Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death (part three)

Four reasons have been cited previously for why the pro-choice position is losing steam and why the pro-life position has the momentum. This is no time for us to assume that since everything is going our way we can just coast to victory. A football team can lose momentum as quickly as it obtains momentum in a game. We need to keep working and praying, because every human life is worth saving.

(5) THE LEADERSHIP COMING FROM SO-CALLED MINORITY GROUPS. In the past it was white people who led the way in advancing the pro-life position. Now we are seeing a large number of leaders who are Hispanic and black, for example, who have taking the reins in advancing the pro-life cause. This scares the pro-choice crowd, because the liberal political wing has always taken for granted that the majority of the minorities are in their corner in all issues.

Is it not the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. that makes speeches around our country about the evils of abortion? Some time ago, a billboard in New York City featured a picture of a young black girl with the message "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb".

Many found this ad "racist", so blacks who ran this ad were committing racism against blacks. Go figure. Lost in the controversy was the actual point of the advertisement: abortion clinics target poor minorities in the inner city.

Institutional slavery of a different kind is an operating branch of Planned Parenthood. All one needs to do is examine the extremely racist views of Margaret Sanger, its infamous founder. More blacks have been killed by abortion in one year than have been killed in the past history of our country as a direct result of slavery when it was in force.

Hispanics and Mexicans have always valued family life, and it has been a hard sell to convince them to discard children as if they were useless appendages. More and more are speaking up against abortion, and are taking the lead in the pro-life movement.

Ask the Chinese who have come from that country to ours because of their yearning for freedom, if the one-child policy in China is looked upon with much favor. Our Vice President thinks it's okay, but most Americans find it repulsive. All the ugly features of abortion, nationally and internationally, are being exposed, and no amount of cover-up can smooth over its tragic reality. Even Whoopi Goldberg said that women who get abortions out of convenience are "idiots" (that is the number one reason why women do abort, Whoopi!).

(6) ABORTION ADVOCATES FIND THEMSELVES ON THE DEFENSIVE. One can always tell if a particular cause or issue is losing ground--it is when the promoters of that cause or issue are having to be on the defensive so much of the time. Even the die-hard leaders of the Pro-Choice crowd admit that abortion is not a lovely thought. When new technologies continue to open the window into the womb, then those who continue to deny the humanity of the unborn will look and sound silly and illogical.

Obamacare is vastly unpopular among the American people, and will be increasingly unpopular once it takes effect (if it does) and when the devil in the details come out more fully, especially the enormous costs. Guilt by association is the government funding of abortion hidden in the unhealthy health care bill. That will only cast a darker shadow on abortion.

When people are on the defensive of a losing proposition, they usually resort to all sorts of bizarre, hateful tactics, which will only dig the hole deeper for them. It is like when a vehicle is stuck in a snowbank or a deep mud hole. Continuing spinning of the wheels commonly result in one thing--a big problem that just got bigger. Pro-choicers are angrily spinning their wheels.

But I saved maybe the best reason for last. . .

(7) THE PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE ARE LOSING FUTURE ADHERENTS TO THEIR CAUSE BY THE VERY THING THEY PROPOSE. Who are the people, women and men, who opt for abortion as their preferred choice? It is those who are pro-abortion. They are killing off future adherents to their cause. Whether they realize it or not, they are having a negative membership drive.

And who are the ones who are pro-life? Those who have babies, and sometimes lots of them. Statistics have shown that those who have three or more children are much more likely to be pro-life in their family values. One does not have to be a math genius to figure out that the pro-life cause is gaining more members to their cause while the pro-choicers are literally aborting themselves to death.

Pro-choicers try their best to rally more people to their position, but at the same time they have to kill off potential future members to their cause. How are the pro-choicers going to get them out of this fix? There is only one way out--they are going to have to become more pro-life. I say that tongue in cheek, but life not only is precious, but life sure can have its funny twists.

Yours to the glory of the Author of life,

Chris

Censorship at Church

On Thursday, September 15, at 6:30 p.m., the History Book Club will be meeting at the Edmond library to discuss the book Calvin by Bruce Gordon. Leading the presentation and the discussion will be Dr. Michael Springer, historian. It is free and open to the public. The life of John Calvin, the theologian, will be the topic for the night.

