Amendment 2 and the resurrection of Auschwitz I

Something for all Christians and their denominations to consider in light of God's Truth. To be sure, some LCMS churches did voice a much needed Word from God on this issue through seminars and lawn signs, but rare was the witness, especially in the public sphere, as far as this person could discern. Worse yet, seminary avoided a great opportunity to witness to a much needed public through the ownership of South Campus on Clayton Road. Six signs were procured and placed in the front lawn of South Campus on Clayton Road, but taken down at the request of seminary personel. After much deliberation and discussion, it is the position of this author that the decision to remove the signs was un-Lutheran and unfaithful to the witness of God's Word in our context and community. May God forgive us and lead us to more fully embody His Will and Kingdom here on earth.

Resurrecting Auschwitz I: the church’s needed voice is rarely found.

“In Germany, they [the Gestapo] came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionists. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”[1]

It hardly seems real to consider the horrors of Auschwitz to be alive and well, and that in America! But this is in fact what has happened. The concern of this paper is not as much the seemingly deliberate move of the Missouri people to vote for cloning humans[2] for personal use as much as the lack of voice in the public square by LCMS churches and it’s members to effectively speak on behalf of God concerning this important change in our society.[3]

First, one must understand the scope of the issue. In this most recent voting election, Amendment 2 was incorporated. This seemed to be more about what Amendment 2 ‘didn’t specifically say’ than what it did say. Among the many atrocities it brought to the Missourians, one of its qualities was its deceitful wording. Besides leaving the door open for many future unethical practices, it also sought to gain credence with the American people by redefining the word ‘cloning.’ The amendment reads as if it was “banning cloning” of human beings. However, if one were to read the entire amendment,[4] he would find that the document’s authors redefine cloning to include only cloned embryos that are returned to the mother’s womb for full-term development.

Since this is not the procedure the researchers are looking to do, but rather only need the embryo to develop into a blastocyst,[5] it was a perfect plan. “What ‘plan’ do they have?” you may ask. The amendment allows for any of these possibilities, and probably more:

1. Cloning human beings for the sole purpose of use and destruction.

2. Cloning human beings for research purposes. This could save drug companies up to $500 million and almost 8 ½ years of testing, getting the product on the shelves in virtually no time.

3. The researches have a blank check with which to write and take any tax money necessary for their special interest, unethical research.

4. Research is not the only future possibility. We are less than 10 years away from a full-functioning artificial womb.[6] As long as the embryo is not being placed back in the mother’s womb, it would be ‘legal’ to grow a baby for an undetermined time in this tissue. This could give rise to “organ transplant factories” in which people clone their own DNA and steal the organ(s) needed for their own use.[7]

5. This not only totally under minds the pro-life argument, making legal abortion after day 15, but it also nullifies certain existing abortion laws.

6. The harvesting of eggs from women. This procedure has taken at least 25 lives and caused at least 600 women to have post-surgery complications. It is risky and can also cause one to become sterile.

7. Unborn humans created by In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) could be killed at any stage of development to obtain their stem cells or “late embryonic body parts,” and neither the Legislature not Missouri citizens could do anything about it.

As Robert P. George, Ph.D., and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics has written:
“Based on the literature I have read and the evasive answers given by spokesmen for the biotechnology industry at meetings of the President’s Council on Bioethics, I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to created an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation.”

All this and not one cure has been found through embryonic stem cell research. Only Adult stem cells are used right now, and scientists have even found ways to tweak the cells into becoming pluripotent.[8] The embryonic stem cell cures are decades away, if that, while the proponents of this amendment expect to gain huge profits from the passing of this legislation.[9]

This is no different, if not worse, than Auschwitz I in Hitler’s day. Dr. Josef Mengele led experiments in Block 10 and other concentration camps. They conducted pseudoscientific research on infants, twins, dwarfs and performed forced sterilizations, castrations and hypothermia experiments on adults. What’s worse about Amendment 2 is that human embryos are even less capable of standing up for themselves and are the weakest of the weak in our culture, totally helpless and dependent upon others for good will and life.

Missouri has decided to turn its back on these “lowly” people. Even worse, many of the pastors in the LCMS are not engaging the discourse.[10] According to my past experience, very few pastors choose to engage in difficult, but practical life issues. We are all too accustomed to strict Law and Gospel preaching and teaching and do not wish to dig into difficult application. It seems as though we are afraid of being incorrect or taking people’s eyes away from justification through Christ.

