Genocide in America

"Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’." ¹

This quote is from a controversial article in The Journal of Medical Ethics, authored by medical ethicists at Oxford University named Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. It made popular rounds on social media sites through an article in The Telegraph. ²

The main point of Drs. Giubilini and Minerva seems to be that imperfect infants should be allowed to be terminated on the basis that they are broken and an “unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.” ¹ In other words, if the human life costs valuable resources to maintain and won’t contribute back to the society in valued, measured ways, the life is not worth enough to maintain and should be allowed to be thrown away without repercussions.

This would target any child with any genetic disease or disorder, like Down syndrome. In the mind of some, these babies cause a drain on society: they live, they don’t work, they don’t contribute, and they suck money away from healthy humans.

-------------------------

Drs. Giubilini and Minerva's opinion is nothing new. Claire Rayner wrote an article in The Independent's Opinion section back in 1995. She states that she wants to give parents the right to choose whether or not they want to burden themselves and others with their baby's syndrome.

"The hard facts are that it is costly in terms of human effort, compassion, energy, and finite resources such as money, to care for individuals with handicaps... People who are not yet parents should ask themselves if they have the right to inflict such burdens on others, however willing they are themselves to take their share of the burden in the beginning. "³

Rayner's argument does not favor the position of those who wish to keep their child. She ends this paragraph with, "The right to choose implies the duty to choose as unselfishly as possible, surely?" ³

This implication will undoubtedly become an expectation if after-birth abortion comes into effect, especially if language like "if [parents] have the right to inflict" is used. That phrase casts blame on the parents who are willing to keep a disabled child, as they are allowing their child to inflict others with the child’s less-than-perfect existence. It won't be long before their decision to keep their baby is frowned upon by the general masses rather than pitied.

The medical world has a knack for catching the attention of the media, for good or ill. In this regard, politicians and pro-abortionists will play this angle and prey on ill-informed fears and misconceptions by claiming that disabled children take valuable resources from healthy children; your healthy children. We are all directly or indirectly affected by the "unbearable burdens" of disabled children.

-----------------------

The most alarming aspect of the article by Drs. Giubilini and Minerva is that it doesn't just stop at babies with health issues. “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” ¹

This is where the pro-abortionists seem to depart from their original claims. Most in favor of abortion claim that killing fetuses is not like killing a person because the baby is dependent on the mother and therefore not a separate being. Once the child is born, it ceases to become a "choice" and becomes a human. The pro-abortionists believe that life can be forfeit even after the child is brought to term on the basis that a child is human, but not a person with automatic values and rights.

"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal."¹

"Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’."¹

'Merely being human' extends to an alarming number of people when brought to its full logical context.

----------------

What’s next? Our country would save millions of dollars of funding by stopping research on Alzheimer’s patients and “compassion killing” those patients instead. After all, the sick and elderly eat away at our medical costs and they hardly provide useful substance to our society. According to the logic of Drs. Giubilini and Minerva, sick elderly patients and the mentally disturbed might not even be considered persons. They define a ‘person’ as “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” ¹ Will the sick and elderly be denied a say in the matter and treated as infants on the basis that they do not offer "basic value"?

In the 1800's, slave owners enslaved and murdered the Africans on the basis that they were less than human. In the 1900's, the Nazis blamed the economic distress of Germany on the "genetically impure" Jews, who were then systematically murdered. In the 2000's, the world murders innocent children in the womb and considers murdering newborns on the basis that a baby is only a "potential person" and not an "actual person". How far will we go? Who will determine what makes a human a "person" with a "moral right to life"?

There are whole foundations dedicated to remembering the horror behind the genocide committed by our forefathers, and yet the idea of after-birth abortion is proposed and seriously considered. Humans are repeating history by making the same basic mistake of devaluing a human's life and finding that to be a good enough reason to kill him.

As Dr. Cox states so eloquently in the Scrubs Pilot episode, "Pumpkin, that's modern medicine. Bureaucratic nightmares, paperwork out the a--, and advances that keep people alive who should have died years ago, back when they lost what made them people." ⁴

---------------------

What will our country do about the after-birth abortion proposition? How will the medical community respond in the next few years? The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Prof. Julian Savulescu, said, "The journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal."² This is a good point, and it's not clear if he intended to make this point or not. If our country responds and says that after-birth abortion is horrible, then shouldn't that negate the logic behind abortion?

Abortion has always been political and it has ultimately been about convenience and money. There are two things that I've noticed about the articles by Drs. Giubilini and Minerva and Claire Rayner: they both come down to defining these children as unacceptable burdens, and they are not the original proponents of after-birth abortion.

