Page 57 of 76

Police Cars: “In God We Trust”

October 6, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Police Agencies Defy Critics and Show ‘In God We Trust’

By ALAN BLINDER and RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑAOCT. 3, 2015

Sheriff Johnny Moats’s department vehicle in Cedartown, Ga., the seat of Polk County. He bought the “In God We Trust” sticker with his own money after he heard that Missouri sheriffs had begun displaying them. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

CEDARTOWN, Ga. — The chief deputy to Sheriff Johnny Moats of Polk County appeared in an office doorway one morning this month with a message he knew would delight his boss: Another Georgia lawman had heeded Sheriff Moats’s suggestion to add “In God We Trust” decals to official vehicles.

It was a small part of what has emerged as a big moment for the national motto, which has long been cherished by many Christians, criticized by those who say it infringes on the separation of church and state, overlooked by plenty and safeguarded by courts. In recent months, dozens of Southern and Midwestern law enforcement agencies have added the axiom to squad cars, usually to the vexation of vocal, often distant critics, and at the personal expense of sheriffs, police chiefs or rank-and-file employees.

“If it’s on my money and it’s on the state flag, I can put it on a patrol car,” said Sheriff Moats, who wrote to Georgia’s sheriffs this year to promote the motto’s placement on law enforcement vehicles. “Just about every single day, I have another sheriff calling and saying, ‘I’ve done it’ or ‘Can you send me a picture of your patrol car?’ ”

Sheriff Johnny Moats in the Polk County Public Safety Complex, where inmates painted a mural of the Ten Commandments. Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times

Some officials contend that their display of the motto is elementary patriotism, a four-word way of “standing up for America, standing up for our country,” Sheriff Moats said. Others in law enforcement say the stickers are a response to the battering their profession’s reputation has taken after more than a year of high-profile killings and extraordinary scrutiny.

“With the dark cloud that law enforcement has been under recently, I think that we need to have a human persona on law enforcement,” said Sheriff Brian Duke of Henderson County, Tenn. “It gave us an opportunity to put something on our cars that said: ‘We are you. We’re not the big, bad police.’ ”

But critics worry that displays of “In God We Trust” on taxpayer-funded vehicles cross the threshold of constitutionality, even though the courts have repeatedly brushed aside challenges to the motto, which Congress enshrined in 1956. Explanations like the one Sheriff Duke offered have not curbed those frustrations.

“This motto has nothing to do with the problem of police forces’ shooting people, but it’s a great way to divert attention away from that and wrap yourself in a mantle of piety so that you’re above criticism,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, a co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that has demanded that law enforcement officials stop exhibiting the motto. “The idea of aligning the police force with God is kind of scary. That’s the first thing you’d expect to see in a theocracy.”

A pattern has developed: A police or sheriff’s department begins using the stickers, and Ms. Gaylor’s group sends it a letter, arguing that the practice is unconstitutional and that the agency should desist. The dispute attracts attention, and more law enforcement agencies join the trend; indeed, some appear to relish the opportunity to tweak a critic.

In Texas, for instance, the police chief of Childress, Adrian Garcia, drew attention when he denied Ms. Gaylor’s request and, in a letter to her posted on the department’s Facebook page, asked “that you and the Freedom From Religion Foundation go fly a kite.”

Ms. Gaylor disputed suggestions that the foundation had unwittingly fostered the spread of the stickers. “I don’t think it has a thing to do with us,” she said.

Protests and warnings from critics like Ms. Gaylor also seem to be of little concern in places like Polk County, a few minutes from the Alabama border, where about 41,000 people live in a rural area dotted with churches, Confederate battle flags and fried chicken restaurants. The small atrium of Sheriff Moats’s building features a pair of murals painted by inmates, including one of the Ten Commandments on tablets that are more than six cinder blocks tall. A painted golden banner reading “In God We Trust” hangs above them.

The idea to add the national motto to patrol cars here, Sheriff Moats said, came after he saw on Facebook that Missouri sheriffs had begun doing so. Sheriff Moats spent $5 of his own money to buy a sticker for his department vehicle, which he said spurred deputies to ask how they might do the same. Within a week, most of the department’s cars had the stickers.

“I don’t know why an atheist is so upset about us putting up ‘In God We Trust,’ ” Sheriff Moats said. “I’m not saying that they trust God. I’m saying that we, as the guys in this department who put this on our cars, we trust in God. And why is that a bad thing? Even if you don’t believe, you know God’s all about good.”

He maintained that the motto’s presence did not signal that his department would discriminate. “You could be a satanic devil worshiper, and as long as you’re a law-abiding citizen and you need help, we’re going to help you,” he said.

There is nothing new about government display of the motto. The United States began stamping “In God We Trust” on some coins during the Civil War, and it has been on all coins since 1938. The words began to appear on paper currency in 1957.

There have been a number of unsuccessful legal challenges to the motto, but the Supreme Court has never addressed it directly. And critics, including Ms. Gaylor, concede that they are unlikely to win a favorable ruling soon.

“The motto is pretty much immunized from constitutional challenge unless you can show really bad intent,” said Steven K. Green, a law professor at Willamette University and former legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The likelihood of success is minimal. The likelihood of creating worse precedent is actually greater.”

