Take Up the Cross and Follow Him

Matthew 16:24-25 New King James Version (NKJV)

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.



Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Stand To for August 5, 2013


Push Back with Prayer

0700 at BJ’s Restaurant

 

1. Opening Prayer

2. Round the Table Individual Prayers

3. Morning Psalm: 105

4. Breakfast Reading: Deuteronomy 7:6-14

5. Breakfast is served

6. Breakfast Discussion Topic: Bitter Root Valley Veterans Baptism

7. After Breakfast Voluntary Testimonies

8. Round the Table Individual Prayers

9. Closing Prayer

A Roadmap for Pastors: Three Steps to Defend Biblical Truths

Author: The Family Policy Council of West Virginia Pastor Nathan A. Cherry
I’ve spent a lot of time with pastors encouraging them to get involved and be proactive in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Some are standing tall and speaking boldly. Some are sitting on the sidelines. And many others simply aren’t so sure how to engage a culture that is moving steadily away from biblical truth.
One pastor recently asked me a simple question, “Where do I start?” He was feeling overwhelmed and just needed to know what the first step was in joining the conversation about the critical issues of the day. He also wanted guidance on how best to get his congregation informed and involved. That got me thinking about how many other pastors nationwide might be feeling the same.
Here is short list of steps every pastor can take to get started.
Step 1: Knowledge is Power: Stay informed on the critical issues.
As a pastor, your congregation needs to know they can come to you with questions and concerns about pressing social issues. They want you to engage in intelligent conversation and provide them with the biblical firepower to combat the half-truths and misconceptions perpetuated throughout society. Nothing is more frustrating or discouraging to a church member than to ask their pastor important questions on fundamental religious issues, only to receive vapid responses such as, “I don’t pay attention to trivial things in society,” or “Don’t waste your time reading the news, just read the Bible.”
But there is nothing trivial about the issues of religious liberty, life, and marriage and family. For many church attendees, the issues of life and marriage are central to their everyday lives and they need to know their pastor can handle their questions. Nothing screams “irrelevant” like not having a clue about what is going on in society.
Tip: Use a good news aggregator to stay informed. I use Feedly. This way, instead of having to go to a dozen websites for news, the news will come to you. I recommend following the Engage Family Minute, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Alliance Alert and Speak Up Church Blog, Family Research Council’s FRC Blog, World Net daily, and Life News. If you follow these, you will be well-informed.
Step 2: Spread the Knowledge: Share information with your congregation.
As a pastor, your congregation looks to you for guidance. A pastor can harness his influence to teach his flock a practical theology—a lived faith that stands tall against liberal trends that mock God’s ways. If a pastor stays informed and shares this Godly information with his congregation, they will increasingly see him as someone they can trust and count on.
When major news happens, talk about it in church. If a pastor ignores crucial events like the Sandy Hook shooting or the Supreme Court rulings on marriage, he will be missing prime teaching opportunities that can bring biblical truths to light. There is more than just a social context to these events; there is an opportunity to share deep biblical truth about God’s design for human dignity, life and marriage. And once your congregation is equipped in this Gospel knowledge, they will be able to share it with all who cross their path.
Tip: Use social media to teach even when you’re not preaching. By using social media, you can have tremendous influence on your congregation even when they are not in church. Don’t be afraid to share articles or comment on events happening in the community and around the country.
Step 3: Faith in Action: Encourage the flock to be informed and active.
A lot of pastor’s want to steer clear of being “too political” in church. But even if this is the case that doesn’t mean a pastor can’t encourage his congregation to stay informed and be active. Just because your church may not hold a pro-life rally, that doesn’t mean you can’t encourage others to participate in one elsewhere. Many worthwhile national events like the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, National Day of Prayer, and Call 2 Fall provide an excellent opportunity to unite your congregation in a lived faith that sets an example for the community. You can’t simply say you are pro-life or pro-marriage without getting involved. Faith demands action.
By staying informed on local and national events, you can encourage your congregation to be an active light in the community and stand for biblical truth. This can only lead to infinite opportunities to spread the Gospel.
Tip: Set an example for your congregation by personally getting involved. You can do this by letting your church know you are voting and encouraging them to do the same. You can also support a local, state, or national organization as a church and work as a community to bring about lasting change. Organizations like Care Pregnancy Centers can never have enough support. Take action and encourage others to do the same.
These are just three small steps that a pastor can take to advance the Gospel and lead others in standing for God’s truth. If a pastor does not care about biblical issues being assaulted in society, why should their congregation?
It is only once a pastor is armed with knowledge and the will to share and act on it that others will follow. And maybe once this happens, Christians across America will be able to help prevent and overturn bad court decisions such as Roe v. Wade or the striking down of one of the crucial articles of DOMA defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
There are no short-cuts. Our nation’s spiritual leaders must rise to the occasion so that others may follow to preserve religious liberty, life, and marriage and family.