Libraries have come in for all sorts of criticism, sometimes justifiably so, for censorship of certain books, like Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I abhor the "n" word myself, but at the same time, there are all sorts of books in the library that contain much more graphic and obscene language and art. Some libraries have placed "offensive" material in a special section, hopefully off limits to children.

I find it rather amusing and sad that government-run libraries are more open to discuss the life of John Calvin than churches today. Do we have an unspoken, unwritten censorship at church? Not just Calvin, but is there a general off-limits rule about discussing anything at church that is just too theological in nature? Are certain topics banned at church? Is it not a sad state of affairs when a Christian who is interested in growing deeper in Bible knowledge has to go to a library to learn about the life of the one of the greatest theologians who has ever lived?

Yesterday I talked to a lady who travels a lot and teaches the U.S. Constitution to young people and adults alike. She told me that the first thing she does is give a simple written test to all who attend her classes. One of the questions she asks is, "What are the first ten amendments to the Constitution called?" The overwhelming majority of attendees wherever she goes does not have a clue. She also told me that she wears a small patriotic pin on her blouse from time to time which has "1776" emblazoned across it. One young college-age student admired her pin, but asked her what the numbers represented. This lady gave her a short history lesson, and this student was hearing something for the very first time.

"My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6) I too am embarrassed about how little Americans know, even our elected officials, about the basics of our nation's heritage. I am more embarrassed about how little Christians know, even our church leaders, about the basics of Bible theology and church history. We are destroying ourselves in the process. The future can look pretty bleak when we in the present want to abandon all memories from the past.

Maybe I need to take a different approach to this story though. Since the church is hades-bent on copying the pursuits and pleasures in the world, should we then not take a cue from this library? After all, we don't want to be left behind in the dust and become irrelevant to society around us. We must find out what the world is doing, and we must do it with vigor and delight.

So, with that being so, what hip church out there is going to follow the lead of this library and have a discussion on the life of Calvin? I am waiting with bated breath to see which church will be the first up to bat.

But then again, I can think of FIVE reasons why a church will not do that. . .

Censorship is alive and well at church.

(I have not forgotten. . .part three of Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death is still forthcoming.)

Pro-Choicers are Aborting Themselves to Death (part two)

Here are some other reasons or proofs why the pro-life position has been gaining ground in recent years:

3. THE RELUCTANCE OF THE MEDIA TO CHAMPION THE PRO-CHOICE POSITION. Everyone knows that Hollywood has sold out to liberal causes, chief among them the "right" for women to do with their reproductive bodies as they wish. Although there has been a significant movement toward wholesome family entertainment, still the predominant mindset among the Hollywood elites, be it producers or actors, is to trample upon fundamental values that most of us hold very dear.

Stupid, Crazy Lust, rated R, is just one current example. (I realize the movie title has the word "love" in it at the end, but I have taken liberties to describe the real message in the film.) Adultery and bed-hopping are the common fodder in this "romantic (eros, not agape) comedy". How any self-professing Christian can get chuckles out of this and hope his or her children don't follow the lead actors' examples is beyond me. One should strike out every reference in the Bible about immorality, fornication, and adultery, if one wants to be consistent with his or her viewing habits.

That sermonette aside, it is amazing how few times in Hollywood films or TV shows that anyone ever gets pregnant from their rampant sexual escapades. It must be magic, or more like, fantasy land. But here is an additional kicker--when someone does get pregnant, most of the time life is chosen over abortion, a fact I find very puzzling. Here is a grand opportunity for the media darlings to champion one of their favorite causes for millions to see, yet they opt for the "pro-life" position. One case in point is the movie Juno, about which I have read the following: the pregnant teenage girl approaches an abortion clinic and meets a pro-life friend who informs her that the baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain and already has fingernails, wherein Juno chooses to "appreciate her miracle."

On those very rare occasions, when abortion is chosen as the preferred alternative, it is done so in hush, hush tones, or in a very dour mood. I wonder why abortion is never celebrated with great fanfare in media presentations, if it is such a wonderful alternative. Come on, Hollywood. If abortion is often your number one cause, why not trumpet it more? Why not glamorize it as nothing more than a safe medical procedure, just like removing one's gall bladder or having a bad tooth pulled?