So for now, Sheriff Moats said, there is little reason or incentive for him to abandon the stickers. When he stopped at Gran-Gran’s here one afternoon for a lunch of hamburger steak and banana pudding, customer after customer expressed support. One man asked whether Sheriff Moats happened to have with him any of the related “In God We Trust” stickers that have been sold at his office for $2 each. (He did, in his patrol car.)

The sheriff said that he had not yet received a letter from Ms. Gaylor, but that he had considered his response to a missive he knew would surely come.

“I’m just going to politely tell them that, as long as I’m sheriff of Polk County, it will not come off my car,” he said. “If the citizens of this county want it off my car, then they can vote for somebody else, and then maybe that person can take it off.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I “swiped” this from “The New York Times” to applaud these police. Besides those who object to the “flagrant violation” of the (wrongly interpreted) “separation of church and state”, some might object that this promotes a kind of “civil religion”—the old “God is America’s God” thing. But in these days when God is banned from the public square, I don’t think we have to worry about a civil religion!

True, every law enforcement officer who displays this bumper sticker may not be a Christian (God knows)—or maybe each one is—but even a general witness that gets his name before people is a good thing. Remember what Paul wrote: “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry . . . What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15a,18). These officers aren’t preaching Christ. But they are “advertising” the Father.

So we can rejoice that God’s name is being “preached” on police car bumpers! And we can pray that God uses it to promote greater respect for law enforcement officers and from this that the One in whom we trust receives greater glory!

Saving Christians from ISIS

October 4, 2015 / Allan Babcock

When Isaiah wrote, “they shall mount up with wings like eagles” (40:31), he didn’t have helicopters in mind. But if Chloe Valdary gets her way, Middle East Christians may.

Writing in last Friday’s “Wall Street Journal”, Valdary (a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal) recalled how in 1975 air and sea missions saved tens of thousands of Vietnamese. Eventually they were resettled in the U.S. She advocates the same approach for the persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

Since the rise of . . . ISIS, about 125,000 Christians have fled [Iraq]. After ISIS took [the city of] Mosul in June 2014, the city’s Christians flocked to Erbil, the Kurdish capital. In Syria, once home to nearly two million Christians, at least 500,000 have been displaced during four years of war. It is ISIS policy to kidnap and rape Christian women and girls. The terrorist group has razed Christian sites, including monasteries dating to the fifth century. Last October the ISIS magazine Dabiq referred to Christians as “crusaders” and vowed to kill “every Crusader possible.”

That should remind Western policy makers: Christians are not random victims, caught in the maw of Mideast strife. They are targets of genocide, much like the Jews during World War II. This entitles them to broad protection under the 1951 U.N. Genocide Convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

It is also worth noting that because Christians in Iraq and Syria are facing genocide—as opposed to displacement—there is a limited window for rescue. Unlike the thousands of refugees pouring into Europe, who are mostly escaping the violence driven by the sectarian war in Syria, Christians are facing a targeted campaign of annihilation. The U.S. ought to take that into consideration when prioritizing the resettlement of the additional 30,000 refugees the country is slated to absorb over the next two years.

Valdary goes on to note that a California Democrat has introduced in the House of Representatives a bill to require the secretary of state to “report to Congress a plan to expedite the processing of refugee admissions applications” for religious minorities threatened by ISIS. Valdary writes . . .

The bill hasn’t moved in Congress, partly due to inattention but also because the Obama administration seems to want nothing to do with it.

Mark Arabo has founded the Minority Humanitarian foundation, a non-profit whose mission is to get Iraqi Christians out before it is too late. Arabo . . .

. . . is essentially running an underground railroad to help Christians escape. “We are bringing them to America, Australia and France,” he said. “In the U.S. alone, we have identified 70,000 Christians who have been displaced and have matched them with 70,000 people willing to bring them in.” But that depends on the administration’s willingness to allow them to enter.

* * * * *

The scale of suffering in the world staggers my mind—and I see only bits and pieces on TV, the Internet and in print. This suffering is intentional. It’s persecution. Not as in, you might lose your job. But in, you will be killed if we catch you.

These are our brothers and sisters. Their fine points of doctrine may differ from ours. They may worship differently. But many certainly have genuine faith in Jesus. That makes them family. Whatever we believe about end-time theology, this is their Tribulation!

Should I write my representative and ask him to get moving on House Resolution 1568, the “Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act of 2015”? Should you? One thing I know you and I must do is pray. I’ve become so cynical about the government, and my faith in God’s intervention is sometimes weak. But, if not out of great faith, then out of desperation for our brothers and sisters, I (we) should pray for the Father to save his family from this demonic, antichrist evil sweeping the Middle East.

I know: something else to pray for. It never ends. The list always lengthens. But we are at war and the lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ hang in the balance. May our Father protect them. May he save them from the evil of ISIS. And may he, if he so wills, use even helicopters to “mount [them] up with wings like eagles.”