How Business Glorifies God

Wayne Grudem
From: On Kingdom Business: Transforming Missions Through Entrepreneurial Strategies edited by Tetsuano Yamamori and Kenneith A. Eldred, (Crossway Books, 2003). Used by permission. All rights reserved.
When Christians hear the expression “glorifying God,” we probably first think of worship – singing praise to God and giving thanks to him. Second, we think of evangelism – glorifying God by telling others about him, so that more people are brought into the kingdom of God. Third, we think of giving – glorifying God by contributing money to evangelism, to building up the church, and to the needs of the poor. Fourth, we might think of faith – glorifying God by depending on him in prayer and in our daily attitudes of heart.
These four – worship, evangelism, giving, and faith – are excellent ways to glorify God and working in a business provides many opportunities for glorifying God in these ways. But they are not my focus here because I think most Christians in business already understand how business can contribute to these ways of glorifying God. What many do not understand, I think, is that there is a fifth way to glorify God, one that we often overlook, but one that has profound implications for any believer in business. This fifth way to glorify God is imitation – imitation of the attributes of God – and it is critical to understand how business in itself glorifies God.

Imitating God Glorifies God
God created us so that we would imitate him and so that he could look at us and see something of his wonderful attributes reflected in us. The first chapter of the Bible tells us, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). To be in God’s image means to be like God and to represent God on the earth. This means that God created us to be more like him than anything else he made. He delights to look at us and see in us a reflection of his excellence. After God had created Adam and Eve, “God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). He looked at his creation and took delight in it – yes, in all of it, but especially in human beings made in his image.
This is why Paul commands us, in Ephesians 5, “Be imitators of God, as beloved children” (Eph. 5:1). If you are a parent, you know that there is a special joy that comes when you see your children imitating some of your good qualities and following some of the moral standards that you have tried to model. When we feel that joy as parents, it is just a faint echo of what God feels when he sees us, as his children, imitating his excellent qualities. “Be imitators of God, as beloved children.”
This idea of imitating God explains many of the commands in the Bible. For instance, “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). We imitate God’s love when we act in love. Or, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16, quoting Lev. 11:44). Similarly, Jesus taught, “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). And he also said, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). God wants us to be like himself.
But sin does not glorify God. It is absolutely important to realize that we should never attempt to glorify God by acting in ways that disobey his Word. For example, if I were to speak the truth about my neighbor out of a malicious desire to harm him, I would not be glorifying God by imitating his truthfulness, because God’s truthfulness is always consistent with all his other attributes, including his attribute of love. And when we read about a thief who robbed a bank through an intricate and skillful plan, we should not praise God for this thief’s imitation of divine wisdom and skill, for God’s wisdom is always manifested in ways that are consistent with his moral character, which cannot do evil, and consistent with his attributes of love and truthfulness. And thus we must be careful never to try to imitate God’s character in ways that contradict his moral law in the Bible.