But there may be very good reasons to attempt such an issue from a biblical worldview Especially concerning are the assumptions some may come to with our lacking dialogue. Those paying attention may come to one of these troubling conclusions:

1. We don't know what God really thinks about the issue.

2. We don't care about what God thinks about the issue.

3. We are scared to tell people what God thinks about the issue.

4. We think God is "ok" with cloning.

None of these answers are acceptable, for they all fall short of our position. However, if our position is not made perfectly clear, how are people to understand God’s view? I have seen cars pulling out of LCMS church parking lots with a “Vote Yes on Amendment 2” bumper stickers. It is perfectly clear that there will always be someone who doesn’t ‘walk the line,’ but clear education and teaching should lead almost all to the biblical conclusion of this horrible practice.

“But doesn’t this get in the way of the Gospel?” “Won’t this take us off-topic into territory that is better left to the medical field?”[11] “If we speak on this issue, what issue won’t take the place of church ministry and practice as we know it?” These are all good questions which must be carefully weighed, but before doing so, we must also give ear to Luther:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”[12]

It could be argued that defending the life of the weak is highly biblically important. When prioritizing teaching and preaching decisions, one must put justification by faith in Jesus Christ first and foremost, but that does not mean that every sermon and bible class must contain this information and this information alone. Pastors must be good stewards of the whole of Scripture, which includes our everyday lives and dealings. We must never distract from major tenets and foundations of the faith, but build on Jesus Christ.[13] Jesus was specifically interested in the well being of people and bringing His Kingdom into a present reality. This social aspect has to include speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, namely, in this case, the unborn.

Unfortunately, not all agree. Some feel that pastors should stay completely out of anything not directly affiliated with church. Some feel that a voice should come from experts in their field, thereby excluding any other vocation from asserting a biblical view on the given subject. Some feel that pastors should have a say in all things. Who is correct? What should be done, and why?

There is no direct ‘black and white’ answer to questions such as these. However, some guiding priorities should lead us in a generally biblical direction. First of all, Jesus held the value of life extremely high. His Word teaches that human life is exceptionally important; in fact that is why He put on human flesh to save all people, including the weak.[14] Although that seems to rank the highest, we must also concede that this life is second to eternal life, therefore justification by faith in Christ should never be neglected or missed, but the foundation by which all is understood and matured. With this foundational element in place, we can move along as Paul did with the Christians in Corinth, seeking to bring them into spiritual maturity in Christ, finally working in the direction of Paul:

NIV 2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

What concerns me is the lack of backbone to this issue in a public way.[15] We must take the opportunity to address these issues and equip our people to engage the culture where they have influence.[16] We must also not shy away from possible opportunities to relay the truth. It was suggested that the 6 “No Cloning” signs retrieved for the front lawn of South Campus be taken down for fear of a ‘liberal’ taking action against this seminary.[17] Although this kind of suit is possible, the effects of nothing said could be much more devastating for the life of thousands, maybe millions of unborn children.[18] These things must be considered very carefully and weighed according to God’s truth and power, not according to man’s wisdom or concern. May God’s tension of love and action on our behalf lead us to consider and take to heart the whole of His Word, as well as these words of Winston Churchill:

