Stand to Reason Blog

Killing Abortionists Is Wrong. Period.

Some ask, "If you consider abortion murder, doesn't that incite the killing of abortionists?"  This question needs to be answered clearly and directly and here is the answer. No. It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists.  In fact, it's not only wrong, it's counterproductive to ending legalized abortion.  More children die as a result of an abortionist being killed, so all we have are more dead bodies.  Not anyone is saved, only lost.

It's always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without good reason. Therefore, it is morally obligatory for civilized people to campaign vigorously against such a wrong and use appropriate means to end it.

In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.

Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.

Killing abortionists is, therefore, also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle of life that pro-lifers are committed to defending.

Therefore, Stand to Reason does not condone violence to end the harm of abortion.

Pentecost

Spiritus Sanctus

O Holy Spirit,
As the sun is full of light, the ocean full of water,
Heaven full of glory, so may my heart be full of Thee.
Vain are all divine purposes of love

and the redemption wrought by Jesus
except Thou work within,
regenerating by the power,
giving me eyes to see Jesus,
showing me the realities of the unseen world.

Give me Thyself without measure,
as an unimpaired fountain,
an inexhaustible riches.

Come as power
Come as teacher
Come as love
Come as joy
Come as light
Come as sanctifier
Come as helper
Come as beautifier

Magnify to me Thy glory by being magnified in me.

(Taken from The Valley of Vision)

I Walked Up to a Couple of Muslims on the Street...

...and told them I was a Christian. I asked if they were interested in talking about God and religion. They said, "Sure! That would be great. Come sit with us." We sat down in a small café and discussed the Bible, Jesus, religion, and the Qur'an for nearly two hours. And even though we strongly disagreed with each other’s views, they still insisted to pick up the check. What a treat!

Can you imagine the response if I approached two random Americans? "Uh, no thanks…go away." But with Muslims I find starting a conversation about religion is much easier. They're more willing to talk about God and ultimate issues than the average person.

If you're eager to proclaim the truth about Jesus or just want to gain more experience sharing your convictions, then you should consider finding a Muslim and striking up a conversation. They're often eager to talk and build a relationship. All I did was drive to a local neighborhood with a high population of Muslims, pulled up to a strip mall with Arab markets and falafel shops, and started talking to guys that looked Middle Eastern (that looked kinda like me).

At the very least, you might make a new friend – or get a free meal.

Twittering in Church Is Not Worship

Here's my main problem with the idea of twittering in church, at least as justified in the Time Magazine article.  The key theological assumption:  "If worship is about creating community, Twitter is an undeniably useful tool."  Set aside that I don't think it's an "undeniably useful tool" to create community, especially during church.  The theological assumption is that worship is about creating community, i.e. the focus is on us.  No, worship is about God, all about God.  The focus should be on God.  And with that new starting point, I don't really see how Twitting during worship is an "undeniably useful tool."

Before figuring out how to creatively use new technology, we should reexamine some of our basic theological assumptions that have permeated the modern church.

"24" - Jack Bauer Isn't a Relativist

I've been persuaded - about 90% persuaded.  There's still a lingering problem.  The rest of the STR staff who watches "24" did not think Jack's conversation with Renee Walker indicated Jack is a moral relativist.  They argued that the conversation had to be understood in the entire context of the show, and Jack had given indications in the past that he believe what he was doing was objectively right.  I think they're right about taking the conversation in the larger context, but I still thought there were enough problems in what Jack counseled Renee that I wasn't convinced - until Derek gave me this way of understanding the conversation, and after pondering it for several days, I think it's the best way to understand Jack's comments.

Romans 14:1-12 is the way Derek persuaded me.  Here's verse 5:  "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."  Jack wasn't counseling Renee on what was right or wrong, that was assumed given the larger context of the show.  In specific circumstances, in very narrow situations that "24" revolves around, extreme measures are just and right.  (I won't cover this well-tread ground here.)  He was counseling her on how she should apply that moral circumstance, whether she should take up this duty and responsibility that Jack has that calls for tremendous personal sacrifice.  She should not rush into this, but consider it carefully and be convinced in her own mind that she needs to do it, not only that it has to be done.  This is what Jack has been persuaded of. 

Jack told her "I can't tell you what to do" because each person has to make up their own mind - not whether it's right or wrong, but whether they should do it.  Renee has taken a particular oath as an FBI agent, and this would require her to rescind that oath and, I would presume, terminate her association with the FBI.  I think Jack is giving her counsel to consider the ramifications of making this decision.  He said you find yourself "running in the wrong direction."  I think he might have been saying, not that the action is wrong, but that this is a very difficult and nuanced business and it's easy to take the wrong turn.  Look at Tony as that example.

