We are reading and discussing Greg Ogden's book Transforming Discipleship in our Monday morning men's group at the moment. This morning we were discussing the author's thoughts on why there is not a clear focus on discipleship in most evangelical churches, even those that do some amount of talking about discipleship. We only got through the first of 8 potential reasons in the book today, but the discussion did help clarify some thoughts I have also wondered about in regards to why the megachurch has arisen in the past 25 years or so, and why more recently there have been changes to more of a 'worship' focus (I put 'worship' in quotes because the focus is mostly on music, and 'worship leaders' are music leaders; this strikes me as a very limited view of worship). In the book, one of the reasons for lack of discipleship in churches is that pastors have been diverted from their primary calling of' equipping the saints for the work of ministry. Rev. Ogden sees this issue as being that both pastors and members see pastoral care of the members as the top role of pastors. Our discussion this morning concluded that we in our small group felt this was true of an older generation (that fits with my observations of my parents generation); that my generation, though, has viewed preaching as the key role for pastors, and that my childern's generation sees worship as the key role for pastors. Not the only role, but the key role, for each of these.
It seems to me that the rise of preaching as the key role instead of pastoral care helps explain the rise of the mega-church. Smaller churches, such as my parents saw as the norm, were much better at pastoral care and were more accepting of mediocre preaching. My generation has been more demanding of excellent preaching, and then willing to accept the less personal pastoral care situation of a mega-church in return. My children seem much more interested in the worship experience.
None of this, however, makes discipleship the key role of the pastor and the local church. All of it, in all 3 of the generations mentioned, seems to be consumer oriented, though the targeted item for consumption has been changing.
One comment in the book hints at this when he observes that (p. 39 in my edition) 'in fact, the majority of participants in the (church) view their membership as optional, not a necessity for living by its principles'. That has also been striking to me in recent years; as churches become 'community churches', instead of specific denominations, membership is de-emphasized and viewed as optional. I see this 'church as optional' viewpoint more and more, first in my generation and more so in my children's generation, and this strikes me as another indication of our consumer mentality. The church is not a community of disciples depending on each other to be developing 'self-initiating, reproducing, fully devoted followers of Christ' (his description of a 'disciple'), it is rather an optional consumer good. This has a lot of causes, from membership being devalued by accepting anyone who walks down the aisle as a 'member' to wanting to be 'seeker sensitive', but to me it also shows how very engrained the consumer mentality has become in all of us.
Of course, there are varying degrees of consumerism among people. Seeing Christianity as 'fire insurance' in which we seek to be 'covered' but only just enough to be be safe is a classic example. This often shows up as CEO Christians (Christmas and Easter Only). That is not my concern here. The concern is that most churches, even if they say that their mission is to make disciples, end up making preaching,worship, or pastoral care their focus. All of those miss the point of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Daniel Boone, the Appalchians, and a certain kind of man
As I rode the airplane to Wisconsin this week I began reading Boone by Robert Morgan, a biography of Daniel Boone. The Fess Parker version of Boone on TV was the myth I grew up with, but he was also still talked about by my dad and the folks where my dad grew up in eastern Kentucky. My dad's hometown, Williamsburg, KY, is along the Cumberland River not far from Cumberland Gap. Daniel led many groups of settlers, including Abraham Lincoln's grandfather, across that Gap, and as a 'long hunter' he made many hunting and trapping expeditions into the area where my dad grew up. Boone most likely ran trap lines along Jellico Creek and Beck's Creek in same areas where my dad later trapped muskrat, raccoon, and the occasional mink.
Reading about Boone has been somewhat like reading about my father. Morgan comments at one point in the first chapter that 'there was almost a Franciscan humility and reverence for life in the young Boone, yet he was a hunter, a killer of wild animals.' That description is true of a great many hunters I have known but especially of my dad. Later Morgan comments 'the young Daniel often demonstrated a tendency to wander off without much concern for the worry his absence might cause others'. When on a hunt or out fishing, that was certainly true of my dad, and also of my brother, who would wander off for hours some times when we were in high school, wandering through the woods until my mother thought he must have been in an accident or something. Later, Morgan quotes Thoreau from Walden saying, "There is a period in the history of the individual, as of the race, when the hunters are 'the best of men', as the Algonquins called them". I think this concept of the life of an outdoorsman like Boone as the best life, the life most in tune with God's world, resonated very much with my dad.