Business Activities That Imitate God
With this background we can now turn to consider specific aspects of business activity, and ask how they provide unique opportunities for glorifying God through imitation. We will find that in every aspect of business there are multiple layers of opportunities to give glory to God, as well as multiple temptations to sin.
Producing Goods
We know that producing goods from the earth is fundamentally good in itself because it is part of the purpose for which God put us on the earth. Before there was sin in the world, God put Adam in the garden of Eden “to work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15), and God told both Adam and Eve, before there was sin, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). The word translated “subdue” (Hebrew: kabash) implies that Adam and Eve should make the resources of the earth useful for their own benefit, and this implies that God intended them to develop the earth so they could come to own agricultural products and animals, then housing and works of craftsmanship and beauty, and eventually buildings, means of transportation, cities, and inventions of all sorts.
Manufactured products give us opportunity to praise God for anything we look at in the world around us. Imagine what would happen if we were able somehow to transport Adam and Eve, before they had sinned, into a twenty-first century American home. After we gave them appropriate clothing, we would turn on the faucet to offer them a glass of water, and they would ask, “What’s that?” When we explained that the pipes enabled us to have water whenever we wanted it, they would exclaim, “Do you mean to say that God has put in the earth materials that would enable you to make that water system?”
“Yes,” we would reply.
“Then praise God for giving us such a great earth! And praise him for giving us the knowledge and skill to be able to make that water system!” They would have hearts sensitive to God’s desire that he be honored in all things.
The refrigerator would elicit even more praise to God from their lips. And so would the electric lights and the newspaper and the oven and the telephone, and so forth. Their hearts would brim over with thankfulness to the Creator who had hidden such wonderful materials in the earth and had also given to human beings such skill in working with them. And as Adam and Eve’s hearts were filled with overflowing thanksgiving to God, God would see it and be pleased. He would look with delight as the man and woman made in his image gave glory to their Creator and fulfilled the purpose for which they were made.
Therefore, in contrast to some economic theories, productive work is not evil or undesirable in itself, or something to be avoided, nor does the Bible ever view positively the idea of retiring early and not working at anything again. Rather, work in itself is also something that is fundamentally good and God-given, for it was something that God commanded Adam and Eve to do before there was sin in the world. Although work since the fall has aspects of pain and futility (Gen. 3:17-19), it is still not morally neutral but fundamentally good and pleasing to God.
But significant temptations accompany all productions of goods and services. There is the temptation for our hearts to be turned from God so that we focus on material things for their own sake. There are also temptations to pride, and to turning our hearts away from love for our neighbor and turning toward selfishness, greed and hard-heartedness. There are temptations to produce goods that bring monetary reward but that are harmful and destructive and evil (such as pornography and illicit drugs).
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. Increasing the production of goods and services is not morally neutral but is fundamentally good and pleasing to God.
Employing People
In contrast to Marxist theory, the Bible does not view it as evil for one person to hire another person and to gain profit from that person’s work. It is not necessarily “exploiting” the employee. Rather, Jesus said, “the laborer deserves his wages” (Luke 10:7), implicitly approving the idea of paying wages to employees. In fact, Jesus’ parables often speak of servants and masters, and of people paying others for their work, with no hint that hiring people to work for wages is evil or wrong.
This is a wonderful ability that God has given us. Paying another person for his or her labor is an activity that is uniquely human. It is shared by no other creature. The ability to work for other people for pay, or to pay other people for their work, is another way that God has created us so that we would be able to glorify him more fully in such relationships.
When the employment arrangement is working properly, both parties benefit. This allows love for the other person to manifest itself, because if I am sewing shirts in someone else’s shop, I can honestly seek the good of my employer and seek to sew as many shirts as possible for him (compare 1 Tim. 6:2), and he can seek my good, because he will pay me at the end of the day for a job well done. As in every good business transaction, both parties end up better off than they were before. In this case, I have more money at the end of the day than I did before and my employer has more shirts ready to take to market than he did before. And so we have worked together to produce something that did not exist in the world before that day””the world is fifty shirts wealthier than it was when the day began. I have created some wealth in the world and so there is also a slight imitation of God’s attribute of creativity. So if you hire me to work in your business, you are doing good for me and you are providing many opportunities to glorify God.
