The murder of George Tiller violates the pro-life position

The murder of abortionist George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31 comprises some of the hottest debate taking place the day after. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, many in the pro-abortion crowd are using it to make Tiller a martyr and the pro-life position sinister.

George Tiller may have served as an usher in his Lutheran church, but he was no saint. Thousands of unborn children never saw the light of day because of Tiller’s abortion business. The doctor was a murderer, a wicked man who met a wicked end.

Still, the man who murdered Tiller is no saint. What he did was a cowardly, despicable act. There is no place for vigilante acts in the pro-life movement. It is not “pro-life” to murder abortionists.

Pro-choice activists reveal their lack of shame by portraying Tiller as a hero, a martyr, and a protector of the rights of women. A sympathetic national media will give them plenty of broadcast time and print space. Their spin, however, will fail to see the obvious: a murderer was gunned down by another murderer. There is no saint, no martyr, and no winner in this.

Racism and the church

There are things in life that I have trouble understanding. I don’t understand why Hollywood celebrities are called before Congress as expert witnesses concerning environmental issues. I don’t understand why folks who don’t like winter sing “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas.” I don’t understand why men can’t pick their clothes up off the floor (or should that be “little boys in men’s bodies”?).

Something I really have trouble understanding is how folks can say they love Christ while at the same time disdaining others simply because those “others” are of another ethnicity or skin color.

I was struck by this last year during South Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary. It seems that the Clintons decided surreptitiously to make Barack Obama’s race an issue. Black South Carolinians took umbrage at the attacks and voted overwhelmingly for the candidate of their skin color. White South Carolinians basically voted likewise, dividing their votes between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Please understand that I did not have a dog in that fight. As far as I’m concerned, not one of the three is worthy of the presidency of the United States. All three are pro-abortion, and that one factor disqualifies them from my vote. By the way, Republican Rudy Giuliani was likewise disqualified because of his pro-abortion standing.

Unfortunately, the same racism which characterized the Democratic primary is too often seen in our churches, both white and black. How can a person really be a Christian and disdain another person because his skin is a different color? I can hear someone say something like, “Well, you’re not old enough to remember how it used to be.” I have two responses. First, how things “used to be” is rarely how things really were. We all observe the past through biased lenses. Second, how things “used to be” is at most how things used to be. Whatever it was does not make it right. Besides, this is now, not then.

The gospel of Jesus Christ stands in opposition to racism, whether it is white against black, black against white, black or white against Hispanic, or whatever. If it is really true that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28), then most certainly there are to be no divisions based upon any ethnicity or color of skin.

God looks not at the color of our skin or the bent of our culture but at the condition of our heart. Outside of Christ, every heart is the same color, filled with depravity. In Christ, the believer is counted perfectly righteous.

Theologian Michael Horton maintains: “The prophets remind us repeatedly of the vision of the latter days, with the nations streaming to Zion, bearing their gifts for the great celebration. As a foretaste of that festival, each gathering of the Lord’s people should reflect as much as possible the diversity of gifts that serve the unity of the body.” (”Grace, Race, and Catholicity,” Modern Reformation, Jan./Feb. 2008, 21).

Horton is right. There will be no preferences in heaven—whether race or age or sex or social status or whatever. Only because of man’s depravity are there any on earth.

Can’t wait to get that bailout money!

The reaction by most politicians and activist-citizens in the United States concerning our nation’s economic woes and how to fix them reflects the sorry state of the present-day character of our people. “Somebody, bail me out! Please!”

Folks are all in a tizzy in the state of South Carolina because Gov. Mark Sanford refuses to buy into the line that we can borrow ourselves out of debt. Politicians such as U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn denigrate Gov. Sanford, charging the governor with playing politics while people suffer.

Unfortunately, people such as Rep. Clyburn never fail at character assassination when logic fails to sustain their position. The charge of “playing politics” could certainly be leveled at Rep. Clyburn himself, as well as all the proponents of the federal stimulus packages. Not a few Americans love the idea of receiving what seems like something for nothing.

A Baptist minister of music once told me that he always took whatever steps necessary to avoid pain or suffering. I found his words unsettling yet true for most of humanity. When people are in trouble, they had rather kick the problem down the road instead of facing it now.

If we were a people of moral character, we would argue that we have already borrowed too much against the future and we need to right our economic ship now. We would say “no” to what we cannot afford and learn how to do with less.

To do so, though, would require suffering and sacrifice, and those are things we’re quite unwilling to do. Unfortunately, it seems to me, suffering will come because of the speculation and greed of certain American corporations and the pandering of most politicians, as well as a citizenry in general which has forgotten the necessity of living within one’s means. The question is whether we will suffer now or push the day of reckoning upon our children and grandchildren.

