Jesus, Lord BEFORE Thy Birth

The third stanza of the favorite Christmas hymn "Silent Night" repeats the line, "Jesus Lord, at thy birth."  

[Verse 3]
Silent night, holy night!
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus Lord, at Thy birth

The phrase, "Jesus Lord, at thy birth," comes from the angelic good-news proclamation to shepherds on the night of Jesus' birth:

"for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:11 (NASB)

While it is certainly true that Jesus was Lord at his birth, that is not the whole truth!

When Mary had her angelic encounter, the angel told her a rather curious fact - that her cousin, Elizabeth, who was barren, was in her 6th month with a child - John the Baptist, the herald of Jesus. 
Perhaps the mention of this fact was to assure Mary of the power of God to do the impossible.  Regardless, when Mary soon found herself pregnant as the angel had said, she went to visit her cousin, Elizabeth.  Pick up the story in Luke 1:39-45

39  Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,
40  and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.
41  When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42  And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43  “And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
44  “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
45  “And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.” (NASB)

Note in verse 43 that Elizabeth does not say "the mother-to-be of my Lord" but acknowledges that Mary already is the mother of her Lord.  If John the Baptist is still unborn and is 6 months older than Jesus, then Mary is probably only in her first trimester ... and the unborn Jesus is already Lord!

Also, the unborn John the Baptist leapt at the sound of Mary's voice!  Here is an acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord even from another unborn child!

So, the whole truth of "Jesus Lord, at thy birth" really is:  "Jesus Lord, BEFORE thy birth."

Here's a good Christmas party question:  Who, besides Mary and Joseph, was the first human to recognize Jesus as Lord?  Perhaps the case could be made for Elizabeth as the answer, but give extra credit to the one who says it's the unborn John the Baptist. 
Some say the unborn are not persons.  I think the Bible clearly shows otherwise.

p.s.  Of course Christians believe Jesus existed before creation as part of the Holy Trinity unity of God.  "Jesus" in this song refers to the incarnate (100% God and 100% man) Jesus. 

Abortion - "I Don't Know"

I posted the below response to an honest "I don't know" comment regarding whether abortion is right or wrong.

I appreciate the honesty of your, "I don't know" on abortion  However, there are times the gravity of a situation compels us to act on the best evidence we have.  Consider this story:

You are the foreman on a demolition crew about to collapse a ten story parking garage. It also happens to be "Bring your kids to work day", so you brought your 8 year-old daughter, Suzie, and 6 year-old son, Mike, to work so they can see what you do.

You've just completed a bottom to top walkthrough of the structure and are about to give the "Blow it" command when you realize your daughter and son are missing.  You last saw them when they were walking with you through the structure. 

Would you go ahead and give the "Blow it" command given the uncertainty of the location of your children and the possibility they might be playing in the structure?  Of course not.  You know the explosions and the collapse of the building on them would be certain death if they are in there.  You would hold the demo and go look for your children.


What would you call the person who would give the "Blow it" command not knowing where their children were?  I would call that person, "Harry Blackmun".

There is a lot negative to be said legally about the Rowe vs Wade decision, but here's just one aspect related to the above story.  Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion wrote: "The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus."

Justice Blackmun is actually saying that since we do not know when life begins (implying that there definitely is a beginning), it's ok to kill the unborn.  In other words, I don't know where my children are but let's go ahead and blow the structure.

Let's look at Justice Blackmun's qualifier, "at this point in the development of man’s knowledge."  In the intervening 45 years we have learned a lot about the unborn - to the point that nearly every Embryology textbook affirms that "life begins at conception."  That is settled science now.  We now know the unborn is a separate and distinct human being from the mother.

Many people say abortion is a complex issue, and it is true there can be many hard issues.  However, if we are to deal consistently with thorny issues like rape or incest (which might account for 2% of abortions) as well as "normal" abortions, we must first have a firm grasp on just what abortion is and how to understand it.

Abortion can be resolved to a single question, "What is the unborn?"  If it is just a mass or growth (like a wart), then go ahead and kill it; no excuse is needed.  But if it is a human being, almost no excuse is acceptable for taking the life of the innocent human being.