Ransom

October 1, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Watch people on your job, in the supermarket, around your neighborhood. Do they look like captives? In view of a verse I skimmed over recently (“Who’s the Greatest?”—https://theoldpreacher.com/whos-the-greatest/), they may be. Let’s give a little more attention to what Jesus said.

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve
and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Jesus, Mark 10:45).

In the 1996 movie, “Ransom”, Mel Gibson plays Tom Mullens, a wealthy father whose young son is kidnapped. After two attempts to pay the $2,000,000 ransom fail, Mullens realizes he may never see his son again. He angrily appears on TV and offers the money as bounty to whomever kills the kidnapper. The story unexpectedly twists and turns, but in the end Mullens gets his son back.

God didn’t. At least not until after crucifixion and resurrection. Because his Son was the ransom.

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve
and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Jesus, Mark 10:45).

This is why Jesus’ followers must be servants: Jesus himself came to serve. Throughout his Gospel, Mark has shown us Jesus serving demonized men by setting them free, serving sick people by healing them, serving a crowd of 5000 by miraculously feeding them, serving a dead girl by raising her to life, and so on. It all leads to Jesus’ supreme act of serving— giving his life as a ransom for many.

The original Greek word is lutron. It refers to the price paid to release a slave or a captive. Hence the translation “ransom, the price of release, the means of setting free.” Writers have argued over the recipient of that ransom. Jesus doesn’t address that; he stresses the act. He would give his life as a ransom.

In that regard, Christianity is unique among world religions. Others teach various ways adherents must perform some act to attain blessings promised. Only the Gospel announces that Jesus has done what’s required to enjoy blessings promised. Jesus gave his life as a ransom to set us free.

There’s a second reason why Christianity is unique. It alone insists we are helpless, hopeless sinners who can do nothing to attain salvation. Look at Isaiah 53:4-6, a familiar prophecy that gives background for Mark 10:45 . . .

Surely he has borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace;
and with his wounds we are healed.
We all like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—everyone—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:4-6).

Isaiah calls us transgressors of the Creator’s laws and sinners (“iniquities”) against him. Consequently, we are alienated from (are not at peace with) God and sick. Like dumb sheep we’ve strayed from him. Like stubborn teenagers we’ve turned to our own way. Unflattering description. We’re better than that, right? Isaiah cements his case with this: All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away (64:6). However “right” we try to dress ourselves up, before the Holy God we’re wearing filthy rags. On Judgment Day we’ll shrivel like dead leaves and be swept away.

In the only explanation Jesus gave in Mark about why he would die, Jesus told the Twelve he would give his life as a ransom for many. Of this Isaiah prophesied 700 years earlier. Messiah would pick up and carry away our griefs and sorrows. Be pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. Endure punishment so we could have peace with God. Be mortally wounded so we could be healed. Jesus would give his life as a ransom for many.

The New Testament writers echo the ransom-theme. “Ransom” (some form of the Greek lutrosis) is translated “redeemed” or “redemption” in each of these verses because ransom is the means of redeeming. Just as Tom Mullens was willing to pay the ransom to redeem or set free his son, so Jesus would give his life as a ransom to redeem or set free many.

♦When John the Baptist was born his father, priest Zechariah, prophesied, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed (Greek lutrosis) his people” (Luke 1:68). John would go before Jesus to announce his coming.

♦When newborn Jesus was presented at the temple, a prophetess named Anna came up to him and began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption (Greek lutrosis) of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38). According to the prophets, the holy city, now ruled by idolatrous Romans, would one day be redeemed. Anna recognized baby Jesus as the ransom.

♦Paul spoke of our Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem (Greek lutro-o) us from all lawlessness
. . . (Titus 2:14). Here Paul identifies “lawlessness” (breaking God’s laws which leads to God’s wrath) as the captivity Jesus gave himself as a ransom to redeem us from.

♦The writer to the Hebrews taught that Christ entered once for all into the holy place . . . by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption (Greek lutrosis) (Hebrews 9:12). Jesus, as the once-for-all ransom secured eternal redemption by his blood death.

♦And Peter explained, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed (Greek lutro-o) from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18,19).

Money, regardless of the amount, is an inadequate ransom. Captive to our sins and God’s judgment, our lives, however full they may seem, are ultimately empty. Jesus is the only sufficient ransom for all sins, because he is the only perfect ransom and his blood is priceless. Only he can fill our lives.

Do the people with whom we work or shop or live look like captives who need a ransom to free them? Probably not. But things are not always what they seem. Probably you don’t look like a captive either. But apart from Jesus the ransom, you are. Believe it.

If so, you’re free. To do whatever you want? No. To freely follow in Jesus’ steps and serve others for his sake.

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve
and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Jesus, Mark 10:45)

ransom: Praying to the sun Stock Photo

The Francis Effect

September 26, 2015 / Allan Babcock

How about that “Francis effect!”

Admirers straining to get a picture of Pope Francis as he passed in his popemobile near the White House on Wednesday.

Here it is in words—excerpts from Peggy Noonan’s Saturday column in “The Wall Street Journal” . . .