However, employer/employee relationships carry many temptations to sin. An employer can exercise his authority with harshness and oppression and unfairness. He might withhold pay arbitrarily and unreasonably (contrary to Lev. 19:13 and Jas. 5:4) or might underpay his workers, keeping wages so low that workers have no opportunity to improve their standard of living (contrary to Deut. 24:1). Employees also have temptations to sin through carelessness in work (see Prov. 18:9), laziness, jealousy, bitterness, rebelliousness, dishonesty, or theft (see Titus 2:9-10).
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. Employer/employee relationships, in themselves, are not morally neutral, but are fundamentally good and pleasing to God because they provide many opportunities to imitate God’s character and so glorify him.
Buying and Selling
Several passages of Scripture assume that buying and selling are morally right. Regarding the sale of land in ancient Israel, God’s law said, “If you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another” (Lev. 25:14). This implies that it is possible and in fact is expected that people should buy and sell without wronging one another””that is, that both buyer and seller can do right in the transaction (see also Gen. 1:57; Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov. 11:26; 31:16; Jer. 32:25, 42-44).
In fact, buying and selling are necessary for anything beyond subsistence level living and these activities are another part of what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. No individual or family providing for all its own needs could produce more than a very low standard of living (that is, if it could buy and sell absolutely nothing and had to live off only what it could produce itself, which would be a fairly simple range of foods and clothing). But when we can sell what we make and buy from others who specialize in producing milk or bread, orange juice or blueberries, bicycles or televisions, cars or computers, then, through the mechanism of buying and selling, we can all obtain a much higher standard of living, and thereby we fulfill God’s purpose that we enjoy the resources of the earth with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:3-5; 6:17) while we “eat” and “drink” and “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).
Therefore we should not look at commercial transactions as a necessary evil or something just morally neutral. Rather, commercial transactions are in themselves good because through them we do good to other people. We can honestly see buying and selling as a means of loving our neighbor as our self.
Moreover, because of the interpersonal nature of commercial transactions, business activity has significant stabilizing influence on a society. An individual farmer may not really like the auto mechanic in town very much, and the auto mechanic may not like the farmer very much, but the farmer does want his car fixed right the next time it breaks down, and the auto mechanic does love the sweet corn and tomatoes that the farmer sells, so it is to their mutual advantage to get along with each other and their animosity is restrained. In fact, they may even seek the good of the other person for this reason! So it is with commercial transactions throughout the world and even between nations. This is an evidence of God’s common grace, and so in this way God has provided among the human race a wonderful encouragement to love our neighbor because we seek not only our own welfare but the welfare of others. In buying and selling we also manifest interdependence and thus reflect the interdependence and interpersonal love among the members of the Trinity. Therefore, for those who have eyes to see it, commercial transactions provide another means of manifesting the glory of God in our lives.
However, commercial transactions provide many temptations to sin. Rather than seeking the good of our neighbors as well as our selves, our hearts can be filled with greed, so we seek only our own good and give no thought for the good of others. Our hearts can be overcome with selfishness, an inordinate desire for wealth, and setting our hearts only on material gain.
Because of sin, we can also engage in dishonesty and in selling shoddy materials whose defects are covered with glossy paint. Where there is excessive concentration of power or a huge imbalance in knowledge, there will often be oppression of those who lack power or knowledge (as in government sponsored monopolies where consumers are only allowed access to poor quality, high-priced goods from one manufacturer for each product).
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. Commercial transactions in themselves are fundamentally right and pleasing to God. They are a wonderful gift from him through which he as enabled us to have many opportunities to glorify him.
Earning a Profit