The book makes it clear how in Boone's day when game was plentiful this could also be an economically viable life. I had read of how the Appalachian settlers had pursued a 'farm and forest' economy where hunting trapping and farming were both vital parts of their income. The book points out how, during a winter hunting/trapping trip that might last several months, Boone would return with hundreds of deer skins and beaver/muskrat/mink/otter pelts that would provide as much income as an entire year of business for a blacksmith or weaver. By my dad's time, however, that kind of harvest from the woods had long since ended. Nonetheless, that ideal of the woodsman providing vital income lived on though the reality had died out.
That vision of the woodsman as the best of men and the best provider for his family never resonated with me as it did with my brother. Yet I can relate to it and understand it from having seen it so vividly in my dad while growing up. In some ways my dad and all those who share that vision must feel like they were born into the world at the wrong time. Yet I think that very balanced view of the natural world, both revering it and harvesting it at the same time, has an important lesson in it that both the environmentalists (who revere without harvesting) and the industrialists (who harvest without revering) get wrong. So I am grateful for having seen that view of nature lived out before me as I grew up. It is a very Biblical point of view.
I am also grateful for the love of the woods though I am not a hunter. Boone's love for the Appalachians in particular is shared by most of the people who live there. Growing up I both loved and hated the place. I hated the poverty that was so rampant, the lack of education and the lack of basic facilities even. I was in junior high school before my grandfather's house got indoor plumbing, and going outside to the outhouse in the dead of winter was no fun! Yet there is something about the mountains, the forests, the woods that still draws me to the place. I am awed by the American West, its canyons and majestic peaks. But there something about the Appalachians that seems to be in my blood. It was in my dad's blood, too, and in Daniel Boone's from what I can tell. From the Smokies in the south to the bluegrass in the north, it is a special place. I can understand why the Cherokee viewed as almost sacred.
Reading about Boone has been somewhat like reading about my father. Morgan comments at one point in the first chapter that 'there was almost a Franciscan humility and reverence for life in the young Boone, yet he was a hunter, a killer of wild animals.' That description is true of a great many hunters I have known but especially of my dad. Later Morgan comments 'the young Daniel often demonstrated a tendency to wander off without much concern for the worry his absence might cause others'. When on a hunt or out fishing, that was certainly true of my dad, and also of my brother, who would wander off for hours some times when we were in high school, wandering through the woods until my mother thought he must have been in an accident or something. Later, Morgan quotes Thoreau from Walden saying, "There is a period in the history of the individual, as of the race, when the hunters are 'the best of men', as the Algonquins called them". I think this concept of the life of an outdoorsman like Boone as the best life, the life most in tune with God's world, resonated very much with my dad.
The book makes it clear how in Boone's day when game was plentiful this could also be an economically viable life. I had read of how the Appalachian settlers had pursued a 'farm and forest' economy where hunting trapping and farming were both vital parts of their income. The book points out how, during a winter hunting/trapping trip that might last several months, Boone would return with hundreds of deer skins and beaver/muskrat/mink/otter pelts that would provide as much income as an entire year of business for a blacksmith or weaver. By my dad's time, however, that kind of harvest from the woods had long since ended. Nonetheless, that ideal of the woodsman providing vital income lived on though the reality had died out.
That vision of the woodsman as the best of men and the best provider for his family never resonated with me as it did with my brother. Yet I can relate to it and understand it from having seen it so vividly in my dad while growing up. In some ways my dad and all those who share that vision must feel like they were born into the world at the wrong time. Yet I think that very balanced view of the natural world, both revering it and harvesting it at the same time, has an important lesson in it that both the environmentalists (who revere without harvesting) and the industrialists (who harvest without revering) get wrong. So I am grateful for having seen that view of nature lived out before me as I grew up. It is a very Biblical point of view.