“The pope I love embraces the hideously deformed man. He sees the modern world for what it is, ‘a field hospital after the battle . . . The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds’ . . . This pope fills my eyes with tears. He loves the poor. He pays his own hotel bill . . . The Francis I love is against materialism because he knows it is hollow and soul-crushing . . . He is for the little guy. . . [The] pope has captured the imagination of the world . . . [Francis] has filled the world with more than his portion of sweetness, and . . . has drawn the affection and regard of non-Catholics around the world.”

Why come? I watched the end of the pope’s Washington mass Saturday as thousands lined up for the Eucharist. I wished I could take a poll: “What is it about the pope that drew you to come today?” I couldn’t, of course. But in “Love for Pope Brings Them to the Streets, Not Necessarily to Church,” Zelda Caldwell wrote her findings of why some people came . . .

Coral Keegan, age 24, who lives in Washington, DC but is originally from New York, is a baptized Catholic, but not a regular churchgoer. She came because, “I like that he’s accepting of gays and lesbians, which the church didn’t do before.”

Does the pope make her want to go to Mass again? “No,” she said, “I don’t think it’s necessary for being a spiritual person.” Lying in the grass next to her, was Jorge Gonzalez, age 27, and originally from Colombia.

“I like how humble he is. He’s taken himself off a high, holy spot, and is showing himself as just a human being.” Raised a Catholic, Gonzalez doesn’t attend church regularly, and says that in spite of his positive feelings about the pope, he probably won’t start.

Jenna Porter, 24, from Massachusetts said, “Actually, I’m not Catholic, but I have a lot of admiration for the Holy Father. I’ve always been interested in religious studies even though I’m not religious. I think Pope Francis is a galvanizing figure. He’s a lot more optimistic, compassionate, and in touch with people than most leaders at his level. He’s an example of how religion can have a positive effect on people. ” She continued, “By sharing the original gospel that says treat people as you would have them treat you, he is himself a model of how to act as a human.”

The Crowds. Hundreds of thousands (over 800,000 attended his final mass in Philadelphia) greeted Pope Francis in Washington, D.C., in New York City and finally in Philadelphia. They waited, cheered, photographed, reached out and, when he ended his masses, they applauded. He called for children to come, kissed them on the head. He clearly enjoys being with people, but seems humbly unawed by his celebrity status. He preaches homilies of love, kindness, peace, tolerance, unity. Last year on Holy Thursday he washed the feet of 12 disabled and elderly people—women and non-Catholics among them —in a pre-Easter ritual designed to show his willingness to serve others like a “slave.”

Pope Francis Washes the Feet of Inmates for Holy Thursday Video - ABC ...

Clearly there’s a longing in America, and maybe in the world, for positive, upbulding, hopeful words. We’re weary of negative news, restrictive regulations, and pessimistic predictions (or unkept political promises). So when someone of the pope’s stature makes us feel good, we eat it up. (Did you see the up-close camera shots of the audience while the pope spoke? Awe-struck. Hungry. Thirsty.) The “Francis effect.”

“Rocked” & Confused. But then I’m “rocked” like some in this 2013 “Huffington Post” article . . .

Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists. During his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis emphasized the importance of “doing good” as a principle that unites all humanity, and a “culture of encounter” to support peace.

Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say: “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Then, this “Inquisitr” article from last year confuses me about Francis . . .

According to an article Now The End Begins, Pope Francis enforced this view that the only way to God cannot be done without the Virgin Mary and the Church of Rome. Without both, you are simply condemned to burn for all eternity in hell. The statement that Pope Francis uses that the article brings up is as follows:

“Dear friends, let us ask the Lord, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for the grace to never fall into the temptation of thinking we can make it without others, that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves alone, of being Christians of the laboratory. On the contrary, you cannot love God without loving your brothers, you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.”

Simply going by that statement, there are three things that should be noted for what they state salvation should require. First, there needs to be an intercession of the Virgin Mary. Second, you cannot love God outside of the Church. And third, you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church. Going with the Holy Bible, there is no scripture that supports this. As a matter of fact, the article even goes further and states that Pope Francis is the False Prophet, mentioned in the book of Revelations.

However, such exclamations are not new with the Roman Catholic Church. For years, which also includes the years they slaughtered millions of Christians simply because they weren’t Catholic, they have expressed their agenda, as stated by Christian Beliefs (End Times Deceptions). According to their article, the most explicit statement about this came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino in 1441, when he proclaimed ex cathedra:

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ unless before death they are joined with Her…

No one, let his alms giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Jesus Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Affected? How should I evaluate the pope? How does all this affect the “Francis effect”? On one hand, he is the pope who embraces everyone and claims Christ redeemed all. He represents the Catholic doctrine that those outside the Catholic church cannot have eternal life.

Then there’s the “Vicar of Christ” doctrine. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Vicar of Christ” is a title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.ht). In other words, as the Vicar of Christ, the pope is the representative of Christ on earth with the same power and authority over the church Christ has.

Here are the passages. Read them and see if on their face they provide any basis for the Catholic interpretation.

Again Jesus said, “Simon, son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:16,17).

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18,19).