There is an inbuilt reason why we celebrate birthdays and not abortion days. Mainstream media doesn't have the nerve to advance their own cause when they have all the opportunity in the world to do so. Their skittish hesitancy only proves the point that the "pro-life" position has much more going for it.

4. THE GROWING NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE PRO-LIFE CAMP. My generation of baby boomers has handed our society so many cultural ills that we may never fully recover from. We are the ones who followed the drum beat of "tuning in, turning on, and dropping out." We wanted to make love and not war. We wanted to eliminate all consequences of our moral choices, if it meant legalizing marijuana, taking off to Canada to avoid the draft, or taking the pill before or now after, or taking the fetus out of the womb. We were the anti-establishment. Whatever our parents and grandparents were for, we were against. Whatever they were against, we were for.

How the tables may have turned. There is growing evidence that more and more young people are too becoming anti-establishment, as in anti-baby boomer establishment. The boomers are now the greying generation. What goes around comes around (or becomes grey or falls out).This is not to say that the overwhelming majority of high-schoolers today are choosing abstinence over promiscuity, and that there is not much of a drug problem among teenagers today.

What is happening though is a mounting, bold resistance among the young to the immoral ways of the previous generations. They really don't like the mess we have handed to them, because they see a bleak future ahead of them, if things continue on the trajectory they are on now.

One can not simply discount or ignore the major inroads such things as "True Love Waits" has had in young people's lives. It has been noted that many of the American Idol finalists and winners are self-professing Christians who have chosen to wait until marriage for sex. At national "tea party" rallies, observers have commented how many of these anti-political establishment activists are in their teens and twenties. These are not gatherings of the AARP crowd. The sea of young faces at this year's annual "March for Life" in "Washington prompted NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan to worry: "There are so many of them, and they are so young."

Jeremiah's mom did a blessed thing by giving birth to a boy who would grow up to say, "Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I set you apart, and I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations."

If a Planned Parenthood office had operated in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, I shudder to think what kind of counsel they might have given to an unmarried young couple that had just arrived from Nazareth.

(the final installment in this series will be next week. . .hopefully next week)

Pro-Choicers Are Aborting Themselves to Death

Traditional political wisdom is that the social conservatives should be silenced for fear the fiscal conservatives will lose their voice and, most importantly, lose upcoming elections. Those "pro-lifers" are going to be our downfall, so goes the conventional line. Blue blood establishment types think, I guess, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Not only is it possible to be a social conservative and a fiscal conservative in the same breath, but the latest news is that both joined together are a winning combination.

There has been a noticeable shift in the cultural wind, which has the "pro-choice" crowd shaking in their boots. What are the reasons why things may be tipping in favor of the pro-life position?

!. YEARS OF PERSEVERANCE THROUGH SUCCESSFUL ADVERTISING AND EDUCATION. I can recall back in the 1990s how a soft, low-key pro-life advertising campaign on the major networks caught the pro-abortion advocates off guard. People's opinions about the issue began to change slowly over time; for one thing, the pro-lifers were seen as normal people who just valued life wherever it is found, inside the womb as well as outside the womb. The idea that pro-lifers were some extreme fringe element of "in your face, name calling, unloving, judgmental, abortion clinic bombers" proved to be grossly wrong in the eyes of the public. If anything, the pro-choice crowd with their marches and speeches have showed off a very hateful rhetoric.

While there has been some advertising that has been very graphic and edgy in a few instances here and there, for the most part, the pro-lifers have done a better job presenting themselves and their views. After all, when you have a good product "to sell", the product pretty much sells itself; everything from pro-life car tags to "abortion stops a beating heart" bumper stickers to tactful tee shirts has had a cumulative effect of selling the idea that life sure is a better deal than death. Exactly how can one sell the product that aborting a "live fetus" is a good and necessary thing that elevates culture and human dignity? That's a hard sell.

After all, who are the biggest promoters and active participants in adoption, for example? You certainly won't find that in the pro-choice crowd. Who are the ones who have done the most in our society to care for unwed single mothers, or pregnant teenagers, or children born out of wedlock? Facts have borne out the obvious answer--pro-lifers do so much more to back up their talk with loving, sacrificial service than what Planned Parenthood has to offer.