Below are some links to get more details on the scientific and the philosophical case for life:
http://www.caseforlife.com/
https://www.newyorkapologetics.com/its-false-to-claim-that-no-one-knows-when-life-begins/

When I argue for life, I almost never make a religious case though there is a good case to be made for life.  It seems the pro-abortion religious cases I've seen all end up denying current science and philosophy.  I would rather be able to make the case for life by appealing to good science and philosophy so there is no religious "buy-in" required.  My case is accessible even to the non-religious and cannot be dismissed as "mere religious belief".  My view may be informed by my religious beliefs, but the argument for life stands alone on fact and reason.

Is there still some degree of uncertainty and difficult cases?  Yes, but I think there is more than sufficient evidence from science, philosophy, and religion that the unborn is a human being from conception and with a right to life.  I think this compels us to give an answer contrary to the one Justice Blackmun reached.  Stop the demolition!  There's a precious human person in there!

Stopping by the Woods on a Screaming Evening

I was recently asked the question, “How do you get someone involved in the pro-life cause when they do not see any reason to get involved?” Don’t think I did too great a job answering at the time, but, on reflection and with much thought, here is the answer I now have for that question.

First of all, this was asked in the context of pro-life training based on the outstanding DVD training material, Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion, authored by Greg Koukl (Stand to Reason) and Scott Klusendorf (Life Training Institute). Mastering this material gives you both the scientific and the philosophical legs to stand against the pro-abortion position. One of the things it teaches is to simplify and focus the issue to the question, “What is the unborn?” If the unborn is just a blob of tissue then no reason at all is needed to kill it, BUT if it is a human being, then no reason for killing it is justifiable (with the exception where it is a clear medical choice between mother and baby dying or only aborting the baby will save the mother’s life).

One of my favorite tactics is to paint a word picture. Get the other person involved intellectually and emotionally. Get them to see the issue in their mind’s eye. You know the ending of the story – it must lead to the central issue, “What is the unborn?” and it must arrive there with both emotional and intellectual impact. So, this is an exercise of working backwards from the conclusion.

Here is my story. It is not the only one. You can construct your own.


You’re walking on a path through the woods when you are startled to hear what sounds like human screams. Instinctively, you turn to the direction of the screams, but you cannot see anything through the dense foliage. The screams continue.

What should you do? Investigate or just continue your casual walk admiring the beauty all around while ignoring the continuing screams?  Wait for an answer here.

So, you softly make your way to the sound, until parting some leaves you see an adult brutally abusing a small toddler.

What do you do now? Try to intervene, call for help on your cell phone, run for help, or refuse to get involved?  Again, wait for an answer.

What would you think of a person who simply said, “I don’t want to get involved,” turned back to the path, and continued their pleasant stroll through the beautiful woods – all the while ignoring the screams?

Is not some form of action to help the human response to this situation? Don’t we have a natural revulsion for the moral integrity of the person who does nothing?

That is the picture of the abortion holocaust happening in this country and around the world.

I’m not sure there’s much more to do for the person whose response remains, “I don’t want to get involved.” But, if the story seems to hit home, and they try to make a point of the difference between the toddler being abused and a fetus being killed in abortion, then, you’ve got your opening to say, “but that’s the real issue isn’t it? What is the unborn?”

That’s where the training kicks in. You now have the open door for the scientific and the moral case ready. And, you’re ready for the other common objections.

Purpose of Life is NOT Death

Many non-Christians, but surprisingly many Christians too, make an assumption I think is false: God's purpose in giving life is just about people getting to heaven. In other words, God is just trying to get back as many of the souls He gave out as He can. Already starting to sound a little strange, isn't it? I think saving souls is certainly important, but that is NOT the most important thing. Simply put, the purpose of life is not death. The purpose of life is to glorify God and we do so both by making wise choices to acknowledge Him and obey Him. Those who make bad choices end up glorifying God and showing His wisdom and His judgment. Look at Pharaoh. Here is a sample pro-abortion argument where this misunderstanding comes into play.

They Have Names, Too

(Below was submitted for publication in a local newspaper.) 