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

[1] Martin Niemoller, German Pastor before World War Two.
[2] If indeed the people understood the amendment, then one should apply Luther’s words as found in volume 51, p. 37: “Where there are no Christians, or perverse and false Christians, it would be well for the authorities to allow them, like heathens, to put away their wives, and to take others, in order that they may not, with their discordant lives, have two hells, both here and there. But let them know that by their divorce they cease to be Christians, and become heathens, and are in the state of damnation.” Although the morality of life versus divorce would need engagement.
[3] The reality of this statement comes from past experience and present day discernment in general and does not necessarily reflect every situation and individual LCMS member. President Kieschnick is to be applauded for his memo on October 20th, but seemingly few pastors took the issue head on.
[4] This document is not easily found, and furthermore, the average voter does not look into such propositions well enough to figure this out, so the deception was built on people’s lack of knowledge. Hosea 4:6 comes to mind.
[5] The technical name for a human being at 15 days of life.
[6] Mice have already been grown to full gestation (although deformed), and goats have also survived almost full-term. Human embryos have been successfully planted already in an artificial womb tissue and allowed to grow for 6 days, after which they were ‘aborted’ because the test was not ready for continuation. Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University’s announced the latter result in 2002.
[7] Although successful acceptance of the organ is more likely, rejection is not totally taken out of the realm of possibility in this process because the procedure always causes unforeseeable mutations in the genes.
[8] This is the famed reasoned argument for embryonic stem cell research. When cells are found to be pluripotent, this means that they can become anything. Not only can Adult stem cells become pluripotent, but they also do not cause cancer as embryonic stem cells have shown to do.
[9] Unfortunately, this amount of “set up” is necessary to better understand the problem of not speaking out on this issue.
[10] Again, this general statement does not include all pastors and leaders, as my RFE pastor held a comprehensive analysis on the subject and brought the issue up consistently over 3 weeks.
[11] The medical field are the ones positioning this amendment. The “yes” rally election night was held on Washington University’s campus.
[12] Luther, Martin. Statement. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: Arthur DeMoss Found., 1986), p. 127.
[13] As Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 3.
[14] He came for the sick and those needing a physician, not the well.
[15] By “public” it is meant direct contact by way of encountering others, especially those outside of our community, not through usually unsolicited places like http://www.lcms.org/ and elsewhere.
[16] This very idea was discussed at the recent conference called Called to Engage the Postmodern World.”
[17] It was suggested that this could be politically arguing one candidate over another, however, the law specifically allows pastors to speak out on moral and biblical issues of the day.
[18] This author also understands the tension of being “wise as serpents but innocent as doves,” but prioritizes life needs over possible unlawful suits, especially under the circumstances.

Creation, God and controversy

Well, not to disappoint, we are taking a brief look at another "hot topic" in our society. Who hasn't heard someone spout, "Creationists are not scientists" and other such language. Again, the debate comes down to interpretation, but this time it isn't interpretation of Scripture (at least on the surface), but of observable facts, at least in the sense of operational science (historical science always includes a presupposed philosophical point of view).

Of course, this does have to do with which authority one considers to be in charge. If God is in charge, then we should take His Word to be the authority in matters, including our view of science and the origins of the world. But if (fallible) man's authority is in charge, we had better be ready to change with the wind, because that is what has happened with man in charge, even since the beginning.

Not everyone wants this 'debate' to be so open, however. As Dr. David Menton shows us in the below article, many, especially those in charge at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), want to squash any attempt at scholarship in our culture. It is quite interesting that we want to have all the information (as the intelligible scholars we are here in America), yet only wish to disseminate a certain part of it for others. I call that brainwashing. Who's brainwashing you? It is sure to be happening, unless you are filtering information as is seeps in. And what is your filter? If you haven't guessed, the answer should be God's Word. Hey, the author of the Bible (God) who spoke through many prophets and apostles along the way, was the only one there! I would go with that witness any day. Besides being all-powerful, all-knowing and the like, He tells us over and over again that He loves us and wants us to be with Him for eternity. But there are some who do not want people hearing any message that might sound like that. Here is one of the places you should watch in the future. We thank Dr. Menton (professor emeritus from Washington University, Professor of the Year twice) for this insightful tool of discernment for future generations.

A Battle for Men’s Souls
David N. Menton

The 172nd national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) met in St. Louis on February 16-20, 2006. I had the opportunity to attend this convention on behalf of AIG, and what I heard and saw is of great importance to all who are concerned about Biblical Christianity and the future of public education in America. Christians be warned! – Evolutionists in the name of “science” so-called have challenged us to nothing less than a battle for men’s souls.

“Science” under attack!
The AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society and their annual meetings comprise well over a hundred different seminars and symposia covering every imaginable field of science and pseudoscience from “Stem Cell Research” to “Astrobiology” (the “study” of life forms around distant stars!). A major theme this year was the growing battle between Creationism and evolutionism in our public schools. In several different symposia with titles like “Anti-Evolutionism in America” and “Science under Attack,” dozens of speakers raised a strident and angry denunciation of Christian “fundamentalists” who they claim seek nothing less than the end of all science!