For abortion providers, it is "we will get you in here to take care of that unwanted pregnancy" and then you are on your own after that. What do they really do in terms of post-abortion traumatic disorders, a hidden, but known fact, that plagues the great majority of those women who have had abortions? Their counseling services, if you want to call it that, leave women struggling with a boatload of guilt. Also overlooked, or I should say buried on purpose by the pro-abortion advocates, is the growing scientific evidence that certain cancers in women are much more likely to occur in those who have gone through an abortion.

Even the pro-abortion clinics now have to admit that, from their own records, that the number one reason why women seek an abortion is because it is a convenient form of birth control. All the cries about rape, or incest, or the health of the woman, simply have registered only a very small token number of women who fall in one of those categories.

On college campuses around our country, Justice For All has been making the rounds with tremendous results. It is a visual presentation, with no protest signs or marches or speeches, about the need for justice (a good-sounding name that resonates well in a liberal college atmosphere) for everyone. If we want justice for all types of people, like those in minority status, or those with disabilities, or those with certain diseases, then to be consistent we should seek justice for those who can not speak up for themselves--those who are in the wombs, the most dangerous place to live in our nation today.

Years and years of successful advertising and education are paying off huge dividends, for the majority of Americans now, according to the a recent Rasmussen poll, say that abortion is "morally wrong most of the time."

2. THE FAILURE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHY AND ITS INSEPARABLE LINK WITH ABORTION. It goes without saying much that Darwinian macro-evolution has owned our high school biology textbooks; it has owned our college campuses; it has owned all the large media outlets; it has owned for example everything from National Geographic to Newsweek; it has owned Hollywood; it has owned practically all science museums; it has owned all science TV specials; it has owned the entrenched scientific upper establishment. One can not get away from the long reach of the evolutionary propaganda arm.

Yet with all this going for them, it puzzles and it enrages the Darwin devotees that the vast majority of Americans totally reject Darwinian macro-evolution in poll after poll year after year. Added to that is the remarkable gains the Intelligent Design movement has had in all corners of our society, and there is a growing number of evolutionists who are abandoning this cherished theory, which is closer to an hypothesis than even a theory. One can not overstate the domino effect that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box has had in the scientific community. Antony Flew blew the minds of many, and evolutionists are now on the defensive with no solid evidence to back up their own blind-faith religion. More and more Christian scientists are "coming out of the closet" so to speak and declaring boldly their belief that Darwinian raises more questions than it ever solves, and that all the facts point to an Intelligent Uncaused Eternal Creator Being behind it all.

What does this have to do with abortion? The continued demise of the evolutionary model is partnered with the fall of the abortionary model. They are joined at the hip. Evolution is the concrete slab; if abortion is not the ground floor, it is one floor up. Darwinian evolution provides a way to get rid of God; we are answerable to no one, and therefore, we can live our lives any way we want to and do with our bodies what we deem fit. What is it we have heard all our lives from the pro-choice crowd? "It's a woman's body and she can do with it what she pleases. It's a case of women's reproductive rights!"

But if the foundation of evolution is destroyed, then what can the unrighteous do with their cause for abortion? Hitler and Stalin both loved Darwin; you see how well that worked out in promoting the sacredness of human life.

It is an irony that modern science has become a chief enemy of abortionists, which only proves what we should have known all along--that is, abortion is not about science, but about a certain philosophy of life, or anti-life. In a Washington Post editorial, Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, advised abortion-rights advocates to shift strategies, because, "we can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible."

How many abortionists are downright fearful of the high-tech imagery we see on ultrasound machines? Just hear the public outcry in states that have proposed and passed laws that say a woman must view the pictures from an ultrasound machine before she proceeds with an abortion. It is hard to understand the justification for such a protest when I thought we were supposed to give in to all the advances of science, the great disprover of religion. Is this a case where with every good rule there must be an exception?

Thanks go to God and to the perseverance of God's people in praying and educating the public about the tragedy of abortion. Political involvement should not be ignored as well. Those who think the church should stay out of public policy debates or the political process at all, even when it comes to clear-cut issues like abortion, have a lot of explaining to do. Nehemiah did the godly thing--he prayed to the Lord, and he posted guard on the Jerusalem wall he was leading to rebuild. He rallied the people to seek the Lord's favor, and he told the people to carry a weapon at their side.