I am also grateful for the love of the woods though I am not a hunter. Boone's love for the Appalachians in particular is shared by most of the people who live there. Growing up I both loved and hated the place. I hated the poverty that was so rampant, the lack of education and the lack of basic facilities even. I was in junior high school before my grandfather's house got indoor plumbing, and going outside to the outhouse in the dead of winter was no fun! Yet there is something about the mountains, the forests, the woods that still draws me to the place. I am awed by the American West, its canyons and majestic peaks. But there something about the Appalachians that seems to be in my blood. It was in my dad's blood, too, and in Daniel Boone's from what I can tell. From the Smokies in the south to the bluegrass in the north, it is a special place. I can understand why the Cherokee viewed as almost sacred.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Change you can REALLY believe in
President Obama has been speaking today about how 'we can't keep relying the failed policies of the past' in regard to the economy. He is talking about tax cuts as a stimulus as the 'failed policies' as opposed to his 'new', enlightened approach (which is remarkably like FDR's, which was equally discredited). In reality, both the tax cut approach to stimulate consumer spending (as in last's years check's mailed to homes) or the current over-sized proposal, both fail to deal with the problem. The problem is one of a phony economy based on spending more than we earn. Until we adjust down to only spending what we can afford to spend, artificially trying to spend more than we have money for only prolongs the time when the real adjustment has to happen. No matter what, we cannot indefinitely spend more than we have. At some point we have to adjust downward in spending to allow positive savings (as opposed to the NEGATIVE savings rate of 2% the last few years). This is to say that we have to repent of our evil ways.
Repentance is not something we hear much about. In the broadest sense it simply means to renounce our bad behavior and change for the better. We most often think of it as a purely religious term--repenting of our sinful behavior and turning to God for a new way of life--but it applies to the economic mess as well. We have to change our ways. Our greediness, our demand for instant gratification, our refusal to live within our means all must change. Both parties have ignored this, they have just ignored it in different ways. Whether we send tax money back to households to spend a brief time longer, or create new government programs to 'create jobs', either way we still have to change our ways or when the spending ends we still have the same problem. We have just deferred it. The economy will still have to downsize to the amount we can actually pay for, not the size that has significant amounts of bad debt built into it. The portion beyond what we can pay for is the 'phony economy'. That can never be more than temporary.
Government is not the answer. Getting our personal and corporate finances right, to live within our means, is the adjustment that must happen. The question is when. That is the only change that will turn this around for the long run.
Repentance is not something we hear much about. In the broadest sense it simply means to renounce our bad behavior and change for the better. We most often think of it as a purely religious term--repenting of our sinful behavior and turning to God for a new way of life--but it applies to the economic mess as well. We have to change our ways. Our greediness, our demand for instant gratification, our refusal to live within our means all must change. Both parties have ignored this, they have just ignored it in different ways. Whether we send tax money back to households to spend a brief time longer, or create new government programs to 'create jobs', either way we still have to change our ways or when the spending ends we still have the same problem. We have just deferred it. The economy will still have to downsize to the amount we can actually pay for, not the size that has significant amounts of bad debt built into it. The portion beyond what we can pay for is the 'phony economy'. That can never be more than temporary.
Government is not the answer. Getting our personal and corporate finances right, to live within our means, is the adjustment that must happen. The question is when. That is the only change that will turn this around for the long run.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Baptism and the Office of 'Christian'
A couple of weeks ago I made mention of the fact that both marriage and Christianity are an office as well as a relationship. Today at church we had a very special worship service in which those who had professed faith in Christ but had not been baptized since that profession of faith were invited to be baptized right then, in that same service. Provisions had been made for changes of clothes, robes, towels, make-up, etc. The response was terrific, with 32 folks stepping up for baptism during the early 8:30 am service, and many more in the other services that followed. (Addition on 2/2/2009: there were 226 baptisms across the 5 services!) It was really a wonderful thing to behold. Some were professing faith publicly for the first time, but most had been sprinkled as babies and had never been baptized after coming to a personal faith commitment.
I was pleased to be there and to hear this renewed teaching on baptism, since it is not often discussed from the pulpit or in Bible classes. As with marriage, we talk lots about the relationship but not much about the office to which we are commiting ourselves. The relationship is the prerequisite, of course. We do not get married, in our culture, without first establishing the love relationship before hand. It has not always been this way, though. Marriages have been arranged for people by parents in many cultures for much of history. It is debatable whether marriage by choice results in better marriages. However, even in arranged marriages the paricipants have to make a choice: will they choose to love this person they have married or will they simply co-habit without love? Some choose to love; some do not. But this choice still comes as an adult, as one capable of choosing. In some ways the choice is much more deliberate in an arranged marriage. When you are confronted on your wedding night by this person someone else has chosen for you, you are immediately confronted with the need to make a choice. When people fall in love, they often assume that 'love is all we need', and don't really come to the point of making a deliberate choice until, as they say, 'the honeymoon is over' and they realize that this marriage thing isn't so easy after all. As C.S. Lewis says about falling in love, 'Eros makes promises she can't keep'. Love ISN'T all we need. We need a personal commitment as well, a choice, a marriage., indeed a marriage that includes vows. In the end, that is what the wedding ceremony is all about:making a commitment.