Lawyers are ensuring that our science classes remain God-free zones
In one session titled “Constitutional Principles and Legal Strategies in the Creation and Evolution Debates” sponsored by the American Bar Association, lawyers crowed over their victories against “intelligent design (ID)” and “Creationism” in recent court battles with school districts in Dover, PA and Cobb County, GA. Apparently the AAAS is counting on lawyers to continue to keep our public schools a God-free zone.

Ray Eve from the University of Texas at Arlington reported on how a belief in Creation and a young earth correlates with many politically “incorrect” views such as opposition to homosexuality. Eve evoked disdainful laughter from the audience when he mentioned such matters as the “fundamentalists” belief in God, angels, the devil, prophecy and the return of Christ. Eve’s biggest concern in future court battles, however, is not the “fundamentalists,” but what he calls “ratchet evolutionists.” These are people who accept evolutionism but reject “strict naturalism.” Presumably, even a belief in evolutionism is not enough for our legal defenders if it is not accompanied by an unquestioning belief in a philosophy of crass materialism.

Diffuse the Creation/evolution controversy by “teaching about religion”
Jay Wexler from Boston University declared that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it’s “religion,” though he conceded that the Supreme Court has yet to define religion. Still, Wexler felt that we could “defuse” the Creation/evolution controversy if our public schools were to “teach about religion.” What he has in mind of course is that all religions would be granted equal coverage and taught as mythology. While Wexler applauded the decision of Federal Judge Jones in the Dover PA case that “intelligent design is breathtaking insanity” and is “not science,” he was leery of judges deciding what is science and what is not, lest it “come back to haunt us.”

Teachers “have no academic freedom”
Steven Gay of Florida State University exhibited anger and sarcasm against ID and Creationism as he spoke on “Field Strategies: What Proponents of Evolution Need to Know.” Gay insisted that we don’t even have to decide what is and is not science when it comes to ID, since “everyone agrees that whatever science is this ain’t it.” Gay warned that one of the strategies the ID proponents are now trying in the courts is to ask that high school teachers be permitted to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution, but he insisted that teachers below the University level “have no academic freedom” to do this, and angrily declared - “You do not have the academic right to be incompetent.”

The lawyers “scare the hell out of the school boards”
Gay said that the decision of Federal Judge Jones against teaching ID in Dover, PA was “great because it scares the hell out of the school boards.” He said that school districts can’t afford to go to court over teaching ID because when they loose they will have to pay for all the legal expenses and quipped that “lawyers make $500 an hour” and “eat at expensive restaurants.”

“Why are you a Baptist?”
Like Wexler, Gay also proposed that teachers should be taught how to “teach about religion” in our public schools in the hope of preventing a conflict between religion and evolutionism. His solution is that we teach how religion itself evolved and ask our students questions such as “Why are you a Baptist?”

Science Under Attack – People are relying on religious explanations and prayer!
The program description for a symposium titled “Science Under Attack” reports with alarm that “Recent data indicates a growth in public support for biblical explanations and a growing reliance on prayer and religious explanation.” Several speakers in this symposium implied that this will have to stop if there is to be any hope for science and, indeed, the future of America.

The leadoff speaker in this symposium was Eugenie Scott, head of the anticreationist organization pretentiously called the “National Center for Science Education (NCSE)” and the darling of evolutionary dogmatists everywhere. Scott lamented that education policy and curriculum is decentralized in over 1700 school districts in the United States and proposed that the science curriculum be centralized. No doubt her NCSE stands ready to set the guidelines for such a national curriculum.

Scott asks, “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?”
Scott lashed out against the suggestion of the ID movement to “teach the controversy” regarding evolutionism, insisting that there is no controversy among those entitled to an opinion. She regards all scientific criticism of evolutionary dogma in the classroom to be “religious” because “if you denigrate evolution then God did it” so you are really “sneaking creationism into the curriculum.” Although most evolutionists have in the past argued that evidence against evolution does not imply evidence for Creation, incredibly Scott asked; “What other designer other than God could have made all this complexity?” Those in the ID movement who ingenuously deny that they have God in mind as the designer could learn something from Scott - what other designer after all is there that could have made the heavens and the earth and all its inhabitants? We may be certain it wasn’t the mindless and purposeless process of random evolution that Scott imagines.