These people did not come up with their ideas all by themselves. In fact, their ideas can be chillingly logical if viewed from the mindset that life without acceptable purpose is not to be valued. You will find some extremely consistent people who believe genetically imperfect babies should be terminated, the sick should be put down, and the elderly disposed of. This is nothing new.

So where do we draw the line? Can our country continue to believe that it can both value life and destroy it? We will find that we must accept all or nothing. What after-birth abortion comes down to is this: A child is not worth protecting if it somehow doesn't have the potential to aid those who decide its fate.

The world has never deteriorated into this mindset. It has always been hypocritical: it will protect three-legged puppies and turn around to murder the Down syndrome baby. The people who propose murder will always consider that their good fortune -- their sound, reasoning mind -- is somehow their own doing, as if they created themselves in their mother's womb and now have the right to decide the fate of children in the wombs of others.

Let this article serve as a warning to us. The world has always found ways to commit the same evil under a different name by blaming the victims. This name is now known as "after-birth abortion". Don't be fooled -- it is nothing less than genocide. The question is: will you fight it?

Resources:

¹Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" Journal of Medical Ethics (2012). http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

² Stephen Adams, "Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say." The Telegraph (2012). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

³ Claire Rayner, "ANOTHER VIEW: A duty to choose unselfishly. " The Opinion section of The Independent (1995). http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/another-view-a-duty-to-choose-unselfishly-1588540.html

⁴ "Simply Scripts: Scrubs Pilot." http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/scrubs-pilot.pdf

Discouraging Evil: Why?

I've been contemplating why it's important to discourage evil in our society. I see so much dissension among political, religious, or socio-economic groups when it comes to questions of morality. I try to navigate through these murky waters by standing true to what I know is Truth, what I know is God's expectation. But though I know it, and I live it with Jesus' help, the rest of the world around me crumbles into darkness. I want to shed a ray of light, but it's overwhelming to think of fighting a popular opinion when you know you'll be crucified for it. It's times like these that Satan will sneak in and say the dreaded W word to me: Why?

Why should we fight something when people are so passionate about sinning? Does it really make a difference whether we allow something like divorce, porn, or gay marriage to exist in our society? After all, people will sin. People will have adulterous affairs whether we discourage it or not. What harm does it do to make it (it being anything sinful) socially acceptable as long as we as Christians don't encourage it or allow it to permeate our lifestyles? It's not like we're killing anybody. If it's something really serious, like abortion, then we'll take a stand.

"It's not like" are probably the most dreaded words after "why". They stem directly from complacency and apathy. When we stop caring what the world around us reflects, we stop caring about the way the world reflects God. God created this world, and though God is not responsible for the sin in this world, a huge reason against believing in a loving God is "Why?" -- Why would God let this happen if He were so good and loving?

God is reflected through His people, which is one huge reason why it's so important that Christians must not be hypocritical and reverently follow God's standards. But if Christians stop there -- if they think that holiness is extended only inwardly, toward the self, then their efforts to make a positive impact on this world may very well be twisted into selfishness. What starts off as a pure desire to serve God might become warped and turn into an external action that serves to bolster the internal desires of the individual. It gives way to the belief that one must "prove" one's holiness by acting holy.

This is what Jesus warns us against in Matthew 6:1-4

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who ses what is done in secret, will reward you."

and again in Matthew 23:23

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness."

Our desire to give of ourselves should be a natural reaction to the fullness we have in Christ. Pslam 23:5 says "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over." When our cups run over with God's love, we can't help but bleed tears out of our hearts for the lost. The holiness God grants us reaches outwards to others.

Our basis for doing good should not be simply about "following orders", it should be about compassion: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. We must be aware that Satan is constantly attacking our motives. If we fall into the trap of believing that our good works are to satisfy some pre-ordained quota by God, then what is our motivation for fighting evil? If we do not have compassion for those who fall into evil, then our external motivation to fight turns inward, and we think of only how the world's evil will affect us -- me and mine. Some even excuse the evil because of this lie: "Allowing this will only affect the people who participate in it." No, not true.

Allowing evil will inevitably affect all people, because it is a poison to an already sinful society.