The counter silently clicks over as 165 babies are aborted every hour: 50,844,537 50,844,538 50,844,539 50,844,540 50,844,541 50,844,542 50,844,543 50,844,544 50,844,545 50,844,546 50,844,547 50,844,548 50,844,549 50,844,550 50,844,551 50,844,552 50,844,553 50,844,554 50,844,555 50,844,556 50,844,557 50,844,558 50,844,559 50,844,560 50,844,561 50,844,562 50,844,563 50,844,564 50,844,565 50,844,566 50,844,567 50,844,568 50,844,569 50,844,570 50,844,571 50,844,572 50,844,573 50,844,574 50,844,575 50,844,576 50,844,577 50,844,578 50,844,579 50,844,580 50,844,581 50,844,582 50,844,583 50,844,584 50,844,585 50,844,586 50,844,587 50,844,588 50,844,589 50,844,590 50,844,591 50,844,592 50,844,593 50,844,594 50,844,595 50,844,596 50,844,597 50,844,598 50,844,599 50,844,600 50,844,601 50,844,602 50,844,603 50,844,604 50,844,605 50,844,606 50,844,607 50,844,608 50,844,609 50,844,610 50,844,611 50,844,612 50,844,613 50,844,614 50,844,615 50,844,616 … 

In one hour on Sunday, May 31,2009, another senseless killing surfaces a name - George Tiller. Every life is a precious life – even that of an abortionist. Maybe one name will help us remember that while the killing counter continues to roll, the millions that have already died and are represented by sterile numbers had names, too:

Shamika Abbey James Theodore Juan Becky Sara William Rose Jose Thomas Nathan Lydia Lee Mary Kyle Nancy Julie Yevette Iola Rusty Chuck Audrey Vicky Orem Jimmy Delissa Catherine Harry Kenny Glissen Julio Pam Lisa Terence Sergio Jason Paul Amy Tiffany Jermaine Avery Shayla Jason Britt Gabriel Alwonda …

Two Out of Three Stinks

This is an article I submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Meatloaf’s song says: "I want you. I need you. But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you. Now don’t be sad, cause two out of three ain’t bad." 

Some abortion supporters say abortion’s not the only moral issue. "Let’s agree to disagree on abortion and focus on issues like feeding the hungry and healthcare availability for all."

 Most would agree on these even if we disagreed on the means. So, we’re saying that "two out of three ain’t bad?" Depends on whether abortion is significantly different and higher than the others - just as love is over "wanting" and "needing". 

 Here are two pictures: 

1) You’re serving in a soup kitchen when, through the window, you see a baby crawling onto a busy street. Do you serve the two homeless men in line and then rescue the baby? No! There’s a greater moral imperative to rescue those in immediate peril. 

2)  There are three objects, all spherical. One’s the sun; the others, marbles. Beyond the size difference, there’s another significant difference - the light from one enables us to see the others. 

Either life is intrinsically valuable or not. If it is, there’s a much higher moral imperative to rescue the thousands being killed daily. 

Ignoring this makes a mockery/hypocrisy of caring for others. 

If life has no value and can be ended for discomfort and inconvenience, there’s absolutely no sustainable reason to care for others. Morality becomes a tool for political advantage. 

"Two out of three" is just stinkin' thinking.

Compromising on Rudy

There was a reported meeting of pro-life leaders, including Dr, James Dobson, where the leaders expressed their willingness to vote for a third party candidate rather than support a so-called compromise anti-life/anti traditional family candidate who would promise to do some pro-life/pro-family things - i.e. nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, etc. In the pro-life community, there is debate among honest and sincere people as to whether this is a reasonable Christ-honoring course of action. 

The debate basically breaks down along 2 paths. One group supports Dr. Dobson et al's approach which is in effect a shot across the Republican Party's bow to try to force them to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. The other group, it seems to me, basically argues that fewer unborn babies would die under a compromise candidate who presumably could win against Hillary. To me, this is a lesser evil approach.

Below is something I posted to the blog at Stand to Reason on this subject. This is certainly not an exhaustive treatise on the above options - that may come in time.

One thing I would add is that if the Republican Party nominates a compromise candidate for president, I will immediately change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.

In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. 

I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues. A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. 

The promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate. 

 Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation. 

I don't care which party it is, but we currently have only one party with planks that support our positions. 

The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections. If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.

Only God knows if Hillary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckabee (just using him as an example). I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. 

