Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I have been unable to get away from the Scott Peterson trial. Why the media decided to pick this particular murder case to spend all of their air time on is beyond me. There are thousands of murder cases all over the country, but for whatever reason this one seemed different to the media. Maybe it was the fact that Laci was a cute girl, and Scott was having an affair that made it more dramatic, but the story is nothing new.
However, there was one very important aspect to this trial that none of the lawyers and ex-judges mentioned (at least none that I saw). Scott Peterson was found guilty of TWO murders. Now, why is this important? Well, Conner (the name they gave the "fetus" Laci was carrying) was not yet born, he was still in utero. If it's not a human, it's not murder. If the baby is regarded as excess tissue, akin to a tumor, then if someone is killed who has cancer is the killer charged with the murder of the person AND the tumor? The answer is obviously no, but how has our legislative system, and more importantly our culture, not seen the double standard. It's obvious, and it could not be more evident. The only difference between Connor's death and the thousands of deaths that occur from abortion is the will of the mother. If the mother wanted to keep the baby, then it is considered human, but if the woman did not want to keep the baby, then it is excess tissue. That is a sad way to determine life or humanity.
Nothing in the DNA of a baby changes once they take their first breath. They are just as much a human inside of the womb as they are outside, and they deserve to have their life protected just like all of the other former fetus' walking around on the outside.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Monday, August 09, 2004
In Defense of Truth
I believe that one of the greatest casualties to have befallen the American Church has been the minds of our young people. The greatest perpetrator of this attack has been the public educational system that is in place in our country. Many years ago the American Church decided that it would be a good idea to allow the state to take the reigns in the education of our children. At the time this wasn’t such a bad idea on the surface, the state still recognized the importance of God in education and the Godly principles were still a vital part of the curriculum. However, since that time our culture, and therefore our municipal government (see the “under God?” posting below), have sought to keep God out of our educational system. This is not a matter of prayer in schools or an issue of whether or not the Bible is used as a curriculum; it is much bigger than that. This is a matter of truth.
There are only two options that we have to choose from when deciding on the source of truth (and beauty). The first option is that God is the source and ultimate authority for truth. The second option is that man is the source and ultimate authority for truth. Any type of educational system that is seeking to teach truth will choose one of these sources. Every subject that is taught, every lesson that is developed, every curriculum that is approved, will flow from one of these two foundations.
However, we as Christians are commanded to acknowledge God as the only source and ultimate authority for truth. When we send our children off to learn about the world at school, and then send them to learn about God at church, we are basically telling them that God is not relevant to anything outside of the church. What other conclusion can they draw? Or even worse, we are placing them under an educational system that does not see God as the source of truth, and isn’t this the very definition of the kind of false teaching that we are commanded to avoid, especially when our children are involved?
I will, however, acknowledge that teaching in the public school system is a very real and important ministry for Christians. Those teachers can influence those children to know the God of the subjects they are teaching. Shouldn’t that make us stop and think, what kind of worldview the person who is teaching our children has? Don’t they want to influence the children with their views and morals as well? There is a difference between being a teacher in a public school and having our children educated in them.
Should we then be surprised when we have an entire generation of young people, and adults for that matter, that live one way on Sunday and a different life during the week in their respective environments? After all, what does God have to do with their business? He didn’t seem to matter when we were learning about how business works, why should now be any different? If the American Church thinks that we will be able to produce committed Christ followers who have relationships with God that permeate every aspect of their lives and then leave Him out of our educational systems, we are kidding ourselves. God is not the “seasoning” to our lives; we don’t sprinkle Him lightly on our ideas of life, and values, as if we were collective patrons at the restaurant of truth. He either is the be all, end all, or He is nothing. A principle that the education of our children should reflect.
There are only two options that we have to choose from when deciding on the source of truth (and beauty). The first option is that God is the source and ultimate authority for truth. The second option is that man is the source and ultimate authority for truth. Any type of educational system that is seeking to teach truth will choose one of these sources. Every subject that is taught, every lesson that is developed, every curriculum that is approved, will flow from one of these two foundations.