Catholics claim that, according to these texts, Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles. Later Peter became the first bishop of Rome with authority over all other bishops and church leaders. Peter passed that apostolic authority on to the next bishop, who then passed it on to the next and so on. By this unbroken chain of Roman bishops, the Roman Catholic Church claims it is the true church.

So I ask again: How should I evaluate Pope Francis? On several key doctrines, I’m opposed. The “Vicar of Christ” teaching. Their doctrine of salvation. Relationally, I like the man. If I knew him personally, I think I would love him.

Doctrinally, I seem him as a product of his Catholic system. Most of us are. For 25 years I was a doctrinal product of the Pentecostal denomination in which I was raised and schooled. That didn’t make me a deceiver. Nor does it make the pope an intentional deceiver.

I certainly can’t oppose his love of people, especially for the poor, the imprisoned, the outcast. He embraces them as Christ did and as he taught us to. So much of what he said and did on this U.S. visit was a fresh-air breath of kindness, mercy and love.

I see in Pope Francis a man who genuinely loves God and neighbor. Though I disagree on key doctrines, I respect him and appreciate his pastoral warmth relationally. I want to focus on where we agree, not disagree. While acknowledging our important differences, I want to build him up in my speech, not tear him down.

Correct doctrine is vital. At the same time I must remember that God’s redeemed people through Christ includes more than those who adhere to my tenets of faith. And, holding to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, I’m commanded to love my neighbor—even if he’s the pope!

Description Pope Francis hugs a man in his visit to a rehab hospital ...

Who’s the Greatest?

September 26, 2015 / Allan Babcock

For the third time Jesus foretells his death to his disciples. Not death by Hollywood. Death by crucifixion. Preceded by betrayal, condemnation, mocking, spitting and flogging. Followed by rising three days later. Jerusalem will be the place, where the authorities hate Jesus to death. Jerusalem—just up the road.

They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” (Mark10:32-34).

The last time Jesus spoke like this the disciples didn’t understand (9:30-32). No reason to assume they “get it” now. What they do seem to get is the messianic kingdom is near (1:14,15). And James and John aim to get seats #1 and #2 in the throne room. They start with a statement that signals every parent, “THIS IS A SET UP!”

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory” (10:35-37).

Give them credit for chutzpah! (That’s a Jewish word). Ah, but as usual, they’re a bit dense . . .

Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared” (10:38-40).

Do they gulp when Jesus promises that will suffer like him? Undoubtedly they’re disappointed when Jesus tells them he doesn’t have the right to give those seats in his administration. There’s more to come, however. Typically, Jesus makes James’ and John’s chutzpah (that’s a Jewish word) a teaching moment. First he has to quiet down the class because . . .

When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:35-45).

Once the ten got over their fit, Jesus explained greatness. It’s not what the Gentiles (a non-Jewish word) think it is (getting to lord it over people and order them around). In his kingdom greatness is what he says it is—being a servant.

“Downton Abbey” fan? That’s the PBS story of an aristocratic family in Great Britain living in a multi-story mansion during the early 20th century. Bottom floor belongs to the servants who cook, clean, launder, dress and generally wait on the family above. In the messianic kingdom, though, it’s the servants who are upper class on the upper floors.

Living to meet others’ needs (from holding a door for a disabled man to doing more than your share around the house to interceding in prayer to sharing the gospel and everything in between) is a weird way to greatness. Why does Jesus demand it? Because that’s the way our King lived and the way he died. In fact, servanthood lies at the heart of the Gospel. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Taking the place of a servant isn’t simply the helpful thing to do; it’s the Jesus-like thing to do. It’s the way we bear witness to the presence of his kingdom and show others what kingdom-life in this age is like.

Who’s the greatest? Servants who follow the way of Jesus.

But should we even be aiming at greatness? Isn’t that the opposite of humility. Shouldn’t that be our aim? After all, Scripture says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

Here’s how I see it. I may start being a servant craving a top seat in the kingdom. But after learning to live (sort of) like a servant for some time, I start to forget about seats #1 and #2. Serving becomes the arena where the Holy Spirit nurtures humility in me. By humbly serving I grow into a humble servant. And I begin to realize that the joy found in humbly serving is enough, because I realize I’m (wobbly and weakly) walking in the steps of the King.

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus the Servant Washes Feet

Whom can I serve today as Jesus would?

The “Living” Constitution

September 23, 2015 / Allan Babcock

I’ve written a lot about the State lately. Maybe old age is giving me a long-range perspective I didn’t have earlier. I remember when . . . Never mind, I won’t bore you with reminiscing about how I had to walk to and from school in thigh-high snow drifts with white-out-condition winds fighting me every step of the way.

I suppose most grandfathers worry over the kind of country their grandchildren are growing up in. I’m grateful that “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:15). “All”, then, isn’t ultimately in the hands of politicians or court justices. Still, what they do will profoundly determine what America will be like in years ahead—and the kind of society in which our children will be called to follow Jesus.

Yesterday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized justices who view the Constitution as “living.” If you think this is “getting into the weeds” stuff, think again. The more justices see the Constitution as “living”, the less we become a nation of laws and the more we become a nation legally led by powerful men and women influenced by popular culture. And that culture is almost never friendly to Christ and his people.

