thing to do and give them the courage to do it. When they feel exhausted, remind them of the great sufficiency of your grace, look with favor on our nation and save us from self-inflicted wounds."
Chaplain Black’s prayer before the Senate should truly express the desire of every Christian. God’s wisdom is needed when it is obvious that the wisdom of our lawmakers is not working.
For this reason, religious opinion has been silent in this critical national debate. From my perspective, the debate is as much an issue of morality as it is of economics. Our crisis is a reflection of a godless philosophy, devoid of virtue. Simply put, it is the result of "the love of money [which] is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).
This is our story - the U.S. federal budget revenue for 2012 is about 2.5 trillion dollars, a bit over $8,000 of revenue/income per person. And our current U.S. debt is 16.5 trillion dollars, about $52,000 of debt per person. How come? Well, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, disability and so on make up about 62% of the U.S. budget.
The problem is not, as such, the state providing a safety net for its most unfortunate citizens. The problem is that the various entitlement programs go well beyond a safety net and provide ever more lavish benefits to more and more people so that now middle-income people are dipping into the federal entitlement pie.
In addition, we are spending much more money than we are earning. That is tantamount to living outside of our means. That is unsustainable so we are now attempting to adjust the problem.
Each year, the government spends more than it takes in, and this gap must be funded with debt. Hence the need for debt or credit limits. The debt limit is simply the maximum amount that the U.S. government can borrow at any given time. Currently, the limit is set at $16.4 trillion.
Because we (post-modernists) have removed any idea of the metaphysical (religion) from our discourse, we do not apply a religious understanding of ethics to our doing business. Consequently, we have become more crass. Some even argue that vice and greed are good, because the desire for wealth - especially if it is inordinate and all-consuming - will produce more wealth for oneself and others and spread technological, medicinal and practical benefits that enhance everyone’s life.
So what happens when some people realize that they can get a lot richer, a lot more quickly and with a lot less work, if they milk the system for whatever its worth? They make super-risky investments with other people’s money, sell rotten bundled loan packages to unwitting investors, strike secret deals with members of Congress, crush competitors by gaining control of regulatory agencies, set up exorbitant compensation packages in companies that then get government bail-outs, and rig and manipulate stock market trading.
According to author Dr. Benjamin Wiker, "Government covers the risky investments, rewards rather than punishes the chicanery and, even more, becomes the place where the money-makers increasingly go to control the market. And why not? Government will pick up the tab by bailing out banks, bailing out industries and subsidizing gross mismanagement and predatory monopolies" (North Carolina Register).
And, to whom is the state accountable? Well, since there is no one greater than the state, I suppose one should just eat, drink and be merry (Ecclesiastes 8:15). In the process, post-modernists are creating a society in which the human spirit is suffocated by a materialistic worldview.
Honestly, Congress’ understanding of debt is incompatible with our biblical worldview of debt. The Bible neither expressly forbids nor condones the borrowing of money. The wisdom of the Bible teaches us that it is usually not a good idea to go into debt. Debt essentially makes us a slave to the one who provides the loan. At the same time, in some situations going into debt is a "necessary evil." As long as money is being handled wisely and the debt payments are manageable, a Christian should be able to take on the burden of financial debt, if it is absolutely necessary.
Let us join with Senate Chaplain Barry Black and pray for our lawmakers. Pray that God would guide them with His wisdom. "Lord, show them the right thing to do and give them the courage to do it. When they feel exhausted, remind them of the great sufficiency of your grace, look with favor on our nation and save us from self-inflicted wounds."
Chaplain Black’s prayer before the Senate should truly express the desire of every Christian. God’s wisdom is needed when it is obvious that the wisdom of our lawmakers is not working.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
GOOD NEWS!
Something incredibly rare happened in New York City on Monday, November 24. Not one single person reported a shooting, stabbing or some other violent crime. New York Police Department chief spokesman, Paul Browne, told Reuters that it was the "first time in memory" the city's police force had experienced such a peaceful day.
With a population of almost eight million people, New York City knows violent crime. From 2,245 murders in 1990; this year, the city's murder rate is on target to hit its lowest point since 1960. The Police Department is hoping for less than 400 murders in 2012. Now, that is good news.
Good News is always good, especially when one is surrounded with bad news. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.
Near Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”
One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.
The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.
Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.
Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society. These values are consistent with the message of transformation, integral to the coming of Jesus.
Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.
Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.
Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.
However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.
However, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.
With a population of almost eight million people, New York City knows violent crime. From 2,245 murders in 1990; this year, the city's murder rate is on target to hit its lowest point since 1960. The Police Department is hoping for less than 400 murders in 2012. Now, that is good news.