Baptism is to Christianity as a wedding is to marriage. That is why infant baptism is similar to infant weddings. That is also why today's service was so special.
I was pleased to be there and to hear this renewed teaching on baptism, since it is not often discussed from the pulpit or in Bible classes. As with marriage, we talk lots about the relationship but not much about the office to which we are commiting ourselves. The relationship is the prerequisite, of course. We do not get married, in our culture, without first establishing the love relationship before hand. It has not always been this way, though. Marriages have been arranged for people by parents in many cultures for much of history. It is debatable whether marriage by choice results in better marriages. However, even in arranged marriages the paricipants have to make a choice: will they choose to love this person they have married or will they simply co-habit without love? Some choose to love; some do not. But this choice still comes as an adult, as one capable of choosing. In some ways the choice is much more deliberate in an arranged marriage. When you are confronted on your wedding night by this person someone else has chosen for you, you are immediately confronted with the need to make a choice. When people fall in love, they often assume that 'love is all we need', and don't really come to the point of making a deliberate choice until, as they say, 'the honeymoon is over' and they realize that this marriage thing isn't so easy after all. As C.S. Lewis says about falling in love, 'Eros makes promises she can't keep'. Love ISN'T all we need. We need a personal commitment as well, a choice, a marriage., indeed a marriage that includes vows. In the end, that is what the wedding ceremony is all about:making a commitment.
Baptism is to Christianity as a wedding is to marriage. That is why infant baptism is similar to infant weddings. That is also why today's service was so special.
Monday, January 26, 2009
All sins are NOT created equal
The current issue of Newsweek magazine includes an article on how Obama got elected and how young evangelical Christians have moved in his direction. The numbers of evangelicals that moved to Obama were not overly large, as the article admits. However, most of those were young and it does seem to confirm some direction in evangelical churches in recent years towards the 'emerging' church movement and a more existential approach to their faith. The article follows a young man who left his church, then came back, and now is starting his own non-denominational church. In what is presented as one of the 'clinchers' in why he left to start his own church, his former church has put up a sign during an election referendum on gay marriage to support the vote in favor of traditional marriage. His reaction was something like 'is this any way to welcome seekers?' and 'would we put up a sign like this for other sins?', so he left. The article goes on to say that according to some poll, most young evangelicals are accepting of gay marriage.
This a concern. It seems to indicate a common but incorrect teaching that 'all sins are equal' as he equates gay marriage with any other sin. Unfortunately, this is not particularly new with the current younger generation. The Scripture does not teach that all sins are equal. Some are worse, and homosexuality is one of those that are worse than many others.
This a concern. It seems to indicate a common but incorrect teaching that 'all sins are equal' as he equates gay marriage with any other sin. Unfortunately, this is not particularly new with the current younger generation. The Scripture does not teach that all sins are equal. Some are worse, and homosexuality is one of those that are worse than many others.
How can that be? Well, first of all homosexuality is not alone; murder, adultery, and fornication would all fall in a similar category, and all except murder seem to be increasingly acceptable in both the church and in society in general. The Bible does not teach that all acts of sin are equal; it does teach that all humans are equally in need of forgiveness. These are 2 very different things. We are born sinful. That state of sinfulness requires God's intervention and we all equally need that. That sinfulness, however, shows itself in varying acts of sin at varying levels of severity. Some people have more self-control than others in controlling how their sinful nature plays out, resulting in less severe acts of sin. No one in their right mind would say that petty larceny is equal to murder.
So the thing that is equal in all of us is our sin nature. Specific acts of sin have a large range of impacts, however, some more serious than others, especially in their impacts here and now. To pretend that all acts of sin are equal is nonsense. Sins like homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder are much more serious than petty larceny, for instance. However, among these serious sins, only homosexuality is insisting that society view it as something good, something equivalent to marriage. It is not just claiming to be no worse than other sins, it is claiming to be a virtue. To ignore this in the name of 'acceptance' and being 'seeker sensitive' is nonsense. We cannot say nothing while our culture tries to turn virtue on its head.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Trinity of marriage
The passage in Proverbs that a 'cord of 3 strands in not easily broken' is often quoted in marriage ceremonies, and the 3 cords are typically thought of as referring to the husband, wife, and the Holy Spirit. I think that is correct and an important concept in how marriage is holy to God and depends on God for sustenance. However, there is another type of 'trinity' I have in mind for this discussion as well.