Scalia addresses Constitution, same-sex marriage in speech

By ADRIAN SAINZ

Sep. 22, 2015 11:14 PM EDT

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday criticized judges who believe the Constitution is a “living” document, saying they amount to policy makers who are rewriting it and making moral decisions for the entire country about same-sex marriage and other issues. He also referred to this summer’s same-sex marriage ruling as “extreme.”

Scalia spoke to about 500 people at Rhodes College, where he was invited to deliver the school’s annual Constitution Day lecture. He is the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Reagan in 1986.

In his speech, Scalia distinguished “originalism,” which calls for adherence to the original text and meaning of the Constitution when interpreting it, from the theory of a “living” Constitution, which views the document as one that evolves and changes over time without being amended.

“They’re not adhering to the text, they’re operating as policy makers,” Scalia, an “originalist,” said of believers in a “living” Constitution. “They’re not interpreting the constitution. They’re writing one, they’re revising one.”

Later he added: “What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide?” he asked. “It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale law school doesn’t teach that stuff.”

Scalia was among four dissenting justices in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June that cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry. Scalia said at the time that he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as “this court’s threat to American democracy.”

On Tuesday, he called the same-sex marriage ruling “the furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants.”

“Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens, I don’t know how you can get more extreme than that,” he said. “I worry about a Court that’s headed in that direction.”

Scalia also noted that only one sitting Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is from the South: The others are from California, New York and New Jersey. He said believers of a “living” Constitution should be upset by that.

“You should be upset because these people are making a new Constitution and they are terribly unrepresentative of the country,” he said.

Scalia said judges who believe in an ever-changing Constitution are making it more rigid, not more flexible.

“It’s no use talking about abortion anymore. It’s just off the democratic stage,” he said. “No use arguing about it, coast to coast, now and forever, or unless the Supreme Court changes its mind. Is that flexibility?”

Planned Parenthood: Lawless

September 22, 2015 / Allan Babcock

To defund Planned Parenthood, focus on three video-caused problems. So writes Stephen J. Heaney (Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Saint Thomas Saint Paul, MN), in the current edition of “Public Discourse” from The Witherspoon Institute (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15670/). Here are the problems . . .

“First, Planned Parenthood affiliates, with consent of the national office, are clearly violating several federal regulations concerning obtaining fetal tissue for research—possibly including making an illegal profit from the deal. Second, in doing so, they are violating their own protocols and terms of consent with the women undergoing the abortions. Third, it is apparent from these violations that Planned Parenthood does not care about the women it claims it is so moved to serve.”

Heaney warns that if we use the videos to argue against abortion, pro-abortionists will always counter with a PC answer, such as, “You’re against women’s health!” Rather, we should focus on their violation of federal regulations, their violating their own protocols, and their non-care about women.

First, focus on federal regulations violations.

“US Code Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter III, Part H, paragraph 289g-1 gives the conditions for the donation of fetal tissue. Under b) 2) A), the following regulations are in place:

1. the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in research;

2. no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue

Furthermore, HHS regulations, as spelled out in Chapter VI of the Institutional Review Board Guidebook, insist:

-The decision to terminate a pregnancy and procedures of abortion should be kept independent from the retrieval and use of fetal tissue.

– The timing and methods of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.

– Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of tissue

The Code of Federal Regulations at 46.204 (h) and (i) says:

(h) No inducements, monetary or otherwise, will be offered to terminate a pregnancy;

(i) Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy.

And at 46.206:

(a) Research involving, after delivery, the placenta; the dead fetus; macerated fetal material; or cells, tissue, or organs excised from a dead fetus, shall be conducted only in accord with any applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations regarding such activities.”

Here are regulations regarding fetal tissue donations . . .

“US Code Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter III, Part H, paragraph 289g-1 gives the conditions for the donation of fetal tissue. Under b) 2) A), the following regulations are in place:

1. the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in research;

2. no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue

Furthermore, HHS regulations, as spelled out in Chapter VI of theInstitutional Review Board Guidebook, insist:

-The decision to terminate a pregnancy and procedures of abortion should be kept independent from the retrieval and use of fetal tissue.

– The timing and methods of abortion should not be influenced by the potential uses of fetal tissue for transplantation or medical research.

– Payments and other forms of remuneration and compensation associated with the procurement of fetal tissue should be prohibited, except payment for reasonable expenses occasioned by the actual retrieval, storage, preparation, and transportation of tissue

The Code of Federal Regulations at 46.204 (h) and (i) says:

(h) No inducements, monetary or otherwise, will be offered to terminate a pregnancy;

(i) Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy.

And at 46.206:

(a) Research involving, after delivery, the placenta; the dead fetus; macerated fetal material; or cells, tissue, or organs excised from a dead fetus, shall be conducted only in accord with any applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations regarding such activities.”

Regarding profiting from the sale of baby body parts, Planned Parenthood denies they don’t profit because they are a non-profit organization! However, the videos clearly reveal Planned Parenthood often establishes the price and that it is as much as the market will pay.