I am reminded of a disturbing article I just read about the Ashley Madison internet dating site that is specifically for married people to look for a partner to enter into adultery. The founder and operator of the site, Noel Biderman, said one of the most disturbingly "logical" things I have heard in a long time:

"Biderman is quick to explain why his business isn't hurting anyone. "You eradicate Ashley Madison, you're not going to eradicate infidelity. That's what allows me to sleep at night," he says. "If you think that all affairs happen on Ashley Madison, you're very naive. The majority happen in the workplace. People are thrust together, that's where they happen." In that context, Biderman likes to argue, affairs can be much more damaging, by causing meltdowns at work, becoming public, and blowing up marriages. Ashley Madison and its clandestine, more transactional approach, he says, is actually a marriage saver, a public service of a kind." (bold inserts mine.) Article called Cheating Inc. written by Sheelah Kolhatkar, found at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41583762/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/?gt1=43001

Why fight this? It's true, isn't it? Some married people will commit adultery, whether this internet site exists or not. What is the real damage that it is doing? According to Noel Biderman, it's not causing damage, it's actually helping save marriages. His logic is simply that people are programmed for sex, and if they are not satisfied in their marital relationship, it is way too messy to divorce, especially if the "business transaction" side of the marriage is working fine. The best option is to sleep with someone willing, but keep the marriage bubble intact. People will be much happier for it, because as he is quoted saying in this article, "Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment."

(I'd hate to be that guy's wife.)

This is how Satan works. He points out a flaw in society and shows you how unreasonable it is to expect anyone to actually follow some "golden standard" by a god that may or may not even exist. He then attempts to get you to accept that this "flaw" isn't a flaw at all, it's just an unfortunate bias of society that will change with time. The real flaw is people hindering the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.

I can't help but think of this passage and pity Biderman:

Matthew 18:7

"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

He might see his business as harmless and opportunistic, but he is making it easier for people to be tempted by their carnal passions and end up in hell. True, I cannot blame every adulterer on Biderman. He is right that they would most likely commit adultery through another means. When there is a will, there is a way. But the damage he is causing through his methods of stealthiness, lies and his encouragement of evil is destroying his soul as well as the souls of countless others. The temptation garnered by easy sex and the prospect that "everyone else is doing it" is too strong for people without Christ.

Partner-hopping humans has been a problem even in Jesus' time. The Samaritan woman at the well is an example of this. She desired to fill that hole in her heart with men, and she could not. It is heartbreaking. Is it horrible, and completely inexcusable? Yes. But it is also heartbreaking. These people are hurting. They do not know Christ, and Satan is waging war on them so that they will never be receptive to the idea that life without their pleasure and happiness is a life worth living. We must pray for them, and we must fight against evil and injustice.

Christians are instructed to be the light of the world, to be the hands and feet of Christ, and to serve the needy and lost. It is difficult to see anyone as poor outside of the socio-economic class structure. In truth, all people lacking Jesus are lacking abundant life. These people are poor in spirit, which is much worse than being poor on a monetary level. When evil is allowed to flourish, then these lost people tend to embrace it as acceptable, or desirable, which will further destroy their spirit. What should we do to help?

As Jesus so boldly proclaims in Luke 4:18-19, quoting Isaiah 61:

"The Spirit of the Lord on me,

because he has anointed me

to preach good new to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to release the oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Oh God, that you would give us your holy compassion!

Why should we fight? If you are lacking a passionate answer, may God transform your heart. If you have an answer, may God embolden you to fight.

The Taboo Words: Submit and Obey (Part 1)

The most taboo words I ever heard as a woman growing up were “submit” and “obey”, both of which are frequently used to describe the good Christian wife. The modern female American hates those words. If she does not hate them, she must be controlled by a religious chauvinist pig. As usual, society has a warped idea of what those words mean and react in an unbiblical manner to eradicate them from our lives. Some of my family is very worried that my husband will be very controlling and that I will have no say in the marriage. When I explain that a man and wife always discuss things when they disagree and come to an answer that way, they say "that sounds good, but what about when you still don't agree? Who makes the decision then?" They've got a problem with the man having a final say, or authority, in a relationship. This kind of attitude is not limited to my family; this attitude is throughout America. What changed in our society to make it normal for a woman to lead a relationship? What kind of falsehoods permeate our brains to make women believe all men are inept at leading and are only power-hungry fools?

America believes that every man, woman, and child are created equally regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, etc. This statement itself is ridiculous, but the intent behind it is not. Every human on this earth is equally important in God's eyes -- we were all, man and woman, created in God's image, and if any one of us sins and does not ask for redemption we will go to Hell. That is how we are equal. But to say "we are created equally" means that women can be just as strong as men and men can bear children. These are physical impossibilities, of course. Likewise, there are universally marked differences between a man and woman's behavior. Women tend to be more compassionate, more motherly, more emotionally-driven. Men tend to be more logical, more assertive, more of a leader. Now, not ALL women are like that and not ALL men have those qualities, and oftentimes a woman can be both compassionate and assertive, or a man can be both a leader and emotionally-driven. This is no secret; I am merely stating the pattern of male and female behavior from the past several thousand years.