It is not a case of either/or, but both/and. We pray, and we get involved. We worship, and we vote. We read God's Word, and we read up on the latest bills before Congress. And whatever we do, we must always remember that we do it unto the Lord, for His glory. Our task is much bigger than advancing a cause or getting someone elected to office.

If the Truth is contained within the walls of a church building on Sunday morning, then all we have done is to promote a situation ethics or a relativistic philosophy not unlike the world's. The world does not need more world. Darkness needs light and not more darkness.

(to be continued next time; more reasons why the pro-choicers are losing ground, and why the pro-life position is gaining strength)

Til Debt Do Us Part: He Who Goes a-Borrowing Goes a-Sorrowing

After watching the D.C. debt debacle, I thought of a question worth asking ourselves, "Now how many times are the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves?"

Of course the answer would be, "Trillions and trillions of times."

Frugal Benjamin Franklin said, "Think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty."

Thomas Jefferson reflected, "I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared."

From the excellent book The 5000 Year Leap, I quote: "The Founding Fathers belonged to an age when debt was recognized for the ugly spectre that it really is. They considered frugality a virtue, and even when an emergency compelled them to borrow, they believed in borrowing frugally and paying back promptly."

The recent debt deal was no big deal. Our supposed savings over ten years, as if it really is going to happen in the first place, will be wiped out in two days of debt spending. It makes one wonder if the inmates are running the asylum.

Political pressure to fall in line is what many freshmen Congressmen learned the hard way. But that being said, there might be a silver lining behind it all. There has been a recognizable paradigm shift in our nation's capitol. Over one hundred times in the past has the debt ceiling been raised without a whimper coming from the city on the Potomac. But this time we heard an economic revolutionary shot that was heard around the world. The political establishment does not like it one bit, because they see an erosion of their power.

That is what everything is all boils down to anyway--we need to keep huge voting blocs of government dependents happy, so they can return the favor on election day. They are not called "entitlements" for nothing. Harry Hopkins, advisor to President FDR, put it this way: "Tax, tax--spend, spend--elect, elect."

And to make the silver lining more silvery, I heard that the debt deal has put the funding of Obamacare in real jeopardy. I would not mind if it were in double jeopardy, and then final jeopardy. So, in the spirit of Joseph, "what they meant for evil, may just turn out for good."

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

That last quote by Thomas Jefferson sums it all up well. One reason why I love to quote T.J. is because he is supposed to be the darling of the liberals; he who is the supposed "non-Christian deist among a group of Bible thumpers" is the most admired among the Founding Fathers by those who cherish Big Government. Most liberals only think of one thing Jefferson ever said, and that is his statement regarding a wall of separation between church and state. (Which by the way was a line in a letter he wrote to some Baptists, whom he reassured that there would be no State Church like there was in Europe; hence, there would be a wall of separation between church and state.)

The book of Proverbs says that the borrower is servant to the lender. We got rid of one kind of slavery in this country; hopefully we can get rid of another kind of slavery, an economic one, this time without 600,000 casualties on battlefields, though.

Romans 13:8 says we are not to owe man anything (not to keep any debt outstanding), but to love one another, for that is the fulfillment of the law. The most loving thing to do is not for you to go deeper in debt at home by providing your family with all sorts of goodies you can't afford; there is not much love in a home where there is so much constant fighting done over money matters, particularly over unpaid bills. Proverbs also talks about the superiority of eating just veggies where love is than having the best cut of beef where there is strife.

On a national scale, the same principle applies. The Big Government crowd think they are doing the most charitable thing by giving hand-outs through a variety of entitlement programs (we have more people on food stamps now than at any time in our nation's history!). In actuality, the reverse is true. Our country is so divided right now and so deep in debt and so embroiled in tension and strife and in such an economic tailspin. How exactly is that a picture of love?

Our family has been blessed from the Lord by being out of debt, There have been times in the past when we had to pay out medical bills over an extended period of time, without any interest involved, but we have learned the joy of being free from financial bondage. Those married couples who worked long and hard to get out of debt know what I am talking about.