Think of a marriage as supported by a 3-legged stool, to use a common illustration. Those 3 legs are the relationship of the 2 people, the office of marriage, and the truth of our nature. Relationship, Office, and Truth (or Nature). In writing from his jail cell during World War 2 to counsel a couple preparing for marriage, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, ' Up till now it has been your love that has protected your marriage plans; from now on it is also your marriage that protects your love.' This has to do with the office, the status of marriage. While love leads you to marriage, every love relationship waxes and wanes and will face some hard times. During those times the vows you make, the commitments, the responsibilities you take on, the children that are born all constitute the office of marriage and those things protect your love relationship during the hard times. Marriage is a relationship, but it is not just a relationship. As C.S.Lewis has written in The Four Loves, we all know that we must do the works of Eros (Lewis refers to being 'in love' as Eros after an ancient usage; he is not referring to the common contemporary use of the word 'erotic' in any way) even when Eros is not present; that is because of the commitments we make, the promises we need to keep, the office we need to uphold. As Lewis also points out, Eros makes promises that she cannot keep so we need the office to help us keep them.
There is also the matter of Truth and Nature. Man and woman are clearly designed for each other, for propagation as well as for mutual support. This is simply who we are, how we are made, and that is a foundation for marriage. All Truth is God's Truth, and this is one part of it. Simply put, we need each other as men and women.
Now, marriage cannot be what it should be with any of the 3 legs missing on the stool. Our contemporary culture, however, focuses only on the relationship part. However, if 2 people claim to be in love but refuse to marry, what conclusion do most people immediately reach about their commitment? It doesn't exist. The 'office' portion is missing. Similarly, if 2 of the same sex want to indulge in homosexual union, the Truth of our nature is missing. Gay 'marriage' denies the truth of who we are, and living together unmarried denies the need for commitments to be able to raise healthy children and reliable citizens. Marriage cannot be what it needs to be without understanding all 3 elements of the marriage union. We as Christians have contributed to the confusion about this by focusing our own marriage teaching and ceremonies too much on the relationship by itself.
The same is true of the church. Christianity is indeed a relationship, but like marriage it is not just a relationship. Just as the marriage protects the love of the bride and groom, the church protects the relationship with God. Especially when times get tough. It is no mistake that the church is 'the bride of Christ'. There is the personal relationship with Christ that must be a personal commitment, there is the office of church membership, and there is the truth of what Christ has done for us to make salvation possible. As with marriage, by focusing on just some of the 3 the church contributes to confusion. The sacramental churches focus on the office and the truth and pretty much ignore the relationship; the evangelical churches focus on the relationship and the truth and pretty much ignore the office.
We as believers have contributed to the cultural confusion on both marriage and Christianity by not keeping the stool firmly planted on all 3 legs.
Think of a marriage as supported by a 3-legged stool, to use a common illustration. Those 3 legs are the relationship of the 2 people, the office of marriage, and the truth of our nature. Relationship, Office, and Truth (or Nature). In writing from his jail cell during World War 2 to counsel a couple preparing for marriage, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, ' Up till now it has been your love that has protected your marriage plans; from now on it is also your marriage that protects your love.' This has to do with the office, the status of marriage. While love leads you to marriage, every love relationship waxes and wanes and will face some hard times. During those times the vows you make, the commitments, the responsibilities you take on, the children that are born all constitute the office of marriage and those things protect your love relationship during the hard times. Marriage is a relationship, but it is not just a relationship. As C.S.Lewis has written in The Four Loves, we all know that we must do the works of Eros (Lewis refers to being 'in love' as Eros after an ancient usage; he is not referring to the common contemporary use of the word 'erotic' in any way) even when Eros is not present; that is because of the commitments we make, the promises we need to keep, the office we need to uphold. As Lewis also points out, Eros makes promises that she cannot keep so we need the office to help us keep them.
There is also the matter of Truth and Nature. Man and woman are clearly designed for each other, for propagation as well as for mutual support. This is simply who we are, how we are made, and that is a foundation for marriage. All Truth is God's Truth, and this is one part of it. Simply put, we need each other as men and women.