Heaney writes: “In the second video, Mary Gatter, president of the Planned Parenthood Medical Directors’ Council, and medical director at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles until 2014, is clearly willing to accept, not what it would cost her clinic to process the fetal organs, but whatever the buyer is willing to pay. In the third video, Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for PPFA, recognizes that the affiliates are looking for ways, not simply to break even, but to make a profit. In the fifth video, we see Abby Johnson, former director of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, testifying before the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, that fetal specimens were bringing in up to $120,000 per month. ‘That is certainly not “recouping costs”,’ she concludes.”

Second, focus on PP’s own protocol and terms of consent violations. Videos one, two and five all reveal PP officials stating their abortionists “are perfectly willing to change the type of procedure they will perform, better to obtain the types of specimens desired.” Procedure-type should to be chosen by what is best for the woman, not what is best for getting fetal tissue. To change procedure without the patient’s consent violates federal law and PP’s own protocol.

Third, focus on PP’s lack of care for women. The violations identified above suggest PP doesn’t genuinely care about women they claim to serve, Again, Heaney writes, “We have the testimony of former StemExpress procurement agent Holly O’Donnell that it was her job to pressure women into giving consent to fetal tissue donation, even when they clearly did not want to, by telling them that some good would come as a result of the valuable research to be performed on their dead babies’ remains. We further have her testimony that fetal tissue was not infrequently donated even when the woman did not give consent.”

Conclusion. In discussing these videos. Heaney counsels, “Stick to the pertinent facts: Planned Parenthood is profiting from the sale of fetal parts. Planned Parenthood is routinely violating federal law. Planned Parenthood really does not care about women.”

Planned Parenthood proponents argue the videos are edited. What a ridiculous charge! How could “innocent” videos possibly be edited to this horrific degree! The reality: Planned Parenthood is guilty of violating federal regulations as well as its own surgical protocols.

Suppose the government doesn’t prosecute? Then we’d have an egregious example of how lawless the government has become. And that should frighten us. Without laws justly applied, America would be run by whichever self-serving lawbreaker carries the most clout. And then we’d no longer have the kind of government Paul describes in Romans 13, but be well on our way toward having the kind of government the Book of Revelation envisions.

us constitution photo: Constitution Picture2.png

How to Enter God’s Kingdom–or Not

September 21, 2015 / Allan Babcock

However good life is, it disappoints us. For much of the world, life is a struggle just to survive. Wherever we are and whoever we are, we expected more. That “more” is the kingdom of God Jesus brought near (Mark 1:14,15).

I can’t prove God’s kingdom is real. I can only welcome it by faith in Jesus. I can’t describe everything that the kingdom of God is. I can only define it as “God taking over the world through his Son, Jesus Christ.” According to Scripture, that process is going on right now. And though I can’ t fully describe the kingdom, I can cite these words from the apostle Paul: “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine . . . ” (Ephesians 3:20). God, whose kingdom it is, can do infinitely more than all we ask or even dream of! That implies God’s kingdom is far greater than anything we might dare to ask for or even conceive of! It’s the life we hope for, dream of, wish for—and far more!

But how do we enter God’s kingdom? Mark 10:13-31 contrast children with a rich man to answer that question.

The Children. People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Familiar incident. It does, however, raise questions similar to the one we’re asking. Why is God’s kingdom appropriate for people like those children? How does one receive God’s kingdom like a little child in order to enter it? To ask another way, what is it about children that makes them models for entering the kingdom? Let’s save our answers until after we read the contrasting narrative.

The Rich Young Man. As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good– except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” Peter said to him, “We have left everything to follow you!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields– and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Why did the rich man go away sad without the eternal life of the kingdom? What is it about wealth that makes entering God’s kingdom so hard?

The Contrasts.

The children had no accomplishments to cite. The rich man confidently confessed he had kept all God’s commandments from his youth. The children couldn’t claim that. They remind me of the first phrase of the third verse of the hymn, “Rock of Ages”—“Nothing in my hand I bring . . . ” This is what it means to welcome God’s kingdom like children—to bring nothing to Jesus but ourselves as we are and to accept whatever he wants to give us of himself.
The rich man treasured his wealth more than God’s kingdom. As far as we can tell from the text, the children were content simply to be held and blessed by Jesus. This is what prompts Jesus to exclaim, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” Not that the wealthy can’t enter (for “all things are possible with God”). But from the human side, great possessions are a barrier to entering the kingdom. Why? Because they possess us! This is why Jesus counseled the rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. Only by such a radical act could the power of possessions over that young man be broken. Sadly, he treasured them more than God’s kingdom. Therefore, while the children are a model of how to enter the kingdom, the rich young man is a model of how one cannot enter.

How upside-down is this! Wealth signifies success in the “real world.” But it’s children Jesus embraces as examples for welcoming God’s kingdom. Children who have to be brought to Jesus. Children who are little in the world. Children with empty hands who simply receive whatever blessing Jesus gives.

I wonder who I am more like? The children or the rich man? The question carries great consequence. Which I am like determines whether I enter God’s full-of-wonder kingdom for “children.”