Paul in Philippians 4 talks much about contentment, and how we must LEARN to be content. It is a valuable lesson we need to learn as individuals and as a nation. We have two competing principles: Either God is able to supply all your need according to His riches in Christ Jesus, or Government is able to supply all your want according to its continued borrowing and printing of money in D.C.

"My God is bigger than your government."

(Thomas Jefferson didn't say that one, but he could have.)

Now that TRON has won over one, will HARRY POTTER be coming to a church near you?

One of the most frequent criticisms of the church has been that it has demonstrated itself to be so much behind the times. The church needs to get over it, get with it, get on with it.

A sure example of the modern church being so stuck in the past is when a church decorates its lobby with light cycles featured in the movie TRON: LEGACY. If a church wants to have an "At the Movies" sermon series, then can't it please get something much more current? Do you realize that the movie TRON: LEGACY was released at the end of 2010? We are talking over six months ago! How behind the times can we be when we have a movie that has been released on DVD for over three months now? Not even Redbox has it on its current releases list.

It is really embarrassing how much the church is lagging behind again, especially when the world has moved on to other things. How many movie releases have there been since the end of 2010, and all we can come up with is a fantasy world thriller that is so 2010ish?

The ideal solution is this--have a church advertise all over the place that Harry Potter is coming to their church. Talk about being current, talk about being on the cutting edge, and talk about mega box office hit with the finale, DEATHLY HALLOWS 2, and talk about bringing in the teens and the twenties to church. Picture this for example: young people lining up outside a church building in the late hours of a Saturday night waiting for the church doors to open on Sunday morning. The TV cameras would catch the spectacular. Most of these young people would be dressed in the familiar Harry Potter garb, complete with Potter's glasses and wizardry attire.

The church could have giveaways which would entice an even bigger crowd to show up--like a complete DVD series of all the Harry Potter movies, once the finale makes it to DVD. Once inside the church, the young people would be met with people from the church dressed just like themselves and the town of Hogwarts would be recreated in the lobby and on the auditorium stage. Background music from the movie would be playing all the time leading up to the start of the worship service (excuse me, here I am showing myself stuck in the past!), I mean, entertainment hour, experience hour, reconnection hour, or whatever we want to call it.

The preacher, excuse me again, the speaker could come out on stage dressed like Potter himself or maybe Lord Voldemort. We must identify with the world if we are going to reach them. The ideas behind all this are LIMITLESS and quite magical.

For a Scripture-based sermon, there are much more possibilities with a Harry Potter than a TRON. I looked in my big Young's Bible Concordance, and I didn't see one verse anywhere with TRON in it. But the word "potter" is a different story. In Jeremiah 18, God told the prophet to go to the potter's house. There you have the obvious connection. What more does a speaker need?

But then again, maybe that will not work. After all, Jeremiah is a book in the OLD Testament, and OLD does not compute with what is new, current, up-to-date, trendy. So maybe we better scratch the idea from Jeremiah 18. Of course, we can hide the fact from where we are reading, and most people would not know the difference, but it is still too risky. We need to be new and fresh and safe.

So I kept looking, and behold in Romans 9, this is the NEW Testament, it talks about God being like a potter who has absolute power over everyone of us, represented by clay, and it is His prerogative to make some of us vessels of wrath for destruction and some of us vessels of mercy. That He shows mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He has compassion on whom He desires to have compassion. And none of us can talk back to God about this, because it is His sovereign right to do all the above, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, and. . .

On second thought, we might need to scratch the Romans 9 word connection with young Potter. It might be new, but it definitely is not safe these days.

So, back to the drawing board, and I stumbled upon a verse in Isaiah 29:16. (I know it is the OLD Testament, but we will just not mention the scriptural reference. The Potter fans would not be carrying their Bibles to church anyway.) There we read people who were getting things backward. They were saying that they were the potter and God was the clay.

Now that will go over big time! We control God, God answers to us, we do something, and God must respond, that He is a responder and not an initiator, we push the right buttons and God does His thing, we hold the keys to determine our fate, etc. So we have found our angle from Scripture. Plus, it has the added advantage of fitting right into the world of Harry Potter.