Jack said he decided he couldn't live with himself unless he acted.  He wasn't saying he decided for himself what was moral and she should decide for herself what was moral.  Rather, he was saying he decided he was persuaded in his own mind that his was something he had to do.  Renee has to be persuaded in her own mind, otherwise it'll be wrong for her.  The principle in Romans 14 - simply because something is okay doesn't mean it's okay for me to do - doesn't lead to moral relativism because the inverse is not true - if you decide it's okay for you then it's okay.  The presumption in the passage is that the thing in question is already determined to be morally permissible, and I think now that that was the presumption in Jack's counsel to Renee.

Here's the one piece of the conversation that doesn't quite fit this interpretation, and why I'm only 90% persuaded.  The first thing Renee asks Jack is about using any means necessary to get information from their prisoner, but the circumstances that could justify this do not obtain.  There is no immediate threat that precludes the time to take the normal legal route.  Jack's answer should have been, "Are you crazy?  Have you learned nothing today?  That would be wrong now."  Instead, he begins by saying he can't tell her what to do.  He should have easily told her what to do in that circumstances because the moral circumstance was already clear and could not be justified for anyone.  But the rest of the conversation does make more sense on this interpretation given the history of the show. 

But the conversation with the Imam is still dumb, I think, primarily because an Imam would never tell Jack to "forgive yourself."  Change the cleric or change the counsel, but to wait all this time for Jack to seek spiritual help and this was it was very disappointing.

San Diego Tries to Shut Down Home Bible Study

It's hard to believe this is true, but this is coming from a completely secular news source with nothing to gain (they don't even capitalize "Bible"):

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported....

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of county regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Permits?  "Unlawful use of land"?  What country is this?  I want to believe that there's more to this story--the alternative is just far too scary and doesn't seem possible.  The article mentions "environmental impact" (parking, etc.) as a possible reason why this happened, but which of us has not been a part of a Bible study of 15 people in a person's home at one time or another?  When has this been a problem?

I can't find any claim on the web that this is a hoax, but if it turns out to be, I'll never be happier to post a retraction.

The Bible's Been Changed

The Bible has been translated many times over, so how can it be reliable?

Ida Hype

Time does a good job of clarifying the facts versus the hype around Ida.  Here's a key point - best case scenario from the evolutionary point of view:

For their part, the authors of the new paper clearly lean toward the idea that Ida is one of our distant ancestors. They don't claim they've proved it, though — in fact, they carefully include a disclaimer that "we are not advocating this here." Even if they were, though, and even if paleontologists all agreed on the matter, Ida could at best be considered a first step on an evolutionary pathway that took another 40 million years to reach the divergence point between chimps and our earliest hominid ancestors.

I think when we hear "the missing link" has been discovered, most of us picture a long chain of links.  The "missing link" would be the one to connect two previously disconnected chains, making it complete. At best for evolutionary theory, as Time points out in this paragraph, Ida would be a single link so far unconnected to any of the few other scattered individual links thought to be part of a chain.  But the long chain is only a theory, missing many more than the proverbial "missing link."

"The Last Full Measure of Devotion"

 "I have no illusions about what little I can add now to the silent testimony of those who gave their lives willingly for their country. Words are even more feeble on this Memorial Day, for the sight before us is that of a strong and good nation that stands in silence and remembers those who were loved and who, in return, loved their countrymen enough to die for them." -- President Ronald Reagan, Remarks at Memorial Day Ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery, May 31, 1982

Stories of real American heroes

It is amazing to contemplate that God has created human beings in His image, with qualities of love and sacrifice, that some would lay down their lives for others as His Son did.

Remembering Heroes

Peggy Noonan honors three heroes.

For Memorial Day, then, three warriors, two previously celebrated but not so known now by the young.

Alvin York was born in 1887 into a Tennessee farming family that didn't have much, but nobody else did, so it wasn't so bad. He was the third of 11 children and had an average life for that time and place. Then World War I came. He experienced a crisis of conscience over whether to fight. His mother's Evangelical church tugged him toward more or less pacifist thinking, but he got a draft notice in 1917, joined the Army, went overseas, read and reread his Bible, and concluded that warfare was sometimes justified....

On Jan. 26, 1945, Lt. Murphy was engaged in a battle in which his unit took heavy fire and he was wounded. He ordered his men back. From his Medal of Honor citation: "Behind him . . . one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back."...

I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century challenges. I mentioned that Chuck had been shot down over Vietnam on his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general....