What is earning a profit? Fundamentally, it is using our resources to produce more resources. In the parable of the minas (or pounds), Jesus tells of a nobleman calling ten of his servants and giving them one mina each (about three months’ wages), and telling them, “Engage in business until I come” (Luke 19:13). The servant who earned 1000% profit was rewarded greatly, for when he says, “Lord, your mina has made ten minas more,” the nobleman responds, “Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:16-17). The servant who made five more minas receives authority over five cities, and the one who made no profit is rebuked for not at least putting the mina in the bank to earn interest (vs. 23).
The nobleman of course represents Jesus himself who went to a far country to receive a kingdom and then returned to reward his servants. The parable has obvious applications to stewardship of spiritual gifts and ministries that Jesus entrusts to us, but in order for the parable to make sense, it has to assume that good stewardship, in God’s eyes, includes expanding and multiplying whatever resources or stewardship God has entrusted to you. Surely we cannot exclude money and material possessions from the application of the parable, for they are part of what God entrusts to each of us and our money and possessions can and should be used to glorify God. Seeking profit, therefore, or seeking to multiply our resources, is seen as fundamentally good. Not to do so is condemned by the master when he returns.
The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) has a similar point, but the amounts are larger, for a talent was worth about twenty years’ wages for a laborer, and different amounts are given at the outset.
Some people will object that earning a profit is “exploiting” other people. It might be, if there is a great disparity in power or knowledge between you and me and I cheat you or charge an exorbitant price when you have nowhere else to go and you need a pair of shoes. That is where earning a profit provides temptations to sin.
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. If profit is made in a system of voluntary exchange not distorted by monopoly power, then when I earn a profit I also help you. You are better off because you have a pair of shoes that you wanted, and I am better off because I earned $4 profit, and that keeps me in business and makes me want to make more shoes to sell. Everybody wins and nobody is exploited. Through this process, I glorify God by enlarging the possessions over which I am “sovereign” and over which I can exercise wise stewardship.
The ability to earn a profit is thus the ability to multiply our resources while helping other people. It is a wonderful ability that God gave us and it is not evil or morally neutral but fundamentally good. Through it we can reflect God’s attributes of love for others, wisdom, sovereignty, planning for the future, and so forth.
Borrowing and Lending
It seems to me that borrowing and lending in themselves are not prohibited by God; rather many places in the Bible assume that these things will happen. Jesus even seems to approve lending money at interest, not to the poor who need it to live, but to the bankers who borrow the money from us so they can use it to make more money: “Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest? (Luke 19:23; also Matt. 25:27).
In fact, the process of borrowing and lending is another wonderful gift that God has given to us as human beings. These activities multiply the usefulness of all the wealth of a society. My local library may have only one copy of a reference book, but 300 people might use it in a year, thus giving my community as much value as 300 copies of that book if each person had to buy one. I only own one car, but because of the process of borrowing and lending, I can fly into any city in the United States and have the use of a rental car for a day, without having to own a car in that city. Without the existence of borrowing and lending, I would have own thousands of cars in order to have the same ability.
And of course, when I borrow money to buy a house or start a business, I enjoy the usefulness of that money (just as I enjoy the usefulness of a rental car) for a period of time without actually having to own the money myself. I pay a fee for the use of that money (what is called interest), but that is far easier than obtaining all the money myself before I can gain the use of it. And so borrowing and lending multiplies the usefulness of money in a society as well.
In this way, borrowing and lending multiply phenomenally our God-given enjoyment of the material creation, and our potential for being thankful to God for all these things and glorifying him through our use of them.
However, there are temptations to sin that accompany borrowing. As many Americans are now discovering, there is a great temptation to borrow more than is wise, or to borrow for things they can’t afford and don’t need, and thus they become foolishly entangled in interest payments that reflect poor stewardship and wastefulness, and that entrap people in a downward spiral of more and more debt. In addition, lenders can be greedy or selfish, and can lend to people who have no reasonable expectation of repaying, and then take advantage of people in their poverty and distress.
But the distortions of something good must not cause us to think that the thing itself is evil. Borrowing and lending are wonderful, uniquely human abilities that are good in themselves and pleasing to God and bring many opportunities for glorifying him. In fact, I expect that even in heaven there will be borrowing and lending, not to overcome poverty but to multiply our abilities to glorify God. But I don’t know what the interest rate will be.