Now, marriage cannot be what it should be with any of the 3 legs missing on the stool. Our contemporary culture, however, focuses only on the relationship part. However, if 2 people claim to be in love but refuse to marry, what conclusion do most people immediately reach about their commitment? It doesn't exist. The 'office' portion is missing. Similarly, if 2 of the same sex want to indulge in homosexual union, the Truth of our nature is missing. Gay 'marriage' denies the truth of who we are, and living together unmarried denies the need for commitments to be able to raise healthy children and reliable citizens. Marriage cannot be what it needs to be without understanding all 3 elements of the marriage union. We as Christians have contributed to the confusion about this by focusing our own marriage teaching and ceremonies too much on the relationship by itself.
The same is true of the church. Christianity is indeed a relationship, but like marriage it is not just a relationship. Just as the marriage protects the love of the bride and groom, the church protects the relationship with God. Especially when times get tough. It is no mistake that the church is 'the bride of Christ'. There is the personal relationship with Christ that must be a personal commitment, there is the office of church membership, and there is the truth of what Christ has done for us to make salvation possible. As with marriage, by focusing on just some of the 3 the church contributes to confusion. The sacramental churches focus on the office and the truth and pretty much ignore the relationship; the evangelical churches focus on the relationship and the truth and pretty much ignore the office.
We as believers have contributed to the cultural confusion on both marriage and Christianity by not keeping the stool firmly planted on all 3 legs.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama, Israel, and Motherhood
As we approach the inauguration of President-elect Obama the euphoria of the press remains a bit 'over the top'. This is no surprise, of course, but it is getting old. It remains difficult to be happy about bringing in a president who has promised to increase abortions on his first day in office by removing any barriers that he can, even for the abomination of partial-birth abortion. Since the MLK holiday is tomorrow, the day before inauguration, it is instructive to look at some comments from MLK that were pointed out recently in the Winter edition of 'The City' ( 'The City' is a quarterly journal that you can subscribe to free from Houston Baptist University at www.civitate.org). In the article Ryan Anderson points out that MLK, in his 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail' refers to the philosopher Martin Buber in arguing that racial segregation substitutes an 'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship that is intended by God, thereby relegating persons to the status of things. People are not to be treated like things. That is a powerful argument against racial injustice as well as against slavery, and it is, as Mr. Anderson points out, exactly the same thing that abortion proponents do, making the unborn child an 'it', relegating that new life to the status of a thing instead of a person. Their crime is no different than killing a slave that you 'own'.
As a racial minority, Mr. Obama as well as blacks in general should understand this. Yet it seems to be lost on them. Blacks continue to account for abortions at a rate about 3 times the rest of the U.S. population. It is maybe a strange connection, but with Israel in the news recently due to their fighting with Hamas in Gaza and with the Christmas holidays, I was reminded again of how Israel gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. He was the promised child of Isaiah 53, and Revelation 12:1-7 paints a vivid picture of Israel as a woman giving birth to this child. It struck me that for a woman to kill her own baby is very much like Israel killing the Messiah to which she gave birth. Israel, of course, fails to see this just as abortion supporters fail to see their own crimes. If it is justified to view a baby has an 'it' to be terminated at our convenience, why not view black people that way? Or old people? Or sick people? We should point out this at every opportunity: for a black president to rejoice that he is no longer relegated to the status of a thing while doing his best to relegate thousands of others at the verge of birth to that status is hypocrisy of the highest order.
As a racial minority, Mr. Obama as well as blacks in general should understand this. Yet it seems to be lost on them. Blacks continue to account for abortions at a rate about 3 times the rest of the U.S. population. It is maybe a strange connection, but with Israel in the news recently due to their fighting with Hamas in Gaza and with the Christmas holidays, I was reminded again of how Israel gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. He was the promised child of Isaiah 53, and Revelation 12:1-7 paints a vivid picture of Israel as a woman giving birth to this child. It struck me that for a woman to kill her own baby is very much like Israel killing the Messiah to which she gave birth. Israel, of course, fails to see this just as abortion supporters fail to see their own crimes. If it is justified to view a baby has an 'it' to be terminated at our convenience, why not view black people that way? Or old people? Or sick people? We should point out this at every opportunity: for a black president to rejoice that he is no longer relegated to the status of a thing while doing his best to relegate thousands of others at the verge of birth to that status is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)