However, we as Christians are commanded to acknowledge God as the only source and ultimate authority for truth. When we send our children off to learn about the world at school, and then send them to learn about God at church, we are basically telling them that God is not relevant to anything outside of the church. What other conclusion can they draw? Or even worse, we are placing them under an educational system that does not see God as the source of truth, and isn’t this the very definition of the kind of false teaching that we are commanded to avoid, especially when our children are involved?
I will, however, acknowledge that teaching in the public school system is a very real and important ministry for Christians. Those teachers can influence those children to know the God of the subjects they are teaching. Shouldn’t that make us stop and think, what kind of worldview the person who is teaching our children has? Don’t they want to influence the children with their views and morals as well? There is a difference between being a teacher in a public school and having our children educated in them.
Should we then be surprised when we have an entire generation of young people, and adults for that matter, that live one way on Sunday and a different life during the week in their respective environments? After all, what does God have to do with their business? He didn’t seem to matter when we were learning about how business works, why should now be any different? If the American Church thinks that we will be able to produce committed Christ followers who have relationships with God that permeate every aspect of their lives and then leave Him out of our educational systems, we are kidding ourselves. God is not the “seasoning” to our lives; we don’t sprinkle Him lightly on our ideas of life, and values, as if we were collective patrons at the restaurant of truth. He either is the be all, end all, or He is nothing. A principle that the education of our children should reflect.
Monday, August 02, 2004
In the image
In the Genesis account of creation the image of God was given solely to mankind, no other created being was granted this honor. There are many different theories as to what exactly the image of God is in us, but we can conclude that whatever these particular attributes are, they are going to be characteristics that originate with God. God is love, so therefore whenever we love we are attempting to display a particular aspect of the image of God. God is the ultimate expression of forgiveness, and when we forgive, we are seeking to display the image of God.
However, our love, and our forgiveness are vastly inferior to the love and forgiveness of God. This is due to the fact that A) we are not God, and B) our sin nature infects, to some degree or another, every attempt to display the TRUE image of God. What we must be watchful for is when we seek to make God in our image. For example, if someone wrongs us and then asks for our forgiveness, as a Christian we are mandated to accept that forgiveness, and forget that it ever even happened. Nevertheless, in the back of our mind, we may feel that particular person is somehow indebted to us, and must work their way back into our good graces, because after all they are the ones who screwed up! Our tendency is to think that God forgives the same way. If we disobey God, and then confess and seek forgiveness, in the back of our minds, we may feel that we must somehow “make it up” to God, by doing some great deed, hoping that with this particular act we will “even the score”. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we can somehow work our way back into God’s favor, that we can repay God for His forgiveness? If we think that we can somehow earn back a right-standing with God, we are living an illusion created by pride. If that is our understanding of how God forgives, is it any wonder that we forgive people the same way? We need to seek to have God’s perfect image manifested in us, not our fallen image placed on God.
However, our love, and our forgiveness are vastly inferior to the love and forgiveness of God. This is due to the fact that A) we are not God, and B) our sin nature infects, to some degree or another, every attempt to display the TRUE image of God. What we must be watchful for is when we seek to make God in our image. For example, if someone wrongs us and then asks for our forgiveness, as a Christian we are mandated to accept that forgiveness, and forget that it ever even happened. Nevertheless, in the back of our mind, we may feel that particular person is somehow indebted to us, and must work their way back into our good graces, because after all they are the ones who screwed up! Our tendency is to think that God forgives the same way. If we disobey God, and then confess and seek forgiveness, in the back of our minds, we may feel that we must somehow “make it up” to God, by doing some great deed, hoping that with this particular act we will “even the score”. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we can somehow work our way back into God’s favor, that we can repay God for His forgiveness? If we think that we can somehow earn back a right-standing with God, we are living an illusion created by pride. If that is our understanding of how God forgives, is it any wonder that we forgive people the same way? We need to seek to have God’s perfect image manifested in us, not our fallen image placed on God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)