And so ends the year of our Lord two thousand and four.
Pro-Abortionist Turns Pro-Life
Q. What has happened to nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer who launched the partial-birth abortion controversy?
A. Shafer is a registered nurse and, according to her Web site, she’s currently writing a book. Shafer says she was pro-choice before she worked in a women’s clinic in Ohio in 1993. But, she says, the experience changed her mind and she is now a pro-life advocate. Her book will be called, “What the Nurse Saw and Heard.” She says the book will include her stories as well as those others have shared with her. She is still collecting stories for the book.
For more information on Shafer, visit her Web site at www.whatthenursesaw.com.
Meditations on the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism
A few months ago I wrote a brief blog with a few meditations on the famous first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I thought it would be helpful to make a few more observations. As often as it is recited, it needs at least some further examination.
The purpose of this particular question was to build a theocentric framework on which the entirety of the catechism would be founded. What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to Glorify God and to enjoy Him Forever. To impart any proper meaning to this answer we need to conclude what it does not mean. There are least a few conspicuously erroneous ways to see this. The first would be to assume that to glorify God is a task reserved in the context of ecclesiastical worship. This idea entails that the Sabbath worship is the only time in the week where the body glorifies God. To limit the glorifying of God to the gathering of the saints is a gnostic danger. The second obvious error is to assume that the enjoyment of God is an ethereal and utopian activity reserved for the redeemed in heaven. Any conclusion that entitles the enjoyment of God only to the heavenly people reduces God’s benefits to non-corporeal beings and abuses the reasoning used by the framers of the Confession. The gift of enjoying God is given to earthly redeemed and even to those in the visible church who benefit and sample God’s gifts–but will soon be thrown away from God’s covenant due to disobedience and betrayal (see Hebrews 6; I John 2:19).
In philosophy, there are essentially three questions that are frequently explored. They are the questions of identity, existence, and meaning. They are phrased as follows: Who am I? Why am I here? and What is the meaning of life? This question in the catechism seeks to answer all three of these questions in twelve words. Note that when we respond: “Man’s chief end,” we are assuming that human existence has a purpose (telos). When we say: “is” we also assume that this purpose has already been established, so that the idea of man being the “captain of his fate and the master of his soul” is utterly flawed. It follows thus far that purpose has been determined and that humanity has already been created with an end in mind. There is no such thing as tabula rasa. The slate is not clean, in fact it is already very filthy and the purpose of “purpose” is to destroy any excuse for existential meaninglessness.
But what does it mean “to glorify God?” It is worth to note that this is the chief end of man, not one among many chiefs, but the “chief.” This implies that sinful humanity finds pleasure in other ends. The central idea is that the glory of God is the purpose of existence. Gordon K. Reed notes that “to have one great purpose also gives added significance to all other purposes and goals. This means all we do –working, planning, education, recreation, family life, and even eating and sleeping, have meaning which flows from the one great purpose.” To glorify God is to find fulfillment in all of life. It is to honor Christ in obedience and faith. All this cannot begin to occur until one is drawn irresistibly by the Holy Spirit. The drawing ushers one into a new creation (II Cor. 5:17); a creation where there is purpose and where meaning is secured.
In the glorifying of God we see that humanity is created in His image (Imago Dei) and that humanity was created to reflect their creator. There is no greater form of expression in daily worship than the enjoyment of God. The catechism puts it: …” and enjoy Him forever.” If the glorification of God is the climax of human existence, then the enjoyment of God finds its climax in the means to achieving that purpose. Both to “glorify God” and to “enjoy Him” are inseparable concepts. They are as God’s sovereignty to human responsibility. No one can glorify one they do not enjoy and cherish. But to “enjoy” carries a further concept. It carries the idea of supreme delight. The delight that can never be satiated with simple glimpses or philosophical endeavors, but by embracing one’s life as an infant embraces his mother. This is the purity of pure enjoyment: to realize that there is no true pleasure without the One who gives true pleasure.