Christian fundamentalism is behind the rejection of modern science
Jon Miller of Northwestern University spoke on what he called “The Erosion of Public Acceptance of Modern Science in the United States.” Having convinced himself that the public support for science in America has been waning over the last several years, Miller puzzled over the incongruous fact that for the last 60 years America has been a leader in science and that Americans in fact generously support science and eagerly adopt new technology. He conceded that the reservations that Americans have for “science” are largely confined to evolutionism and embryonic stem cell research. Still, he said, it was shocking that only about 13% of Americans are convinced that evolution is true and lamented that no other country in the world rejects evolutionism to the degree that Americans do. Miller concluded that “fundamentalism” is behind this rejection of “modern science” (i.e. evolutionism). He defined “fundamentalism” as the belief that the Bible is the Word of God and that there is a personal God who hears the prayers of individuals.

We must reach young children with evolutionism
Shirley Malcom, head of AAAS Education and Resources believes that Americans are willing to accept science until it involves a “clash of values” or has “politically unacceptable implications.” Along with others, she proposed that we must reach the young children because early education in science (i.e. evolutionism) is essential for “adult literacy.” Roger Bybee, head of the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) that over the past 40 years has developed evolution laced biology textbooks, agreed suggesting that “School programs should introduce concepts fundamental to evolution beginning in elementary grades.”

Teachers have done a poor job of teaching evolutionism
Gary Wheeler, head of the National Science Teachers Association and a strong advocate for evolutionism admitted that “every time I support evolution I get hate mail.” Wheeler declared that “teachers lack knowledge of evolution” and that colleges are “doing a dreadful job of teaching science (i.e. evolutionism) to teachers.” Despite the heavy indoctrination in evolutionism that most students get in the course of their education, many conference participants blamed teachers and those involved in teacher training for the failure of Americans to believe in evolutionism. Wheeler says that the two messages he tries to get across to his Creationist critics are: 1) “evolution is necessary for America to remain competitive” in the world, and 2) “it is not fair to teach students about nonscientific ideas.”

Anti-Evolutionism in America – All criticism of evolution is religion!
In yet another anti-creation symposium titled “Anti-Evolutionism in America: What’s Ahead,” the venerated Eugenie Scott once again took the lead to explain the different varieties of anti-evolutionism and how to combat them. She described the two types of Creationism as being Bible based Creationism and Design based Creationism, commonly known as the ID movement. She said that Creation science is actually the richer and more scientific of the two because it makes more “fact claims” than ID. Creation science, for example, has a “historical narrative” while ID has none. Finally, she encouraged evolutionists to “not stop using the peppered moth” as evidence for evolution (despite the fact that it has been shown to be based on fraudulent data). In fact, Scott encouraged her audience to ignore all evidence against evolution because “any time you hear any evidence against evolution assume creationism is behind it.”

Evolution on the Front Line – an outreach to school teachers
A special session titled “Evolution on the Front Line: An Event for St. Louis-Area Teachers” was open to teachers at no cost (as opposed to a $350 fee to attend the rest of the conference). Throughout the conference, teachers had been accused of their dismal failure to teach science (i.e. evolutionism), but in this special session with many teachers in attendance, teachers were warmly praised for their noble efforts.

“Questioning evolution threatens all of science”
The leadoff speaker was the Missouri Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan who said “the best day of his life was when we passed the (embryonic) stem cell research bill in the house.” He assured the teachers that he was totally opposed to ID and insisted that “questioning evolution threatens all of science.” He urged teachers to show conviction when teaching evolution and assured them that “evolution is compatible with religion.”

“If God is a scientist He is a poor one”
A consistent theme among nearly all the speakers in this session for teachers was that “there is no conflict between evolution and religion.” In an apparent effort to prove this point a noted Jesuit astronomer was invited to address the teachers, but he was less than reassuring. Indeed, no speaker was more controversial and irreverent than the Reverend George Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory in Rome.

In his address, “Is God a Scientist? A Catholic Look at Evolution,” he declared that “if God is a Scientist, He is a poor one.” He quipped that if God were a scientist, “I would want an eye with 360 degree vision.” He assured his audience that “God is not an engineer or a designer of the universe,” and that indeed if He were, “that would belittle God.” Coyne explained that “the Scriptures were written before science was developed” and that its authors “couldn’t have known the future.” According to Coyne, “God let the Universe participate in its own creation.” In a concluding statement that seemed to embarrass just about everyone except Coyne he said “I’m sorry to be so emphatic about fundamentalism, but the literal interpretation of Scripture is a plague in our midst.”