What church out there will be the trendsetter and get us out of the six-month, behind-the-times, rut we are in? Who out there will be the first one to invite Harry Potter to their church?

(After we are through with Harry, the next coming attraction could be HORRIBLE BOSSES. I know it is very racy and rough in parts, but once you cross one line, it is so much easier to cross the next line. And besides, do you know how many people out there work for horrible bosses? Disgruntled employees would be flooding through the church doors.)

One final word. . .I read this summary movie review of TRON: LEGACY. "The result is a cheerful, colorful and solidly PG popcorn piece that won't leave you deep in thought."

Maybe I was too harsh on the use of TRON at first. I get it now. The connection is so obvious, how could I have missed it? It makes perfect sense now. I have seen the light, just like the light in that church's newly decorated lobby.

After all, we certainly don't want the Sunday crowd at church ever to be deep in thought about anything. O foolish me, what was I thinking?

Sarcastically yours,

Chris

A Fomenting Family Fetish

The human heart is a nonstop idol factory, and often times the hardest idols to detect are those things which are good that compete with that which are best or most necessary.

The fifth commandment has to do with the family; the first four though has to do with God and the exclusive worship, honor and obedience which He deserves. Really the fifth commandment is directed not just toward fourth-graders in the honor they should give to their parents, but it is geared toward 40 year-olds in the honor they should give their aging parents. Adults comprised the original audience of Moses' congregation at the base of Mt. Sinai.

Today I fear that in an over-reactionary way, to correct society's views toward the traditional family, that there is a large segment of the Christian community who are unknowingly elevating the family to a place that belongs only to God. I see this danger especially in the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement, a prominent fad that will fade away over time just like Gothard's Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts and Promise Keepers.

There are many points of appreciation (and I want to give credit where credit is due, and that is from a positional paper from a Grace Bible Church, somewhere in the USA) which I have toward those individuals and organizations who have sounded the alarm bell about the devaluation of the family. For one thing, they address the many problems in the modern day church related to youth, where often times children and youth are segregated at every turn from adults, and are babysat and entertained. The traditional youth ministry has proven to be a disaster in so many ways.

Also, they boldly call parents, especially fathers, to take up the call to lead, shepherd, disciple and train their own children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. How many dads, even Christian dads, have gone AWOL from their responsibilities at home? When parents turn over their responsibilities to day care or schools or churches or other organizations to train their children primarily, then repentance is in order.

Our society looks upon children as a curse or a nuisance, inside the womb and outside the womb. Those who champion the family have rightly said that the Scriptures teach that children are a blessing.

So I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have spoken up rightly so about all the above matters. We are losing our church youth today even after spending so much time and church budget in youth activities, and the numerous Christian spokesmen on this issue have put their finger on what is the problem and what are some practical solutions.

In some quarters, though, I am hearing and seeing hard-fast rules to counteract all the above that do not have the support of Scripture behind them. We are being told that only parents should be teaching their children, that age-segregated instruction such as Sunday School, VBS, church camps, AWANA programs, or whatever is "of the devil" or "from the pit of hell" (the exact words from some within the patriarchal and family-integrated church movement), wives should only be taught by their husbands and not from a ladies' Bible study group, that the family must do practically everything together in a church setting, that the father/husband has almost supreme authority in all matters of instruction.

Yes, the parent(s) should be the primary teacher or instructor of children, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that parents should be the SOLE teacher of their children. Deuteronomy 6:3-9 is a favorite among the patriarchal movement, but nowhere in that passage does it say that ONLY parents should be teaching their children. Priests were given by the Lord to instruct people in the law. Prophets were called out by God to admonish the people to follow the Lord and His covenant. Synagogues were developed during the Exile, and rabbis came on the scene to teach the people God's laws. Paul was trained by rabbi Gamaliel. Even boy Jesus was bar-Mitzvah-ed; he was conversing with the religious authorities in the Temple at the age of twelve.

There can be a benefit to children hearing "other voices" in support of their parents' instruction. What if the parents' instruction is off the mark scripturally? Would it not be a blessing if that child hears godly, doctrinally solid instruction from some other source over time? Sunday School or other times of instruction do not have to be a substitute or in competition with the parents' instruction at home, but it can be a nice supplement on a level where the children can learn with their peers. After all, we are talking about only an hour each week. If a parent is really concerned about the detrimental effect an hour's instruction will have on their children on a Sunday morning at a church they like and leaders they trust, then what does that say about the value and worth of their own instruction at home during the week? If one hour can possibly "undo" all they do during the week, then I guess what they are doing during the week must not be that hot.