From: On Kingdom Business: Transforming Missions Through Entrepreneurial Strategies edited by Tetsuano Yamamori and Kenneith A. Eldred, (Crossway Books, 2003). Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Wayne A. Grudem is a research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary in Scottsdale, Arizona. Previously he was chairman of the department of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, where he taught for twenty years. Dr. Grudem is the author of several books and articles, including the widely used text Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

The ten dumbest things said in defense of abortion

by

The past few years haven’t been great for abortion. More and more people are calling themselves pro-life, including more young Americans than ever before. Pro-life laws are being passed in record numbers each year. While it would be foolish to say that pro-lifers are winning the war on abortion, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that we’re making progress — and that has the pro-aborts panicking. Some pretty crazy statements are being made in their desperate attempt to keep abortion on demand legal at any time, for any reason. Some are flat-out ridiculous, some are insulting, and others chilling. These are ten of the dumbest things said in defense of abortion.
10. Women shouldn’t have to choose between their cell phones and birth control.
In a stunning display of entitlement, students at the University of New Mexico got upset because the school would no longer be subsidizing birth control. While pro-aborts often try to give sad, sad stories about women who need birth control out of medical necessity, or need abortion because they will DIE without it, the truth is, it’s often merely a matter of convenience. The reason women should get free birth control? Because otherwise, students might be forced to choose between their birth control and… their cell phones! Or their gym memberships! Oh, cruel world! It is just an unthinkable notion that a college student be forced to work out for free at the icky gym on campus, or go with a cheaper cell phone model — or, even worse, pay for the ultra-cheap generic brand birth control at Wal-Mart. Worst of all is the notion that they might be forced to abstain from sex, since they can’t afford birth control and aren’t ready for a baby. Because in the pro-abort world, women are merely animals, incapable of controlling their sexual urges, right?
9. Pro-lifers need a lesson on the birds and the bees.
Nancy Pelosi makes her first appearance on our list, where she responded to laws limiting (but not outlawing) abortions in North Carolina and Texas by saying that pro-life politicians needed “a lesson on the birds and the bees”. Because the only people who understand sex and pregnancy are the pro-aborts, right? Unfortunately, that has turned out to be less and less true over the years. Pro-lifers have embryology on their side, as well as the science of pregnancy and fetal development. Meanwhile, pro-aborts just try to insist that a baby is just a clump of tissues, or that fetal pain laws are dumb because fetal pain doesn’t exist, or that there are no adverse risks that come with abortion. It doesn’t matter that the science isn’t on their side — they’ll still keep claiming, like Nancy Pelosi did, that it’s pro-lifers who are the idiots in need of educating.
3d-ultrasound-fetus-baby38. Women should go into debt to have an abortion.
Abortions are often expensive, costing thousands of dollars when late-term. Ripping babies into pieces is hard work, after all. But this can mean finding the money for the abortion is difficult for some women. Thankfully, pro-aborts like Leela Yellesetty are here to help! What does she do when women are struggling to afford an abortion? Why, help put them into debt, of course! Yellesetty bragged about how she would talk women into taking about payday loans with interest rates over 300%, pawning their valuables, and putting the money for their procedure onto already maxed-out credit cards. Who cares that these women will be breaking their backs to pay off a $3,000 abortion funded by a payday loan with a 322% interest rate? The abortionist got their money, and that’s all that matters.
7. White people are trying to eliminate abortion to “build up the race”.