Women's liberation believes women should be able to do all the things men do, and that includes having equally important careers and leadership roles. I agree that women were being held back from their potential and treated unfairly; however, the kinds of ideas that came out of women's lib are far from Christ-like. Women's lib believes that women are equal to men the way the statement makes it sound; if men can do it, women can do it too and should, often at the cost of losing the qualities that make a woman "womanly". While it is true that many women are capable leaders and think logically, it is a falsehood to assert that every woman should be expected to cast aside all qualities of womanhood and become a female in a man's role. This has lead to generations of confused women who are attempting to usurp the men and "do it all" by raising the kids and working the high-brow career. The social shift has only begotten generations of inept males and dissatisfied women who, instead of fighting for their rights as women, fought for their rights to be exactly like a man. This is far from liberating.

Why did most women fall into this trap? I believe there are three big sinful motivations for women coveting the man’s position:

Lust for Power. The Original Sin was lust for power. The only thing Adam and Eve did not have, as Satan put it, was the ability to "be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Be like God, huh? What did that mean for Eve? Did that mean she could elevate her status? She wanted Adam to partake in eating the apple as well, but what was her motivation? I wonder if she wanted Adam to share in the power with her or if she simply did not want to be alone in her sin. She and Adam were perfectly balanced in their roles as man and wife, so she did not feel the need to usurp Adam; no, she wanted more power, more authority, and the only way to do this was to be like God. After the fall, God cursed Eve with this dreaded text in Genesis 3:16: “Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Oh no! So with sin in the picture, relationships are now inevitably unbalanced. Man has the authority, the power, and women will always want that power, but they will always want the male too. This leads to the next situation.

Fear. Since the men have the power over the woman, some women are afraid that the man will abuse his responsibilities and manipulate the situation so he can keep the woman down. With sin in the picture, this is a very likely scenario. It has happened too many times to count. When women hear about this kind of unfairness and abuse, it makes them want to change something. Here is the next situation.

Dissatisfaction in male leadership. Just as Eve lusted after power, Adam sinned by refusing to counsel her against her sin, joining her in it, and then blaming her for his indiscretions. Does this sound familiar? Many men have proven themselves to be incapable leaders, especially politicians or church leaders and their sexual affairs. After so much failure a woman wants to fix the situation. Instead of encouraging the males in the godly way, many women nagged them to the point of discouraging them from ever wanting to lead properly. Once these tactics failed, those women decided that men are bad at leading and they should do it themselves.

While these fears are often valid, the ways women usurp men is wrong. Society began to turn in favor of the dissatisfied woman and made men the brunt of the jokes. Men are now portrayed as lazy, inept, and perverted who are only good for bringing in some income, lifting heavy boxes, and making babies. Men are good-for-nothings in today’s society. They are easy to manipulate, nag, and seduce, and that is the way many women like them: easily controllable.

Now women have what they worked so hard to achieve, and they find out they are unhappy in their current situation. This is not surprising to me. In my next blog, I will discuss what a Christian marriage should look like in terms of authority and submission. Why are men the ones to lead? What does it mean to lead? What does it mean to submit? If women are not leading, what are they to do? I will answer these questions within Biblical context.

Modesty = Selflessness

I just read this recently from a fellow blogger: Modesty is a virtue. She described modesty according to its definition and encouraged her readers to think of it as more than just the way we dress. I completely agree with her. Modesty, by its definition is: “freedom from conceit or vanity; propriety in dress, speech, or conduct” (Merriam-Webster online dictionary). So why is it only seen as an undesirable way of dressing rather than a state of being?

Many women have the unfortunate habit of basing their worth on their looks; consequently, they are enslaved by vanity and conceited behavior. While this has been a troublesome area for women for many centuries, it became externally apparent through their immodest dress during the sexual revolution. Men and women alike were embracing their sexual drives before their marriages; as a result, other women started to feel pressured to be more physically involved with their male counterparts, because “everyone was doing it”. This led to the idea of the sexually alluring woman, who dressed very skimpily in order to attract a male. Many women sought after this look because they believed men expected it; many men expected it after women lowered their standards and catered to their physical needs before marriage. Soon enough it became the new standard and the media played off of it. The desirable woman embraced her sexual side before marriage and let every willing man lust after her revealed body.