We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late. I expect moral leadership on these foundations from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that. 

 God help us.

Personalize the Debate

This posts answers what I hinted at in green at this post. 

A good friend, Rev. Clarence Powell, relayed this true story to me: 

One day, while serving at the Baptist Children's Home in Monroe, LA, Brother Clarence received a call from a young college student thinking she had dialed a number to arrange for an abortion. (Some might think this was a case of dialing a wrong number, but I think she got the right connection - another one of those co (God and you) incidents.) 

As he listened to the girl talk about wanting to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, Brother Clarence had a moment of divine inspiration. He asked her, "What's the baby's name?" 

The girl, somewhat taken aback by the question, floundered around, and Brother Clarence explained that all little girls dream one day of being a mother. They even think of names for their children. So, he asked her again, "What's your baby's name?" 

She replied, "Mary." Brother Clarence said, "Well, let's talk about Mary." He prayed for Mary, and, to his surprise, the girl on the other end prayed for Mary, too! 

Brother Clarence referred the girl to a local pastor who got in touch with her and offered love and encouragement. See the difference personalizing the discussion made. 

The next time you are debating with someone about abortion, use this tactic. Instead of talking about impersonal fetuses, the unborn, etc, give the baby a name. 

In fact, I would go so far as to deliberately use the name of one of their children, if I knew it. They may not go along with this, but there's no reason you cannot do it, even if you have to do it one-sided. 

You cannot have a debate that is all emotion, and you cannot have a meaningful debate that is all cold hard facts (unless you are debating a computer -- and if you are losing the debate with the computer, you can just turn it off). 

For a debate to be fruitful, it must appeal to both the mind and emotion. Do not neglect the God-given power of the rightness of cradling a newborn in your arms! 

Giving the baby a name helps paint this picture. Now, go back to my earlier post, referenced above, and use "Mary" where you see green words. 

See the difference it makes.

Taking the Roof Off

Here's a pro-abortion ploy. How would you answer this Pro-abortionist question, "Where does an aborted fetus go - heaven or hell?" 

Christian - "It's true that the child* even in the womb carries the mark of original sin and is therefore sinful before God, but the aborted baby* has certainly not reached the age of accountability where God holds us accountable for realizing our sinfulness (estrangement from Him) and recognizing our need for Jesus as the only way He has provided to cover our sinfulness and restore the relationship. So, I guess the answer to your question is the aborted baby* goes straight to heaven." 

Pro-abortionist - "Well, if there's a chance the baby*, when it grows up and passes this so-called age of accountability, may not find your way to god and end up going to hell, then aren't we doing the child* a favor by aborting it and sending it straight to heaven? You should be in favor of abortion!" 

You may be already thinking, "What do I say?" 

There are several different approaches you could take here, but let's look at just one.  Francis Schaeffer (famous and influential Christian apologist of the 20th Century that you really should know) advocated a tactic called Taking the Roof Off. 

Basically, he said people will find all kinds of excuses to hide under to support what they want to believe -- even when what they believe is irrational. This idea of hiding under, he likened to the snow/avalanche shelters built in the mountains of his native Switzerland to protect hikers. Schaeffer's tactic to help the person see the irrationality of their position is to take the roof off their position and allow the rocks and boulders of truth to pelt upon them. 

You do this by carrying their position/belief to its logical conclusion and outworking. Taking the Roof Off in this particular case might go like this: 

"If, in your opinion, abortion gets babies* to heaven and getting to heaven is a good thing, then getting more babies* to heaven is a better thing, right? 

"So, why not abort every child? Everyone goes to heaven! What do you think? (always end with a question - throw them the ball)" 

It will probably dawn on the pro-abortionist that this is really not such a good idea. After all, if the government legalized killing every child in the womb, who would be around to pay into Social Security for the pro-abortionist to be able to draw out of the system? And it may even dawn on them eventually that the end result of their idea is the extinction of the human race. 

The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but you can definitely expect the pro-abortionist to protest your misunderstanding of what they said. This gives you the opportunity to allow them to more fully explain their position ... which gives you the opportunity to use the Take the Roof Off tactic again or use another tactic. 

The point is that you can stay engaged and make the other person think. 