Take Home Lessons from the AAAS Convention for the Christian
What may the concerned Bible believing Christian conclude from the AAAS conference and how might we respond to its challenges? The first lesson is that we cannot look to the courts to support the teaching of ID or Creation in the public school. Perhaps the most that can be accomplished is to get the protection of the courts for those teachers who elect on their own to critically evaluate the evidence for evolution. But even this will be vehemently contested by evolutionists and their lawyers.

Evolutionists are not winning in the minds of most Americans
While it may well be true that ID is dead as a legal maneuver to force change in the public schools, Creation and ID are not dead in the hearts of most Americans. Even the evolutionists concede that while they are winning in the courts, they are not winning in the minds of most Americans. Because they do not understand why this is so, they will continue to try to correct the problem in the schools by crushing all descent and teaching evolution ever more frequently, stridently and dogmatically. Even some of the secular press covering the AAAS convention commented on the zeal and dogmatism of the evolutionists.

Evolutionists are now taking their battle into the church
Evolutionists understand that most Americans believe in a Creator God, and they also understand that they cannot win the battle for men’s souls as long as the public understands that there is a deep conflict between Biblical Christianity and evolution. The AAAS tries to obscure this fact and intends to take the battle into the church where they hope to convince both clergy and laymen that “evolution is compatible with religion.” But this is a meaningless claim because while evolutionism is compatible with some religions it is certainly not compatible with others. Almost anything could be said to be compatible with some religion.

Throughout the conference there were appeals for “people of faith” to speak to the news media to show the compatibility of evolutionism and “faith.” Some evolutionists are even getting into churches to preach the “gospel” of evolutionism often under the guise of titles like “The Preservation of Biodiversity.”

In 1995 the AAAS established the program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DSER) to establish communication between scientific and religious communities. In a notice for an upcoming meeting sponsored by DSER called “The Evolution Dialogues,” the questions are asked: Does evolutionary theory deny the existence of god as Creator? Must Christians choose between evolutionary science and their faith? They insist that “the answer all of these questions is a resounding, NO!”

How can the AAAS make these claims when by their own estimates over half of all Americans reject evolution in favor of the Biblical account of Creation? The answer is really quite simple though they are reluctant to put it on the table for all to see. It is OK to believe in a “God” as long as you do not claim that this God actually does anything physical like create natural things by the power of His Word or physically answer the prayers of an individual person. In other words it is OK to believe in a God who doesn’t actually do anything because the physical world (all of reality in their view) is the exclusive domain of science.

A warning to Bible-believing Christians – Do not let the schools “teach about religion”
Christians should be very wary of any efforts on the part of the public schools to “teach about religion.” Some Christians naively think that this sounds like a good idea but evolutionists and the courts will insure that all religions be given equal status and all be considered to be mythology. Evolutionists can hardly wait to teach young students how religion evolved in the mind of primitive man and puzzle over its adaptive value. They know that when the students are confronted with a bewildering array of religious myths many will conclude that none of them is worth their belief or devotion.

Challenge the teachers of evolutionism
Finally, many teachers of evolution at the conference said that the thing that troubles them most are the students and parents that complain about evolution undermining Biblical truths and Christian beliefs. The teachers are also troubled by the scientific challenges and criticism of evolution from both students and parents and that they often do not have the answers to respond. This tells us that we should stay informed about Creation and keep the pressure on the teachers who try to indoctrinate our students on evolutionism.

In conclusion, we would do well to consider the warning of Paul to the Colossians: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV

For more important information, click the link here or to the right at www.answersingenesis.org

Homosexuality, where do we begin?

There is hardly a more controversial topic these days around our culture in America than this issue. Interestingly enough, there is hardly a more definite line found in Scripture. So why all the confusion?

There are many reasons for the confusion, so we will not go through all of them, but most of them fit under this important category: People want to interpret God's Word in their own reason and interest rather than seeking Scripture for interpreting Scripture. Since we really have just one author (God) who has spoken through many authors over the years, Scripture has some color and presentation differences, but the same message from the God who is the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow."

This hopefully causes us to reflect more on the meaning God would have us understand by His Word, which we are told we can understand. We just have to allow God to be in charge (as if the opposite could even be manifest) rather than imposing our thoughts upon God.