Pro-lifers have long since spoken out about the overwhelming number of black babies that are aborted. We speak out against the fact that black babies are being aborted at higher rates than other babies, or that many abortion clinics intentionally target minority neighborhoods. And why is this? According to CBS analyst Nancy Giles, this is all because white pro-lifers want to build up the white race. Yep, that’s right. Our dastardly plan is to build up the white race by opposing abortions of black babies, therefore leading to… erm… the births of more black babies. Makes perfect sense.
6. Men don’t deserve to have a voice on abortion.
According to many pro-aborts, men shouldn’t be allowed to talk about abortion, at all (unless they’re for abortion, in which case it’s totally cool). This is because men can’t get pregnant, so as one pro-abortion blogger said, male voices should be silenced in the abortion discussion. Nevermind that the baby is half the father’s. Men need to just shut up about abortion! And meanwhile, anyone who isn’t black can’t speak about slavery, and anyone who isn’t Jewish can’t talk about the Holocaust. Right? It’s the same logic, after all.
5. You’re only a person if you can play tennis.
A few years ago, Choice USA released a video about pregnancy that was just hilarious. To show how ridiculous the idea of a fetus being a person is, a pregnant woman is told that she has to play doubles tennis instead of singles, must pay for two tickets to see a movie instead of one, and must split a bill between two people three ways — because her unborn child is a person. Get it?? Because everyone knows that a person is defined by what they can or cannot do. In a wheelchair and can’t play tennis? Well, clearly this means you aren’t a person worthy of life.
4. As a Catholic, abortion is sacred ground.
Nancy Pelosi makes her second appearance on our list, where she talks about her wackadoodle version of the Catholic faith. Pelosi defended not only abortions, but late-term abortions, by saying that as a practicing Catholic, keeping late-term abortions legal was sacred ground. Abortion may be a sacrament for pro-aborts, but in the actual Catholic church, protecting all human life is what’s actual sacred ground. Pelosi’s fight to keep abortion legal goes against Catholic teachings, and pretending she’s a pro-abortion warrior because she’s a Catholic does nothing more than make a mockery of the Church.
3. Women who don’t support abortion are men with breasts.
It’s not unusual to hear a pro-abortion feminist say that women can’t be feminists unless they support abortion. Unless you fall in lockstep with their abortion worship, you can’t be a part of their club. But they also insist that they’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Actually exercise a choice they don’t agree with, though, and they’ll turn on you before you can blink. Case in point: Pennsylvania State Representative Babette Josephs, who smeared pro-life women by calling them men with breasts. Because you can’t be a real woman unless you’re willing to advocate for the brutal murder of your unborn child!
2. Women would be nothing without abortion.
Carly Manes is 19-years-old, and defines herself as an abortion activist. She’s able to do all kinds of cool stuff, and so are other women. Why? Because of abortion! According to Manes, it is only because abortion is legal that women are able to devote their energy to do things like go to school, work as an activist, be an athlete, or decide to be vegetarians (like Manes!). Women owe everything to abortion. Without the ability to kill our unborn children, women would be able to accomplish nothing. Girl power!
1. Abortion takes a life, but it’s a life worth sacrificing.
Salon blogger Mary Elizabeth Williams takes the number one spot on our list, with easily the most chilling statement. According to Williams, abortion is taking a life — but that’s OK because it is a life worth sacrificing. Williams claims that an unborn child is a life, just not one worth as much a mother’s feeling that a pregnancy is inconvenient. For Williams, some lives simply have more worth than others, with the “others” being disposable. It takes a truly depraved mind to argue that it’s acceptable to take a life merely because that person isn’t worthy of life.