The sexual revolution of the 1960’s was also accompanied by the rebellious teenagers disillusioned with the Vietnam War and their parents’ archaic ways. Any sort of association with the past seems to have been cast aside for an immediate pleasure like sex, drugs, and rebellion. The standards of the proper 1950’s and the morality-preaching church were mocked and discarded. Over time propriety seems to have been thrown out the window, as was the idea of chivalry and modesty. These ideas have stayed and worsened until now and they must change before they get worse.

I will discuss how Christians, particularly women, should view the topic of modest clothing and the mindset accompanying it. This used to be a real struggle for me until Christ took over my life. I would always try to find loopholes based around my own insecurities and selfish desires. I am grateful to God for changing my mind and heart so that I am a blessing to my brothers in Christ rather than a temptation.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Timothy 2:9-10

The modest mindset. As stated in the above verses, the focal point of a woman’s life should not be material possessions and looks, but Godly things like good works. A woman should first seek the welfare of others before concentrating on her appearance. This includes taking care of her family and the less fortunate. I do not believe it is a sin for women to braid their hair or wear a wedding ring or buy jewelry. I do think money is often wasted on overly expensive jewelry and clothing, which instead could be used to sustain the family and give to various ministries. I believe modest apparel stands for both the quality of clothing and the cut of it. It all comes down to intentions and selflessness when deciding what is appropriate to wear.

Luke 12:23 “For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” What is the point of having designer clothes? It is typically a status symbol for people to feel proud of. I have bought some designer clothes at a highly reduced price because they are better made and better fitting than others, but my intention is not for pride’s sake. What is the point of showing cleavage, midriff, or upper legs? Most women do this because they are insecure and want to be viewed as a sex object. I do not ever think it is appropriate to willingly show skin in those areas. Sometimes things will make our modest dress immodest for a moment, like the wind blowing our skirts up or our cami’s slipping down, but those situations are fleeting accidents.

But how can we discern what is appropriate without feeling like we must wear shapeless blobs to cover up our God-given beauty? This is where the selflessness comes in. Would you ever go up to a male friend in just your underwear? No? Why not? It would very likely cause them to stumble, or be tempted to think about you in an inappropriate manner, or even to sin. I don’t believe you want the sins of another on your head. Do not EVER cause a male to feel like you, as a Christian sister, are a temptation. You know what men find attractive about the female form. So don’t display it, any of it.

It’s not my fault men look at me! I don’t ask for it! Unfortunately, animalistic men do find something about every woman to lust about, whether you intended them to or not. But if you are using this excuse to wear mini-skirts (as I used to do) then you are living in ignorance. What is your intention if you are not trying to get men to lust after you? Are you just trying to fit in with society and fashion? That doesn’t work well if you plan to follow Jesus. James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Ouch.

What about special events or bathing suits? Do not change your values based on a special event or pool party. If you would not walk up to a male friend in just your knickers, don’t walk up to him in a bikini or inappropriate bathing suit. Do you plan to be modest for every night except Prom Night? It is difficult to find dresses that cater to modesty, but that is no excuse. There are things to insert in a dress that shows cleavage, shawls to wear around strapless gowns, and the power to just say no to skimpy clothing. If you can’t fix it to make it modest, don’t buy it. It’s as simple as that.

What about other cultures and societies? Personally, I don’t know much about the dress codes of different societies. If you are going somewhere on a missions trip I would urge you to not change your values based on geography.

My family thinks it’s immodest for a woman to wear pants. I have heard different reasons for why a woman should wear pants. Some say it is unfeminine to wear pants and some say it is not good for a woman to reveal the shape of her legs. I just say treat your legs like any other part of your body; not too short, not too tight, and not too revealing. I love to wear skirts, but if a woman is wearing pants specifically meant for a woman I don’t see anything inappropriate about it. If she were wearing pants meant for a man then I would urge her against it. If you are still under your parents’ authority (or your husband’s) you should honor their rules. There’s nothing wrong with wearing only skirts and dresses.

How can men stay modest? Men should be examples of modesty to encourage the women in their lives to also be modest. Their mindsets as men of Christ should be selfless as well, and their dress should reflect that. Men should take care in displaying their body around women; women are just as attracted to the male figure as men are attracted to the female figure. If a man would not go shirtless to church, I would advise him not to go shirtless in a pool. There’s just no need for it. Men should also take care in not wearing another too short, too tight, or too revealing (especially of the arms and midriff). I do not believe men should wear clothing designated for a woman.