I have put some great links to the right regarding this "hot topic" and would encourage anyone to really do their homework regarding it. We must also remember that as Christians, ambassadors for God, that we are not only to speak the truth, but do so with gentleness and respect. Like any fallen creation of God, people are worthy of our respect, love and care. Ultimately, we want to help people and point them to their Savior, Jesus Christ, who has everything under His feet. We pray to have "good feet" and healing hands and lips on issues such as these where Satan has held many captive.

Although this issue is too much for one, or even a few posts, here is a great summary of the subject by Dr. Robert Gagnon, who is an authority on this topic who also upholds the authority of the Bible. Enjoy his perspective and those of the others who are equipping us for every good work on the links to the right.

http://robgagnon.net/homoAPReporter.htm

[On May 26, 2006, an AP reporter asked me some questions in connection with a story about “how divisions over Scriptural authority and homosexuality grew so wide within mainline denominations, why it's so difficult (maybe impossible) to reconcile differing views, and whether schism is inevitable.” The timing of the questions had to do with the then upcoming national assemblies of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The reporter asked me the following specific questions:

· Did the debate over homosexuality trigger divisions over Scriptural authority among mainline Protestants or did those differences already exist when discussion about ordaining gays started?

· Why is it that Protestants with different understandings about Scripture seemed to peacefully co-exist at one time, but appear unable to do so now?

· Why has this debate gone on for so long?

· Is there any way to reconcile differing views over homosexuality and interpreting Scripture?

I provided a response. For whatever reason, no part of my response appears to have made it to the light of day. So after a half year more, I have decided to make my response public.]



Debate over homosexual practice among mainline Protestants has both fueled and ignited longstanding divisions over scriptural authority. Divisions over scriptural authority antedate the debate over homosexual practice. But debate over homosexual practice has provided a decisive concrete test-case for deciding whether Scripture or self-interpreted experience will function as the highest authority in matters of faith and practice. Not since the period of the Reformation has there been a frontal assault on an ethical standard so deeply embedded in the whole witness of Scripture.

Mainline denominations are being besieged by an inversion of levels of interpretive authority. Historically the church has given Scripture the highest position in deciding issues involving faith and practice, followed by philosophic reason, scientific reason, and experience (no experience is self-interpreting). Proponents of homosexual unions are threatening to overturn that order so that experience is placed at the top, followed inversely by scientific reason (though science does not support affirmation of homosexual unions), philosophic reason, and, last, Scripture.

The Bible’s stance for a two-sex prerequisite for marriage and against homosexual unions is pervasive, absolute (without exception), strong (a first-order sexual offense), and countercultural.

It begins already with the story of the creation of “male and female” as complementary sexual counterparts in Genesis 1-2. Woman is presented as coming from the “side” (a better translation than “rib”) of a human/man, a beautiful picture of man and woman as each other’s sexual “other half.”

In the Bible the broad context for the issue of homosexual practice is that every narrative, law, exhortation, proverb, and poetry that has anything to do with human sexuality presupposes a male-female requirement for sexual relations.

Leviticus 20:10-16 regards male-male intercourse as a first-order offense, along with the adultery, bestiality, and the worst forms of incest. That moral, and not merely ritual, impurity is in view is evident from the fact that the impurity is not “contagious,” is not expunged merely by ritual bathing, is limited to intentional acts, and is associated with the term “abomination” in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

The Sodom story in Gen 19 (and the related story of the Levite at Gibeah) is not limited in its indictment of homosexual practice to coercive forms any more than a story about a rape of one’s father is limited in its indictment of incest to coercive forms (as in the story of Ham’s act against his father Noah in Genesis 9).

A series of texts in the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings that speak in a derogatory manner against the qedeshim, male cultic figures who serve as the receptive partners in intercourse with other men, primarily have in view their homoerotic activity.

As for the New Testament, Jesus in Mark 10 predicated his own distinctive view of marital monogamy and indissolubility—the limitation of sexual unions to two and only two persons—on the ‘twoness’ of the sexes, or sexual dimorphism, ordained by God at creation in Genesis 1-2.

Paul in Romans 1:24-27 described homosexual practice as an indecent dishonoring of God’s creation of us as “male and female” and a classic instance of the suppression of the truth about our sexual selves visible in material creation. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul lists “men who lie with a male” alongside men who regularly and unrepentantly engage in incest, adultery, and sex with prostitutes as among those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

In short, there is no getting around the fact that Scripture consistently treats unrepentant homosexual activity as one of the most serious sexual offenses to God’s will.