There can be a sense of hypocrisy within the family-integrated church movement. Are not their children learning from a pastor/elder who is teaching and preaching each week? Unless that pastor is his or her own parent, then that child's instruction is coming from someone other than his or her own dad. Within the home school community, where this family-integrated church movement has really taken off, how many of those home school kids are instructed ONLY by their parents? Dance lessons? Piano lessons? Sports teams? Home school co-ops?

I am a family guy, but I want to be known more as the Lord's guy. It has been rightly said that God made Adam before he made Eve. He could have made Eve before Adam; He could have made Adam and Eve at the exact same time. He also could have made the entire family at the same exact time--Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. But He did not do any of those things. He made an individual first. Marriage and family are high up on God's list, but it is the individual that must give an account of himself before God. It is the individual who has sinned and come short of the glory of God. It is the individual sinner that is need of salvation. Ezekiel 18 plainly says that the son will not bear the sins of the father and the father will not bear the sins of the son. It is the individual soul that sins that shall die.

The church is not made up of a "family of families", as one family-integrated prominent advocate has stated. Nowhere do we find that definition of the church in the New Testament. I know of some churches who have "Family" in their name to advertise they are a family-integrated church. I guess that would leave a single man like the apostle Paul feel unwelcomed. In a family-integrated church, are singles made to feel like second-class citizens? Are widows disenfranchised? What do you do with a woman is a new Christian and whose husband is an unbeliever? Send her somewhere else? What do you do if you have an unbelieving family with unruly children? It seems that our Lord Jesus had an easier time interacting with people like that than those refined, cultured religious folks in His day. The woman at the well in Samaria certainly might stick out like a sore thumb, maybe an unwanted sore thumb, at a family-integrated church.

Yes, families are important to God. Marriage and family are God's ideas after all. But a good family life is not a guarantee of anything, nor is a bad family life a guarantee of anything, unless we believe in Christian determinism, an oxymoron if there ever was one. Josiah had a rotten father and grandfather, but he was a righteous person and a great King. Yet, in spite of being raised in a good home environment, Josiah's three sons were evil in the Lord's sight. We should do everything we can in a Christian home to provide the best type of learning environment for our children, but in the final analysis, that child will have to answer for himself before his Creator. (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

When a church defines itself in any other way than CHRIST, it limits its ministry to a people who are just like them. Maybe that church should put CLIQUE after its name. Legalism takes many forms, and there is a tendency in this patriarchal movement toward outward conformity to certain unspoken and spoken expectations, so much so that these families actually look alike. Contrary to what some might think, there is not an eleventh commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to public schools", there is not a twelfth commandment that says, "thou shalt not send thou children to any church age-segregated events", and there is not a thirteenth commandment that says, "thou shalt not dress thou girls in anything but long denim skirts or dresses".

One fault behind the Promise Keepers movement was that it tended to berate dads into believing their wives are nearly always right, and we should bow to their wishes. Wives are sinners and can be wrong at times. The patriarchal movement tends on the other hand to elevate man to a status where he has no accountability. What if that man is abusive with his authority at home? Does the family have a right to seek corrective church discipline, or must they take it on the chin, because the father is untouchable and all-powerful?

I sincerely applaud all that those in this movement have done to highlight some needed changes that need to be made in our homes and churches. We must be careful, though, that we don't impose our individual or family preferences as a law over others. We have a great amount of Christian liberty (Romans 14) in areas where there may be a diverse set of convictions.

A good course for a church to follow is this--allow families to make up their own minds if they want to send their children to age-segregated activities at church or not. Provide options for all. The church surely is not a showcase for self-defined saints; rather, it is a hospital for self-denying sinners. The church is not a place for law to abound; it is a place where grace should abound. The church of Jesus Christ is made of up of redeemed individuals. That is the family of God that will live on throughout eternity.

Praising God for His being such a wonderful Father, I am yours in Christ,

Chris