It is possible for women to feel beautiful and wear stylish clothing in complete modesty every day, as well as prom night. It takes a little bit of effort and a whole lot of resolve. The world will tell you “you’re unfashionable, weird, and repressed by ineffective church rules” – don’t listen! Always remember that modesty is a mindset and reflects itself in your Christ-like external appearance and good works.

No Greater Love

I have no hesitation in saying that the plot of this poem was inspired directly by God a year and a half ago. I did not know how to "get it out", so to speak, so I settled on writing a poem. One day I would love to make a novel or play out of it, but I would rather this important and controversial topic stay in the limelight now. Human life is too precious to avoid or put off until more "convenient" times. I hope and pray that this poem will raise important issues and provide an opportunity for self-reflection for all of my readers. Soli Deo Gloria.


No Greater Love

A godlier couple none could find here
than the young Whittingers, wholesome and true.
Obeying the Lord through His holy grace,
they worshiped the Trinity through and through.

The wife was Lorelei, a priceless gem,
a woman of many faith-filling deeds,
She served her town in Christ's manner of love
and fulfilled all of her dear husband's needs.

Jakob, the husband, a God-fearing man,
served humbly with love to all in his life
His example revealed the heart of Christ;
submission to God and loving his wife.

Their love was selfless like medieval tales,
full of purity, honor, and strength too,
All who witnessed their gentle caresses
knew with no doubt true love sustained and grew.

Overjoyed were their hearts with the good news
that young Lorelei's womb carried a child,
a new life the Whittingers yearned to raise
with tender love and Truth undefiled.

Every morning and night Jakob knelt down
to tenderly kiss the still growing life.
He'd whisper "We love you and the Lord too"
and lovingly embrace his glowing wife.

The time came for the doctor's first visit
to check the baby and Lorelei's health
"Everything's fine and the baby is safe,
all’s according to plan -- you're well yourself."

The loving couple held hands and smiled
praising the Lord for the blessings bestowed
for knowing all good things come from above,
humbles the heart and helps faith down the road.

The second big visit for them came 'round
and this time the news was not quite so good
"I'm sorry – you’re fine but your child is not;
The life it will lead is not what it should."

The worried couple linked arms and replied,
"Our child was just fine, how bad can this be?
What changed for worse, was it something we did?"
"No, this disease is Trisomy 18."

With compassion the doctor continued,
"Your child’s life will be lacking much mirth,
the heart, mind, kidneys will fail in a year,
or else the child will die before birth."

"There is a difficult choice to be made,
keep or abort the child, but it will die."
With pity, he left the couple in peace,
to adjust to the horrid news and cry.

At once to their Savior they prayed in tears,
"Lord Jesus, take this soul if it’s Your will,
we will praise you even then – but please Lord,
heal our baby and give life to fulfill!"

The next time the doctor came they answered,
"We cannot in good faith abort this child,
there is always hope for a miracle,
giving up would be our faith defiled."

The doctor understood and prepared them,
and encouraged them to take it in stride
for many expectations could go wrong,
but his promise was to be by their side.

"Thank you, dear doctor, the Lord bless your life,
we love your honesty and compassion.
Whether or not this child is to die,
we will still live in a holy fashion."

So the Whittingers pressed on, still joyful,
tainted by the unknown of tomorrow,
they sang to their child and prayed for life,
though their hearts wept in expectant sorrow.

"Have faith," their friends told them, hugging them hard,
"Disease is cruel but the Lord has seen worse."
"Thank you for your support, but we have faith,
our reality just plagues like a curse."

Lorelei would not shop without Jakob
she could not bear to meet strangers alone,
she fought temptation to covet children
and held back tears with her mom on the phone.

"Blessed wife, take strength in the Lord's vast grace,
and please find comfort in my loving arms,
I love you no matter what happens here,
and I'll protect your heart from Satan's charms."

"Oh husband, I thank you for your support,
the love you shower on me and our babe,
I praise God daily, for you are a gift,
a fine father you'll make on that great day."

The embraced couple rained tears from their eyes,
mixed with joy, sorrow, and expectant prayers.
They prayed God would take away the child's pain
for they did not know how her comfort fared.

Days turned to weeks and the weeks into months
Lorelei felt pains and she was doctored
"It’s too premature for the baby's time,
a tear in the placenta has occurred."

He said, with a grave look, wringing his hands,
"Rethink abortion, she’s destined to die,
this is my firm medical opinion
for I fear this birth may claim your wife."

"Faithless men dictate this with their logic,
what says your heart, my dear doctor, my friend?"
He could not face such an angel in pain
he gave them some names of women in mend.