We would do well to turn to the Bible for timeless truth.

Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content (1 Timothy 6:6-8, ESV).

Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content (Philippians 4:11, ESV).

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” (Hebrews 13:5, ESV)

The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives (Psalm 37:21, ESV).

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender (Proverbs 22:7, ESV).

“But God will provide . . .”

How many times have you heard someone say, “Well, the Lord will provide”?

It is true that God provides many things. He brings the warmth of the sun and the refreshing of the rain upon the just and the unjust. He guides the steps of his followers so that they walk according to his will. He provides comfort and consolation to his children when they lose a loved one to death. God provides the material needs essential for his work to progress.

Yet many times the statement that “God will provide” is a blasphemy against God. Think about this scenario: a married man who professes to be a Christian wants to buy a second car. It’s an inconvenience to get by with one car, so having a second car would prove helpful.

Unfortunately, the man’s credit is a disgrace. He has unpaid bills that go back for years. His present income struggles to provide his family’s needs and pay a little each month on his accumulated debts. Now he wants to buy a car on credit.

How does he justify his anticipated purchase? “The Lord will provide.”

Such a person is guilty of the sin of presumption. He presumes that God will bail him out of the mess the man is making for himself. He is not exhibiting faith. He is exhibiting presumption.

In addition, he is justifying yet another irresponsible decision by invoking the name of God. He is not honoring the name of God. He is guilty of using God’s name in vain.

Such a position is really that of a fool. A fool gives little thought to the future (which brings to mind all the clamoring for “bailout money” by public officials who never tire of borrowing against an uncertain tomorrow to stave off the need for sacrifice and suffering today).

William Jenkyn (1612-85) lamented: “Fools are always futuring.” Unfortunately, too many who claim the name of Christ, ministers included, continue to be guilty of such folly.

Believing to Understand

Occasionally a college student will ask me to respond to something a professor has taught concerning the Bible. For instance, a religion professor pointed to Numbers 12:3: “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.” The professor asked, “If Moses wrote the book of Numbers, how could he have made such a statement about himself? No one who is truly humble will make notice of his humility.”

The point which the professor was trying to make was that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. Instead, the Pentateuch, as well as most of the Old Testament, is merely the compilation of stories and writings that were gathered and edited and added to and subtract from by various redactors until finally published as the product we have today. Essentially, in their view the Bible is the work of man, not the work of God.

Such a view is not without disastrous ramifications. If the concept of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible is jettisoned, then the Bible basically becomes little more than a book of fables and a nice dose of self help. The reader can cling to what he agrees and reject what he wishes.

This relatively modern (it arose during the late eighteenth century), essentially God-rejecting view of the Scriptures, however, finds no support in the Scriptures themselves. The belief in the inspiration of the Bible finds its basis in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breath out by God.” Scripture is, therefore, not the product of ingenious or even well-meaning men. It is, as Dr. J. I. Packer states, “a product of his [God’s] creative power, and so is an authentic disclosure of his mind and presentation of his message.” The Holy Spirit of God supernaturally and providentially guided chosen men to write the truth which he desired to be communicated to others.

The professor mentioned above, though, would doubtlessly claim that God played a role in the writing of the Scriptures. Many will affirm a doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible while not affirming that the words of Scripture themselves are inspired. They claim that only the thoughts of the authors are inspired. A belief in the inspiration of thoughts, however, does not go far enough. Particular words must be given to convey particular thoughts. It would not be possible to understand truly the thought intended if the right words were not used. It is necessary to insist that the words themselves are inspired in order to safeguard the meaning which God intended.

This issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch comes back to this. Throughout church history, readers of the Pentateuch assumed Moses as its author based upon statements in the New Testament. For instance, in Mark 7:10, Jesus said, “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’” In Deuteronomy 31:9 we read, “Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.” Deuteronomy 31:24-26 notes, “Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, ‘Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.’” See also Matthew 19:8; Mark 12:26; John 5:46-47; 7:19; Acts 3:22. Suffice it to say that books have been written by believing scholars supporting the traditional understanding of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

So how might we answer the charge that Moses could not have written Numbers 12:3 because a truly humble man would not have written that about him? A man writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would have written the truth about himself. Moses wrote about his sins and weaknesses and also recorded his meekness. He was not boasting about himself; he simply recorded what is the true.