I must confess I have never heard the above argument used by a pro-abortionist, but it would not surprise me! Also, I am not using it as a strawman (easily defeatable distortion of a person's viewpoint) but as an example for using the Taking the Roof Off tactic. This is not the only tactic that could be used here, but it does lead to an interesting conclusion. 

I also used this argument for its shock value. Since you've probably never heard it either.  It made you think - like finding a shuttered window you had never seen in your home and throwing it open to reveal a new vista. 

You may also have picked up on another fatal flaw in the argument. It reasons there are three winners in an abortion - 1) the woman having the abortion (implicit), 2) the child who goes to heaven, and 3) the Christian who should be happy another soul has gone to heaven. 

After using the Taking the Roof Off tactic as above, the pro-abortionist would probably back pedal furiously to make the point that she/he is not proposing that sending children to heaven is the reason justifying abortion but that it is a collateral benefit that should make Christians happy. 

But should this make Christians happy? Isn't the pro-abortionist confusing reward (heaven) with the purpose of life? And the purpose of life is? You do know, don't you? 

The most succinct statement I have found is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end (purpose) of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever." It's like the man who buys a new car off the showroom floor and takes it straight to the junk yard. After all, that is the car's eventual reward -- but is that what a car is for? Has the car fulfilled its purpose? 

I'm not going to develop the argument further here, but you can see where this is leading -- a witnessing opportunity about the meaning and purpose of life. And, it's leading back to the central question of the abortion issue - What is it? (that abortion kills). 

* there is another tactic related to the words in green I will explain in another post - here

Diamonds for Peanuts - Abortion

This is probably the first of many Diamonds for Peanuts posts. This piece was submitted for publication in local newspapers for the 34th anniversary of the 1973 Rowe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.



I’ll let you in on a secret, but, first, take this intelligence test. There are three pictures in a row: two sparkling diamonds and a peanut. Pick the two that are alike. Would you pick the peanut and a diamond? A lot of people think you would.

This is the way some people argue ideas; they take two things with vastly different values and make them appear alike. A recent editorial headline ran, “Abortion is wrong; so are protesters.” Whoever wrote that headline is equating the “evil of abortion” (the writer’s words) with the incivility of some abortion protesters – diamonds and peanuts.

Another good example is the pro-abortion argument that “unwanted” children are better off dead than for some to suffer abuse and poverty. Even if all “unwanted” children suffered abuse and poverty, is it really better that they be killed? Not to diminish abuse and poverty, but isn’t this another diamond (the value of life) vs. peanut (abuse and poverty) comparison?

Those who argue this way are trying to inflate the significance of their peanut to that of a diamond. But, like the politician’s favorite ploy, “I could never personally condone abortion, but who am I to push my beliefs on someone else,” reduces sanctity of life to personal preference like flavors of ice cream, this trick ends up reducing precious diamonds to cheap peanuts.

“Hey, lady, I’ll trade you a peanut for that diamond on your finger. OK, two peanuts.” Is life really so cheap?

"Professing to be wise, they have become fools"

The below 250 word article was submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Former atheist, C.S.Lewis, was a “reluctant” convert to Christianity being dragged “kicking and screaming” into the fold through the unrelenting process of revelation and reason. He wrote an allegorical account of this process called “The Pilgrim’s Regress.” Where John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress” describes Pilgrim’s climb up the mountain toward faith, Lewis’ book goes back down the mountain using his newfound perspective to analyze why John, the main character, rejected other paths.

One chapter has John in jail. Daily, the jailor brings their food providing commentary on it while they eat. If the meal were meat, he would tell them they were just eating carcasses and discuss details of the slaughtering. Milk was just one of the secretions of a cow. Eggs were just …

These comments bothered John until, in a flash of insight, he realized the jailor was talking nonsense. He was trying to make unlike things alike – that milk was like sweat or dung. “Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?”

Gay marriage, abortion, hate-filled politics, child molestation – what should you expect when the only firm foundation for telling right from wrong, God, is banned from the public square and public education? Generations have now been taught God does not exist or, at best, is irrelevant. To gain this mirage of freedom, we’ve sacrificed truth. Professing to be wise, we’ve become fools – our own jailors.