The first woman was once in a like state,
but aborted with sorrow and resolve.
"He was brain dead and bad was my health,
I have three children whose lives I revolve."

"Did you regret it?" asked Lorelei still,
"Yes, but if in vain I gave birth and died,
my husband would have a brain dead child
no wife to raise him, no heart for a bride."

The next woman could not bear to abort.
Her child lived for nearly two long years
before the poor parents were left to grieve,
"But truth be told, my health was not a fear."

Conflicted, she thought “what would Jesus do?”
She wept and considered his sacrifice,
"Lord, give me faith to do as you command,
for with holy blood you paid for our lives."

With peace she spoke to her loving husband,
"My darling, I know now what I must do.
We cannot allow doubt to hinder us."
"I agree, love, no abortion for you."

Then suddenly, an unbearable pain
seized her and brought her shaking to her knees,
"Jakob, love, the baby is arriving!"
He pulled her upright quick and grabbed the keys.

He rushed to the hospital and ran in,
she was screaming, shuddering and too pale,
"Somebody, please help us! Get the doctor,
My wife's in pain!" he explained in a wail.

The staff rushed to her side with a wheelchair,
"Breathe, Lorelei, breathe, everything's all right,"
The doctor ran to them with a clean smock,
ready to help her deliver all night.

The painful labor and horrible cries
seemed difficult at too early a stage.
Jakob prayed to God for a miracle,
for his wife was lost in a pain-filled daze.

Whimpers and blood poured quick out of her now
with no sign of a child, dead or alive.
They planned a C-Section to help them through
for at this rate neither one would survive.

The doctor came outside, shielding his voice,
"Jakob, I have terrible news," he cried,
"I can save one but the other will die.
Tonight, right now, you will have to decide."

He fell to his knees, hands raised to Heaven,
"Father, hear my plea! This I cannot do!
Do not ask me to pick my wife or child,
They are my life! Choose for me Lord, please choose."

He lay weeping and prostrate on the floor
Lifting his prayers up above when he heard
A singular voice, strong and determined,
Passionately spoke only these three words:

"Save my child! Save my child!"

War of the Philosophers

War of the Philosophers

My dear sire, I must confess
I find your case ridiculous
You claim there's truth that's absolute
but all these things I can refute.

For instance, take that maple tree
Its size is relative to me.
Decisions based on what I see
help make me act accordingly.

If I see no tree, very well
It does not live within my realm
with no evidence, why believe?
unless shown to the contrary

It's truth to me, can I be blamed
for ignorance's wily claims?
My truth may yet be wrong for you,
You stubbed the tree with your left shoe.

You believe from experience
A real run-in with providence.
Denied I was this lofty claim
So shall I rot in sinful shame?

Nay, that would be illogical.
How can God choose to lose my soul?
He would present Himself to me
if He wanted me to believe.

Well, what have you to say to me?
Is there an argument to see?

Sir, I have listened to your speech
I find relative thought quite bleak.
You would suggest that faith is sight
So by your claims, darkness is light

As long as you believe it so
consequences are what you know.
I cannot fathom death at all
Might I jump off Niagara Falls?

I will not taste pain, fear or death
for I don't see its existence.
But methinks we can all agree;
Death is set for every being.

Furthermore, what of the statement
"No absolutes; all truth is bent"
With your own reasoning you prove
your logic lives in absolutes.

You claim disbelief in my Lord
because He shows no neon board.
But tell me, if you have not seen
How do you know you don't believe?

After all, how can man doubt trees
if desert plain is all he sees?
Perhaps I instilled thought of God
But morality is the Law

All humans first know right from wrong
before singing subjective song
Surely the thought does not exist
Unless a force presented it.

So forgive me as I say with glee
Your relative truth is absolutely unrelative to me.

The Respectables vs. The Revolutionaries: Tools of the Evil One

A peer of mine asked me recently if I had any thoughts about why society is so messed up. I have a lot to say about how society is messed up, but admittedly, I have never discussed in satisfactory detail why it has become this way. Both of us acknowledged that the easy and true answer is "Satan", but we want to delve deeper into the methods and tools used by Satan to motivate people to continue living in such a fallen world. This way we will be more informed and successfully counteract Satan’s attacks. I will attempt to answer this very difficult question as the Lord inspires me. Hopefully I can skim the surface -- this may yet become my lifelong search and question that I attempt to answer.

Society is influenced by the leaders or the more respected people.