A final observation must be made here so that we do not lose a proper and balanced understanding of this stirring command. I am compelled to address the matter of anthropocentrism. It is a common tendency to address theocentrism as the only goal of the Christian life. Hence, because of such a celestial view of life, we have tended to conclude that life is only meaningful when we address our actions and motives to God alone. The problem occurs when we notice that Christ’ s command to enjoy and love human kind is inextricably linked to our enjoyment of God (Matthew 22:38-39). So to glorify God is to love mankind and to enjoy God is to enjoy the Church of God. This questions’ intention is not to divorce our love for one another from our love of God, but to enable us to love one another with even greater depth because of our love for God. This is our purpose and this is why we live.
Biblical Sobriety During Tragedy!
While most of America was singing “Silent Night” in the last few days, Indonesia, Thailand and India were crying TRAGEDY! With the death toll of over 42,000 the world sees the massacre of the biggest earthquake in the last 40 years. Geoscience Australia said the quake, measuring 8.1 on the Richter Scale, hit the Macquarie Rise in the Pacific Ocean at 1.59am (AEDT).
I grieve for the massive amount of people who have died in this recent catastrophe. However, I am conscientious of the use and abuse of these events by current prophecy teachers. In fact, many are declaring that this is a direct fulfillment of Matthew 24: 7: “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.” Is this truly a sign of the end of the church age where Christ will come and rapture his people and consequently inaugurate the seven-year period of tribulation? Amidst much turmoil and despair, I believe the church needs to take a sober look at the text of Scriptures and history and return to grieve for the families of those killed and pray that even in these times the glory of God would be manifested.
In this brief article, Gary Demar explains that recent earthquakes or any others that may come are not signs of future events.
Earthquakes: Are They Signs of the End?
By Gary DeMar
The Asian quake that hit off the Indonesian island of Sumatra on December 26, 2004, was the world’s fifth-largest since 1900 and the biggest since a 9.2 quake hit Prince William SoundAlaska in 1964. The death toll of more than 11,000 in six countries will undoubtedly rise. Prophecy writers are sure to point to this mega-quake as the sign that the “rapture” is near. They will point to Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse that “in various places there will be famines and earthquakes” (Matt. 24:7). How can earthquakes be a sign of the end when devastating earthquakes, even greater than this most recent one, have been recorded for thousands of years? Today’s prophecy “experts” will argue that it’s the increase and magnitude of modern earthquakes that make them significant for determining that we are living in the last days. “The Lord obviously meant earthquakes of unprecedented seismological dimension.”1
Jesus simply says that “in various places there will be famines and earthquakes” (24:7). He says nothing about an increase in their number. Luke writes, “there will be great earthquakes” (Luke 2:11). Jesus was describing signs that led up to the destruction of the temple that would take place before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:33-34). Like famines (Acts 11:28), “great earthquakes” are part of the biblical historical record. Two earthquakes are mentioned in Matthew–when Jesus was crucified (27:54) and when the angel came down to roll the stone away from the tomb where Jesus was buried (28:2). This second earthquake is said to have been “severe.” Acts records “a great earthquake” that shook “the foundations of the prison house” (Acts 16:26). These earthquakes occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Continue reading “Biblical Sobriety During Tragedy!”
Delight in Dominion
The church does not need to wait for a new Constantine for an era of peace. Christians have been ordered to delight and pursue the glories of the kingdom now. The kingdom of God will not be as in heaven until we sense God’s work to be a reflection of His desire for worldwide dominion. Delighting in conquering the world has no relationship to flesh and blood jihad, but it does have to do with spiritual victory over humanism and all forces that would stand against the King of Kings Jesus Christ.
We delight in a cause that is progressively being won. When a soul is regenerated the gospel of the Kingdom is triumphing over darkness. As each soul brings a brighter light to a dark world, God’s kingdom manifests more of its greatness. We delight in dominion because all enemies will be put under Christ’s reign before the nations are delivered to the Father.
Does Republicanism mean Pro-Life?