Facts are not Enough for Morality

A local atheist had an article in the newspaper saying we should teach logic and good reasoning at the earliest ages in our educational system. He went on to say that some people are simply not persuaded by facts, preferring to cling to their view points butressed by selectively culled facts.

Here is my response:

When Gary Sloan is right, he’s right. I heartily agree all students should be taught sound reasoning skills from the earliest age. The brain has become the least used muscle – politicians, television and radio talk hosts, rappers, and movie stars do our thinking for us. Emotional slogans pass for good reasoning. “Feel” and “think” have become synonymous.

Oh that people did live by facts and good reasoning; then, there would be no legalization of mothers killing their babies. The scientific facts are incontrovertible that from conception the embryo is genus homo sapiens (human being). Neither size, level of development, environment/location, or dependency can be construed as justification for killing the fetus without also justifying killing classes of already-born persons.

Of course, facts alone are insufficient for such moral judgments; values and worldviews come into play. Hidden in the above argument is the value that it’s wrong to take innocent human life - not just wrong for me but wrong for all. Discussion of values opens the door to truth – is there objective, universal truth? Are some things wrong for all people at all times? How about the ancient ritual of placing living babies onto the red-hot arms of idols?

Yes, we need to include good reasoning skills and rules of logic in early education, but that alone, without knowledge of objective and universal truths and values, is like training in the use of hammer and saw without knowing the objective is to build a house.

Future Topics - part 3

Still more topics for future posts. Of necessity this will be brief, and I know that may leave room for misunderstanding. Consider that if what I say makes you angry - you may want to just wait till later when I develop the topic. Then, you can unload with both barrels! Still, I welcome feedback on these topics. Your feedback will influence which one I write on next. There is no significance to the order of things in this list - they are just products of a disorderly brain.

Signs of Disintegrating American Culture. We have forgotten our foundations. Always be wary when people run to enact laws to set right what cultural moral/restrictions should have stopped. The fundamental principle of our republican form of government is self-government. When the power to govern self fails and laws are passed to accomplish what moral restraint - individual and collective - should have restrained, then individual freedom will be eroded. This is a one-way street to disaster. Here are some examples we see today in America.

Gay Marriage. That we would even think to debate over the definition of marriage is a huge red flag in itself. I am all for open debate and this issue will be debated, but just realize how far our society has fallen by the simple fact we would even think this is an issue. At it's core, this is precipitated by a cultural shift to define our rights according to our pleasures.

Amendments to Protect the American Flag and to Prevent Protest at Miltary Funerals. I am a 22 year veteran of the US Navy, and I am as patriotic as the next guy. I understand the outrage and anger being expressed by those who see the American flag being burned by other Americans and those who see loud protests against the war as a grieving family lays their fallen soldier to rest - BUT the bottom line of both these amendments is to outlaw being offended. Sorry, there is not and never should be enshrined in law a right to not be offended - for any reason. This is a bottomless pit. Besides chipping away at our rights of free speech and protest, just think where liberal judges will take this new "right" to not be offended.

Abortion. There simply shouldn't have to be a law to prevent the killing of innocent unborn human persons. This is just too obvious - or, at least, it should be. Here is an example of how a corrupt and evil culture has redefined the God-created role of a loving, giving, and nurturing mother into a killer!

Acceptance of Divorce. Here we are back to marriage, again. Marriage is a committment, and committment - through thick and thin, easy and tuff - is the centerpiece of integrity. Every marriage will have its rough spots. Why do we make it so easy to bail out of problems rather than encouraging the two to work through the problems -- often coming out stronger on the other side. Our culture has elevated Me-first self-centeredness to a virtue rather than self-sacrifice ... and this is the environment we raise children in!

Look at how divorce - inside the church - is accepted with no consequences! Law can only help the recovery so far - like Louisiana's Covenant Marriage option which many states have modeled. Only the church can restore the true environment and meaning to marriage.

Here's a challenge for churches and pastors in states with Covenant Marriage licensing options: commit to only perform and use church facilities for Covenant Marriages!

Increase in sexual perversion. Love = sex! Me first! That's the message of Hollywood and pop music. God's plan has been totally inverted. With all the child molesters and sexual predators, we are reaping what we have allowed the culture to sow.


More to come ...