During a given period in history there has always been one group in each culture esteemed as "The Respectables". I will define this word as I perceive it: a person or persons whose thinking holds sway over the masses. Their ideologies are cast, sometimes forcibly, among the people and become the new "norm". Here is my definition of "norm": the predominant belief system of the majority of the people regarding politics, morality, equality, and society; anyone straying from this (the "revolutionaries") is seen as dangerous, uncultured, and wrong. "Revolutionaries" are thus: a minority group who disagree with or distrust the Respectables and seek to turn the norm in their favor.

Once the Revolutionaries gain ground on the Respectables, the norm starts to change into the belief system of the revolutionaries. We see this over and over again in history. The Nazis were considered the Respectables in their country until they were overthrown by the change-seeking Revolutionaries. The church in the Middle Ages discouraged any sort of intellectualism until they were overthrown by the Enlightenment, who were in turn overthrown by another movement who reacted against the beliefs of the Enlightenment. Slavery was considered acceptable until a group of people took a stand against it.

I believe you understand my gist without me citing valid historical documents. Forgive me if my statements above are incorrect (better yet -- correct me!), but those are common and brief history lessons easily found in any textbook. One day I would like to research these in more depth, but I will ask you to call upon your history lessons of old in order to keep this blog short.

In any case, there is a pull for power from either end of the political, social, and moral spectrum. Imagine Power itself as a game of Tug-of-War; one side will be winning, the other side will fight back until they are both on equal ground, and then the other side will inevitably win. But the power struggle continues, as the winner's prize is to fight the next contestant who comes along. Power is not like Gumby, who can be stretched equally in any direction. Look at how at the Scriptures point to a tug-of-war for balance.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
¹There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
²A time to give birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
³A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
⁴A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn and a time to dance.
⁵A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
⁶A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
⁷A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.
⁸A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace.

The leaders are often influenced by Satan and sin.

What motivates these fighting groups to start the war for Power? Most of the time it is for such sins as Pride (more fame), Greed (more spoil), or Envy (more land), but occasionally there are those valiant Freedom Fighters who yearn to release the oppressed from their chains of bondage. Perspective has a lot to do with this as well; the Nazis argued that they were oppressed by the Jews, so they decided to rid themselves of a problem. For the sake of argument, let us all agree that when I say "valiant", I mean it in the Godly way -- so no, my perspective would never suggest that the Nazis are heroes. Quite the opposite, actually. As we are all aware, those with valiant hearts who set the enslaved free will taste brief victory -- sometimes for their lifetime or for a few generations -- but inevitably, those who come after them will become the Slave Drivers instead of the Freedom Fighters. The cycle continues. Our world will never see peace.

Here is an example of a successful man of God who was succeeded by his evil son, who was in turn succeeded by an evil son -- both of whom seduced God's chosen people to sin.
[Hezekiah] did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done. He removed the high places and broke down the sacred pillars and cut down the Asherah He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the sons of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan. He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him. And the LORD was with him; wherever he went he prospered. And he rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 2 Kings 18:3-5, 7
[Manaasseh] did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. 2 Kings 21:2-3

Is humanity lost to its sin? Will the winnings of the valiant and brave be forever corrupted by the villainy of men until Christ comes again?

We know Satan holds sway over this world -- for now.
Ephesians 2:1-2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Revelation 2:12-13 "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this: 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is; and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

Revelation 20:2-3 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

We know that humans seem to be doomed to repeat history (because they never learn from their sin, not because God wants it this way!)
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
⁹That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
¹⁰Is there anything of which one might say,
"See this, it is new"?
Already it has existed for ages
Which were before us.
¹¹There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance
Among those who will come later still.

Judges 3:7-9, 12-13, 15 and 4:1 ⁸Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, so that He sold them into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia; and the sons of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years. ⁹When the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for the sons of Israel to deliver them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. ¹²Now the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD So the LORD strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the LORD. ¹³And he gathered to himself the sons of Ammon and Amalek; and he went and defeated Israel, and they possessed the city of the palm trees. ¹⁵But when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. ¹Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, after Ehud died. (this just keeps going. . . )
The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth.

So if sin, or disobedience to God, is the reason why humans will never have world peace, why won't they just wise up and stop sinning?! Well, you'd think that the knowledge of a loving Savior who forgives and cleanses us from sin would be enough. You'd think the Good News would actually sound good to people instead of sounding like an unfashionable trap. But then again, people often underestimate the seducing power of the Respectables and their Norm.

My next blog will discuss the root of the problem, sin, and how Satan uses his tools to make sin seem more important than obeying God.