Good News is always good, especially when one is surrounded with bad news. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.
Near Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”
One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.
The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.
Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.
Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society. These values are consistent with the message of transformation, integral to the coming of Jesus.
Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.
Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.
Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.
However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.
However, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.
Monday, December 3, 2012
EXACTLY WHEN Was Jesus Born?
History provides no precise information about the birth of Jesus. It would seem, Jews had very little interest in celebrating births and non-Jewish historians wrote with little precision. Our interest in details like month, day and even time of day, were not characteristic of ancient historians.
In reporting the story of Jesus’ birth, both Matthew and Luke clearly demonstrated that His birth was a fact of history. Whereas Matthew aligned the birth with Herod the Great, Luke focused on Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. Historians would concur with Matthew and Luke that Herod ruled in Judea while Augustus was emperor from Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire.
In order to satisfy today’s desire for precise information, one would need to reconstruct the information currently available. For instance, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus seemed quite certain that Herod died on or before April 4, 04 BCE. From Matthew we learn that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod died (Matthew 2:13-16).
Deductions from Luke 3:23 and John 2:20 would also place the birth of Jesus sometime around 06-04 BC/BCE. This conclusion would require some knowledge of Herod’s rebuilding of the Temple in 20 BCE.
In his presentation of the birth, Luke also adds, that the events took place “while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Historians are now confirming that the Quirinius to whom Luke referred, served as governor on two occasions. One census took place during his first term in office and another in 06 CE, during his second term. These procedures took place every 14 years.
Jesus could not have been born during this second term – Herod was already dead. However, based on the 14 year cycle, Jesus should have been born in 08 BCE. However, because of political conflicts with Herod and Rome, it is believed that the census was delayed by about two years. Here again, that would place the birth of Jesus sometime between 06-04 BCE.
Whereas much of this information may seem to have little value to Christians, it is critical for dialog with skeptics who question the historical Jesus. Some of this questioning is based on the choice of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus.
For more than 200 years, no one seemed to care about celebrating the birth of Jesus. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8).
Scholars argue that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date was a popular pagan festival to honor the birthday of Mithras, the “Invincible Sun God.” So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras. Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas.
Through the centuries Christmas has become an amalgam of traditions. The sacredness has been lost and today, many see it as anything but a sacred event. As Christians, we would be doing ourselves and the Lord Jesus a disservice, if we were to celebrate this season as anything but a season of sacred reflection. The date should only provide an opportunity to celebrate His historic birth and to recall His purpose for coming into this world.
For additional study, I would strongly recommend James Veitch’s article on Scythian monk, Dionysius Exiguus.
In reporting the story of Jesus’ birth, both Matthew and Luke clearly demonstrated that His birth was a fact of history. Whereas Matthew aligned the birth with Herod the Great, Luke focused on Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. Historians would concur with Matthew and Luke that Herod ruled in Judea while Augustus was emperor from Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire.
In order to satisfy today’s desire for precise information, one would need to reconstruct the information currently available. For instance, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus seemed quite certain that Herod died on or before April 4, 04 BCE. From Matthew we learn that Jesus was born at least two years before Herod died (Matthew 2:13-16).
Deductions from Luke 3:23 and John 2:20 would also place the birth of Jesus sometime around 06-04 BC/BCE. This conclusion would require some knowledge of Herod’s rebuilding of the Temple in 20 BCE.
In his presentation of the birth, Luke also adds, that the events took place “while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Historians are now confirming that the Quirinius to whom Luke referred, served as governor on two occasions. One census took place during his first term in office and another in 06 CE, during his second term. These procedures took place every 14 years.
Jesus could not have been born during this second term – Herod was already dead. However, based on the 14 year cycle, Jesus should have been born in 08 BCE. However, because of political conflicts with Herod and Rome, it is believed that the census was delayed by about two years. Here again, that would place the birth of Jesus sometime between 06-04 BCE.
Whereas much of this information may seem to have little value to Christians, it is critical for dialog with skeptics who question the historical Jesus. Some of this questioning is based on the choice of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus.
For more than 200 years, no one seemed to care about celebrating the birth of Jesus. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8).
Scholars argue that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date was a popular pagan festival to honor the birthday of Mithras, the “Invincible Sun God.” So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras. Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas.
Through the centuries Christmas has become an amalgam of traditions. The sacredness has been lost and today, many see it as anything but a sacred event. As Christians, we would be doing ourselves and the Lord Jesus a disservice, if we were to celebrate this season as anything but a season of sacred reflection. The date should only provide an opportunity to celebrate His historic birth and to recall His purpose for coming into this world.
For additional study, I would strongly recommend James Veitch’s article on Scythian monk, Dionysius Exiguus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)