It Is Well

September 18, 2015 / Allan Babcock

Today’s been rough for me. Not feeling well at all. Then I found an e-mail from my daughter, Meridith, who keeps me supplied with worshipful, heart-lifting music.

As I listened, I sat in solitude before the Lord, drinking in the peace of his presence. And when the song reached the last stanza, tears began to fall and my hands almost lifted themselves in worship. I hope it blesses you as it did me.

Thank you, Meridith, for letting the Lord use you like this today. I love you.

Evangelicals, Think! Donald Trump?

September 17, 2015 / Allan Babcock

I’m shocked that many professed evangelical Christians support Donald Trump. Sure, we’re angry at Washington as other Americans are. But have we thought about who this man is and what he’s done and stood for? Can we even be sure when his mouth seems to run faster than his brain?

Last night’s debate on CNN was, I think, may have been the beginning of Trump’s “implosion”. He’s not qualified to serve as President. If he’s a Christian, the fruit of his life and words give no evidence.

Russell Moore, in a sharp, convicting article in today’s “New York Times”, says it better than I and hopefully will wake us out of our knee-jerk anger to think like Christians in this Republican nominating process. I applaud Moore for writing it and the “New York Times” for printing it!

Have Evangelicals Who Support Trump Lost Their Values?

By RUSSELL MOORE SEPT. 17, 2015

IN 2006, the television comedy “The Office” aired an episode in which one of the characters, Dwight Schrute, nervously faces the prospect of delivering a speech after winning the title of top salesman of the year for his company, Dunder Mifflin. As a prank, his co-worker preps him for his moment by cribbing a speech from a dictator, coaching him to deliver it by pounding the lectern and waving his arms wildly. Dwight does it, and the audience gives a standing ovation to a manic tirade.

Watching a cartoonish TV character deliver authoritarian lines with no principles, just audacity, was hilarious back then, but that was before we saw it happening before our eyes in the race for the United States presidency.

Donald J. Trump stands astride the polls in the Republican presidential race, beating all comers in virtually every demographic of the primary electorate. Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.

Ben Carson recently contrasted his own faith in God with Mr. Trump’s theatrical egocentrism. “By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life, and that’s a very big part of who I am,” he said, citing a Bible verse. “I don’t get that impression with him.” Mr. Trump hit back, suggesting that Mr. Carson was faking his own faith: “So I don’t know about Ben Carson’s faith, and all of a sudden he becomes this great religious figure. I don’t think he’s a great religious figure.” Mr. Carson quickly backed off from his comments, but the questions are not so easily dismissed.

There’s no religious test for office, and there shouldn’t be. My Baptist ancestors were willing to make alliances with the heretical Thomas Jefferson because he believed in religious liberty. It didn’t matter that they never would have let him teach Sunday school.

We should not demand to see the long-form certificate for Mr. Trump’s second birth. We should, though, ask about his personal character and fitness for office. His personal morality is clear, not because of tabloid exposés but because of his own boasts. His attitude toward women is that of a Bronze Age warlord. He tells us in one of his books that he revels in the fact that he gets to sleep with some of the “top women in the world.” He has divorced two wives (so far) for other women.

This should not be surprising to social conservatives in a culture shaped by pornographic understandings of the meaning of love and sex. What is surprising is that some self-identified evangelicals are telling pollsters they’re for Mr. Trump. Worse, some social conservative leaders are praising Mr. Trump for “telling it like it is.”

In the 1990s, some of these social conservatives argued that “If Bill Clinton’s wife can’t trust him, neither can we.” If character matters, character matters. Today’s evangelicals should ask, “Whatever happened to our commitment to ‘traditional family values’?”

Mr. Trump tells us “nothing beats the Bible,” and once said to an audience that he knows how Billy Graham feels. He says of evangelicals: “I love them. They love me.” And yet, he regularly ridicules evangelicals, with almost as much glee as he does Hispanics. This goes beyond his trivialization of communion with his recent comments about “my little cracker” as a way to ask forgiveness. In recent years, he has suggested that evangelical missionaries not be treated in the United States for Ebola, since they chose to go overseas in the first place.

Still, the problem is not just Mr. Trump’s personal lack of a moral compass. He is, after all, a casino and real estate mogul who has built his career off gambling, a moral vice and an economic swindle that oppresses the poorest and most desperate. When Mr. Trump’s casinos fail, he can simply file bankruptcy and move on. The lives and families destroyed by the casino industry cannot move on so easily.

He’s defended, up until very recent years, abortion, and speaks even now of the “good things” done by Planned Parenthood. In a time when racial tensions run high across the country, Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly “us versus them” identity politics. When evangelicals should be leading the way on racial reconciliation, as the Bible tells us to, are we really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician?

Jesus taught his disciples to “count the cost” of following him. We should know, he said, where we’re going and what we’re leaving behind. We should also count the cost of following Donald Trump. To do so would mean that we’ve decided to join the other side of the culture war, that image and celebrity and money and power and social Darwinist “winning” trump the conservation of moral principles and a just society. We ought to listen, to get past the boisterous confidence and the television lights and the waving arms and hear just whose speech we’re applauding.

Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. He is the author of “Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel.”

The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly (Proverbs 15:2).