Some claim that Scripture only condemns exploitative or coercive homosexual unions (men who have sex with boys, slaves, or male prostitutes) but there is no credible evidence supporting this view.

The best scholars among those who support homosexual unions recognize that the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual practice are framed absolutely. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul indicts both female and male homosexual practice and female homosexual practice in the ancient world is not known for coercion. Moreover, he refers in 1:27 to men “inflamed in their yearning for one another,” which certainly doesn’t sound like a coercive relationship. The fact that in Paul’s major indictments of homosexual practice here and in 1 Cor 6:9 there are clear allusions to the creation texts indicates that Paul would have opposed all sexual unions that did not involve a male and female. The same is true of Paul’s nature argument in Rom 1:26-27, which alludes to the embodied complementarity of men and women as a clue to God’s intent for sexual relationships.

In addition, the conception of caring homosexual unions was well known in the ancient world. Had Christians wanted to distinguish between caring and non-caring homosexual unions, they could easily have done so. That they didn’t is further evidence that they were indicting all homosexual unions. In fact, some Greek and Roman moralists already condemned all homosexual acts, even those that were entered “willingly” and were characterized by “tenderness” (see, for example, the speech of Daphnaeus in Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love).

Early Jewish interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions makes clear that “the law recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman . . . abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Josephus) and is inclusive of sex between men and men, not just men with boys (so the rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 54a).

Some claim that modern knowledge of homosexual orientation makes obsolete Scripture’s indictment of homosexual relations. Yet there is no reason for drawing this conclusion. There were a number of theories in the Greco-Roman world positing at least a partial congenital basis for some homosexual attraction and some of those holding such theories still rejected the homosexual behavior arising from such impulses. Paul viewed sin as an innate impulse running through the members of the human body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely within human control. Since all behavior is at some level biologically caused, the moral acceptability of a behavior cannot be deduced from biological causation. Again, some of the top scholars among those supportive of homosexual unions recognize that knowledge of a homosexual “orientation” would not have changed Scripture’s indictment of homosexual unions.

As regards the use of analogical reasoning, some appeal to changing Scripture’s stance on slavery as an analogy for changing its stance on homosexual practice. This is a bad analogy. There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others; indeed, many texts in Scripture are critical of the institution of slavery. But Scripture does have a very clear mandate for a male-female prerequisite for sexual unions, from creation on. From the standpoint of countercultural witness there is no comparison: While Scripture moves in the direction of critiquing the culturally accepted institution of slavery, it also moves in the direction not of greater tolerance toward homosexual unions but of greater rejection as compared to what prevailed in the surrounding cultures.

Nor can homosexual impulses be likened to ethnicity or gender, conditions that are totally heritable, absolutely immutable, primarily non-behavioral, and intrinsically benign.

Can there be long-term reconciliation within the mainline denominations—an agree-to-disagree approach—over issues such as the ordination of persons engaged in serial, unrepentant homosexual practice and the blessing of homosexual unions? My opinion is: Only if the standards of the church against homosexual activity by officers of the church remain enforceable.

The homosexuality debate is ultimately a debate about ethics in general: whether innate, biological urges or Jesus will be lord and master of our lives. Because so much is at stake, I do not think that there is a compromise position that will avert major church divisions. It is like asking whether the mainline churches can agree to disagree on man-mother incest or polyamorous practices or adultery.

Persons supporting homosexual unions won’t give up on the issue because they wrongly regard it as a “social justice” issue. They will not be content with a local option, much less with demoting a national requirement to a nonessential standard. Any accommodation made by a mainline denomination to ordaining persons in homosexual unions will serve as a transitional stage to an inevitable foisting of homosexual endorsement on the denomination as a whole.

Abraham Lincoln in 1858 declared—borrowing from Jesus’ rebuttal of charges that he cast out demons by Beelzebul (Mark 3:20-27)—that “a house divided against itself cannot stand” and that, in time, the United States “will become all one thing [i.e., all slave states], or all the other [all free states].” This is similar to the current decision faced by each mainline denomination on the homosexuality issue: They will operate either under the motto that innate biological urges are Lord, and we their slaves, or under the motto that Jesus is Lord even of such urges.