How one handles what others contend are scriptural difficulties really depends upon a person’s perspective. If a person is a believer, that person will try to understand a solution to the proposed difficulty while remaining true to the inerrancy and divine authorship of the Bible. If a person is a skeptic, he will use the difficulty as a reason to affirm his belief that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible work of God. Puritan Samuel Rutherford asserted, “It is common for men to make doubts when they have the mind to desert the truth.”

Compromising evangelicals

It seems that evangelicals are falling all over themselves to become accepted by mainstream American society. Discussions about creation in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis are deemed “distractions.” The plight of the unborn is considered “yesterday’s battle.” It is considered fashionable to support a United States President who pontificates about the need to defend the weak but turns his back upon the most defenseless of humanity–the unborn.

It is encouraging to see concerted efforts to recover the biblical gospel and to emphasize a biblical view of doctrines such as justification. It is discouraging to see that many of those rightly concerned about the gospel accept the tenets of old-earth creationism and are deafeningly silent about the slaughter of the unborn.

Many rightly see that evangelicalism has been more concerned about culture wars than about the gospel. Far too many pro-life evangelical church members are relatively clueless about the gospel. They may be staunchly anti-homosexual while remaining quite fuzzy about salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

That said, it is wrong to neglect what has been emphasized in order to emphasize what has been neglected. Conceding creationism today will result in conceding the atonement tomorrow. Forgetting the unborn today will result in forgetting justification tomorrow.

Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle–Whatever Happened to Honor?

Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle have been in the news lately because they failed to pay sizable sums in federal income taxes. They failed to pay, that is, until they were nominated to prestigious positions in President Obama’s cabinet.

President Obama has promised an ethical and transparent administration, yet he continued to affirm his nomination of Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury and Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services after each was discovered to have been derelict in paying his taxes.

Now, of course, the men have ‘fessed up and paid up and are “embarrassed” at their “oversights.” Geithner was approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate and Daschle, according to press reports, will be. We have been told that these men are too valuable, given the current set of crises facing our nation, to have their nominations derailed by something evidently as trite as a pattern of failure to pay all their income taxes.

Little reveals the hypocrisy of leaders as when they promise one thing and then renege on basic promises. President Obama has pledged to lead an ethical administration, but nominating men who have failed to pay their income taxes reveals that ethics are really not that important. The pledge was great for votes but evidently worthless for governing. It is little wonder that Americans share a pervasive cynicism about their federal government.

Though few would dare say it, Geithner and Daschle have revealed themselves as either white-collar crooks or irresponsible ninnies. Either way, neither has displayed the personal character needed to lead these vital departments of the President’s administration.

That said, think about our churches. We place in positions of leadership elders and deacons who fail to display the character needed to lead and serve their congregations. A fellow pastor told me of a situation in his small church in which a deacon was known to have left his wife and was living with another woman. This deacon continued to serve in his office, continued to attend worship services, and remained unrepentant about his sin. In addition, the pastor was warned not to do anything about the situation. The deacon was too valuable for the church to lose him. That’s the same “logic” we heard about the need to confirm Geithner despite his tax woes.

As poorly as Geither and Daschle reflect upon President Obama’s administration and upon the President’s judgment, an even greater evil exists when churches ordain and continue to support men who have shown themselves to be unfit for their sacred office. Pastors who fail to pay their bills, deacons who fail to honor their wives, elders who put their children’s soccer practice above the appointed meetings of their churches–these and countless other offenses are much more troubling than the affirmation of degenerates such as Secretary Geithner and soon-to-be Secretary Daschle. The purity and honor of God’s church is at stake.

It is not without good reason that elders and deacons are to be men who are “blameless” (1 Timothy 3:2, 10). That doesn’t mean they never sin, but it does there is no valid accusation of a pattern of wrongdoing that can be held against them. Perhaps the reason our churches are viewed cynically is that we continue to be led by men of disrepute and no one raises a voice of concern.

Gene Robinson will not offer “Christian” prayer at inaugural event

Gene Robinson, homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, has been tapped to offer a prayer at a Lincoln Memorial inauguration event for president-elect Barack Obama. According to the Associated Press, Robinson said that he would not be using the Bible or offering a Christian prayer.

Concerning the Bible, Robinson said, “While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans.” It seems that the “holiness” and “sacredness” of the text of the Scriptures excludes the stark warnings in both the Old Testament and New Testament which roundly condemn the practice of homosexuality.

Not surprisingly, Robinson will be offering a generic prayer: “I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation.”

Such a position initially strikes me as sheer nonsense. You would think that a professing Christian who prays would be offering his prayer to the God whom Christians worship.

Then again, perhaps it makes perfect sense for Robinson to be offering a generic prayer to a generic god. Only a Christian would be offering a prayer to the triune God of the Bible. And whatever Gene Robinson is, for all his theological degrees and ecclesiastical position, the one thing he is not is a Christian.