In an article written a few days ago covenantnews.com related the sad reality of the Republican party. If this party were truly consistent with how evangelicals (who by the way without which the Republicans would have vacated the White House) view the Republican Party, these sorts of articles would never have been written. But the reality is that Christian ethical principles such as LIFE for the UNBORN has not been a priority for this administration. Not only was it proven in the research done by Princeton that under Bush’s administration more babies have been aborted than under Clinton’s administration, but now we cannot be certain if these same statistics will be any different by 2008.
see article on 32 more years of Roe vs. Wade
The Forgotten History of the Pledge of Allegiance
By Gary DeMar
The Pledge of Allegiance is once again in the news. David Habecker, a council member in Estes Park, Colorado, has decided not to stand to say the Pledge because he has a problem with the addition of “under God” to the original version. As a result, there is a recall effort under way. Habecker would be on more solid ground if he had refused to say the Pledge because of its socialist origin. Let me explain.
The earliest version of the Pledge of Allegiance was written in August, 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a newspaperman, who wrote for Youth’s Companion magazine. The original Pledge appeared in the September 8th issue of the magazine and was first recited in public at a Columbus Day program on October 12, 1892, the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s discovery of America. To celebrate the anniversary in a big way, Chicago held the World Columbian Exposition. This was before Christopher Columbus became politically incorrect.
Francis Bellamy, the author of the original Pledge was a Baptist minister. He was the first cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the socialist utopian novels Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). John W. Baer, author of The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892–1992, writes that “it never would have occurred to Francis Bellamy to put ‘under God’ in the Pledge, at least according to what he had to say at the time.” While Bellamy preached sermons on topics such as “Jesus the Socialist” and “The Socialism of the Primitive Church,” over which he lost his pulpit at Bethany Baptist Church in Boston, he believed that religion belonged only in the family and church.
Bellamy believed that universal public education was the great equalizer and remedy for national unity. He saw the Pledge, as it was originally conceived, to by a way for immigrants to adopt a new national identity. “Our fathers in their wisdom knew that the foundations of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education,” Bellamy wrote in a speech. Consider this frightening manifesto from Bellamy:
The free school, therefore, was conceived as the cornerstone of the Republic. Washington and Jefferson recognized that the education of citizens is not the prerogative of church or of other private interest; that while religious training belongs to the church, and while technical and higher culture may be given by private institutions–the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State.
Of course, at the time, public schools were generally Protestant, a carry over from the Puritan heritage of the colonies. With the rising tide of immigration, Roman Catholics became a growing segment of the population. If they sent their children to public schools, they would get Protestant indoctrination. I can remember the first time I attended public school after five years of Catholic elementary schooling. Bible reading and prayer were still said in public schools when I entered the 6th grade in 1961. The Lord’s Prayer was said every morning. But to this Catholic boy, the “Our Father” ended in a way different from the way I had learned it. This Protestant line had been added: “For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”
In order to counter the Protestantism in the public schools, Catholics built their own parish schools guided by Catholic doctrine. Catholic kids who did not go to Catholic school had to go to catechism classes on Saturday morning. To Bellamy, this was not what America was all about. He wanted a national religion that was civic in nature and socialist in principle.
As we’re beginning to see, the Catholics understood the problem, but as the public schools got more secular, that is, less Protestant, Catholics felt it was safe to send their children to what they believed were religiously neutral schools. Boy, were they wrong!
The biggest problem we face as a nation is not whether “under God” is in the Pledge and said in government schools, but the fact that Christians continue to send their children to government schools in the first place. Christian groups are wrangling over “under God” in the Pledge when God has been persona non grata for decades. It’s my dream that one day public schools will be sold to Christian schools for pennies on the dollar. I hope I live to see it happen.
1 Quoted in Terry Mattingly, “The Pledge of Conformity” (July 3, 2002).
The Birth of Jesus Christ
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ [5] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed [6] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
A “Poem” of an atheist named Flew
Once there was an atheist named Flew.He lived many years without a clue.
He thought the earth was random and God was a phantom and man was the product of goo.
But soon Flew realized that the God he denied was the great mastermind of Creation’s design.
Unfortunately ’til this day he refuses to see the true God by whom the heavens were made.
But as for now it will suffice that Flew is no longer tied to atheism’s advice;
for at least now he must realize that God is truly wise for making the world so cool that not even the greatest fool could deny.
for at least now he must realize that God is truly wise for making the world so cool that not even the greatest fool could deny.