While none of us is without sin, one cannot explicitly condone that which the Scriptures explicitly condemn and be a true follower of the God of that sacred writing. To sin and then confess that one is wrong and seek forgiveness is one thing. To practice an activity which the Bible condemns and yet claim that that practice is not a sin but is an activity blessed by God is certainly another. Words from Lord Jesus himself should cause all of us to examine our lives: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:21-23 [ESV]).

Resolutions and Jonathan Edwards

A new year is upon us, and a new round of resolutions are being made. While the cynical belittle the making of resolutions as an exercise in futility, most folks still hold out hope that this year those resolutions are going to stick.

Jonathan Edwards serves as an example of healthy resolutions. Edwards, by the way, did not see the keeping of his resolutions as making him right with God. God had done that by grace through faith in Christ. Nor did Edwards believe that he could keep these resolutions out of sheer will power. He explained, “Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake.”

Edwards resolutions are worthy of serving as a model for those of us who would seek to live unto the glory of God. While space prohibits sharing all of them (a list of at least seventy resolutions has been compiled), carefully examine the first ten. By the way, Edwards sought to remind himself of his resolutions by trying to read through the list once a week.

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

2. Resolved, to be continually endeavoring to find out some new invention and contrivance to promote the aforementioned things.

3. Resolved, if ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

4. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.

5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved, to live with all my might, while I do live.

7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

9. Resolved, to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.

10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.

Edwards was consumed with the truth that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. As we enter the new year, we would do well to observe Edwards’ example.

I will glory in . . . the manger?

With the month of December comes the focus upon Christmas and all that goes with it. Decorations have suddenly popped up everywhere, joining those Christmas decorations that have been up for weeks! Christmas carols are heard on radio stations and in the stores. And there are, of course, the ubiquitous manger scenes.

Now, before anyone thinks that this curmudgeon is on an anti-manger crusade, think again. I like manger scenes, however unhistorical most are! The manger in the Bible was doubtlessly not a barn-like structure, the conditions were doubtlessly not pristine, the three wise men were nowhere around, and there probably were more than three anyway. Nevertheless, manger scenes do emphasize Christ and, in a culture that is becoming more and more anti-Christian, it is good to see a positive portrayal of Jesus.

The problem, though, is the sentimentalizing of the birth of Christ. A baby is born to a poor couple who are required to travel when the wife is close to giving birth to her first child. They arrive at their destination to find no lodging available other than a place where animals are kept.

The scene in popular imagination and portrayal becomes almost “Walt Disney-esque.” The animals are gazing with awe-struck wonder at the little baby. The world loves the sweet story.

But the world doesn’t love the portrayal of the biblical Christ. Why? Because the manger is not the emphasis of the Bible. Outside of Matthew and Luke, the circumstances of the birth of Christ are not explicitly discussed. While those details are important because they reveal the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ, the manger was not the destination. It was part of the process to get to the cross.

The world hates the cross because the cross reveals humanity’s sin and rebellion against God. The cross reveals the nonsense of the “I’m okay; you’re okay; let’s just all accept and affirm each other’s beliefs” attitude that is so prevalent.

The world hates the cross because there is nothing sentimental about it. A holy God unleashes his wrath against a holy and innocent victim who is suffering in the place of human sinners. There’s not a good way to sugar-coat that.

The world hates the cross because it points to the hopelessness of man. It reveals that human efforts to become accepted by God are worthless. The cross reveals human sin and hopelessness and pride. The cross reveals the necessity of humility.

Unfortunately, many professing Christians glory in the manger. They gaze upon the representations therein with child-like awe and wonder. They feel “spiritual” and especially close to God. They feel at peace. And they sin if they worship that representation of Jesus, making an idol out of a baby doll.

If we celebrate Christmas without an eye on the cross, we have missed the point of the incarnation. A better depiction for manger scenes would be to have a cross in the background, because the manger becomes little more than a Hallmark moment without the cross.

One is struck by the numerous references to the cross in the New Testament. We are sinners, and we can do nothing to become accepted by God. Even our righteous acts, as the prophet Isaiah reminds us, are as filthy rags. On the cross the Lord Jesus suffered the righteous wrath of the thrice-holy God. He suffered for our sins, for our rebellion. He suffered so that we would not suffer. He suffered so that justice would be served and we would be forgiven and counted righteous. He suffered so that God could receive us.

Little wonder that the apostle Paul could never get over the cross. Though he does not refer to the manger in his writings, the cross is always in the forefront. Not in the manger was his boast: “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 6:14a).