5 Easy Things You Can Do in One Weekend to Become Better Prepared

Posted on by

Getting started with preparedness can be overwhelming. Most people immediately focus on how much gear they need, and how much they don’t have. Then you worry about how much this is all going to cost and where the money is coming from. It does not have to be like that.
Here is a list of five easy and free activities you can do this weekend, and you will instantly be a lot better off in terms of preparedness than your were last weekend:
1. Go “shopping” in your own home. Take a small box or laundry basket with you and go through your home. Look at all closets, and boxes in the garage. Pick up all items that will come in handy for the next emergency. Find flashlights, matches and lighters, camping lanterns, sleeping bags or even just extra blankets, old battery operated radio, extra toilet paper, trash bags, etc. Even forgotten gift cards with a few cents left can help with your prepping efforts. All too often, people forget what they already have lying around. When going through this exercise, I myself have discovered items I had forgotten about including gifts I may have received, gift cards I could actually use then next time I need something.
2. Clean empty soda bottles and start filling them with water. To disinfect a bottle, just add a teaspoon of bleach to a gallon of water. Rinse the soda bottle with this, then rinse well with tap water. Fill it up with tap water, use a permanent marker add a date on the bottle. This way you will remember when the bottle was filled. You can also partially fill some of the bottles (leaving a few inches room for expansion) and freeze them. You will have ice to keep the freezer cold at the next power outage.
3. Backup your Cell Phone Address Book with a Hard Copy I used to store all phone numbers in my cell phone, except for a few that I had memorized. One day I was talking to my brother and the cell phone ran out of battery life (I know, I wasn’t very prepared that day). I wanted to call him on a land line when I realized I could not remember his phone number, and the cell phone would not turn on until it was sufficiently charged. Luckily it was a short term situation. I backed up all my contact numbers into an old address book the next day. I know it’s a chore but one day you’ll be glad you have it.
4. Plan multiple routes out of your city and write them down. Most people rely on the phone for directions, or on GPS devices. In an emergency, you may not be able to access the electronic maps. Why not plot out various emergency routes out of your city or town now, while there is nothing going on. Find routes via car, or on foot or bicycle. Get familiar with the street maps and write down directions to get out. Or better yet, try and get a free paper map from your auto insurance or roadside assistance company. Keep the maps in your car’s glove box or emergency kit.
5. Choose one survival skill and practice doing it. You can try filtering and disinfecting water, making a fire, assembling a tent, learning CPR by watching an instructional video, etc.
There are lots of things you can do to be prepared that are not too time-consuming or expensive. It just takes a willingness to learn and a commitment to prepare consistently.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Tiny Tidbits of Theological Truth #3

Christology 101: The only biblical icons of Christ are the Eucharist and the gathered Church. Everything else is a cheap imitation.
I have icons hanging in my office in a tall column one above the other. From the bottom up: Emperor Constantine with mommy Helena, then St. George and the dragon, Justin Martyr, Nicholas of Myra (Santa Claus), and Athanasius. Finally, topping this tower of icons is an icon of Jesus looking reverently bored as he sits enthroned over my messy office.
That picture of Jesus reminds me that no man-made image will ever really do. I say “man-made” because God has actually gifted us with two authentic images of Christ. The first is the Eucharist, the “body and blood” of Christ—a holy meal by which we meet with the risen, glorified Christ, encounter His presence and power, and remind one another of His incarnate Person and redemptive work. When I look on Christ in communion, I’m never disappointed.
The other is the Body of Christ itself—the gathered Church made up of His members. That spiritual/physical community called to represent Him in this world. Indwelled by His Spirit. An extension of His prophetic and priestly ministries into this world. As the Church gathers in His name, by His power, under His lordship, there He is in our midst through a mystical union with His people.
Sorry, shiny icon of Jesus. You’re just a cheap imitation.

Tiny Tidbits of Theological Truth #2

Pneumatology 101: You don’t need to know your spiritual gifts in order to do ministry. As you do ministry you discover your spiritual gifts.
I’ve taken more “Know-Your-Spiritual-Gift” tests than I can remember. Most of them were just “tell us what you’d like to do at our church” surveys. One of them felt like a baptized DISC assessment, another like a job application, and still another like the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory! As I took one of these tests, in the back of my mind this thought occurred: “Any atheist could take the same inventory and end up coming out with several spiritual gifts!”
The Bible never tells us to take a test to discover our spiritual gifts. In fact, I’m convinced that spiritual gift inventories are man-made, individualistic, self-centered expressions of modern methodolatry. “MY gift is evangelism.” “I’M a gifted leader; put ME in leadership.” “Sorry, I can’t help, that’s not MY gift.”
The Bible describes spiritual giftedness in terms of both the individual and body (Rom. 12:4–8). In fact, being “filled with the Spirit” is described in corporate, not individual, terms (Eph. 5:18–6:9). And the purpose of spiritual gifts is to build up the body (1 Cor. 12:7). So, instead of marking ovals with a #2 pencil or checking boxes with a mouse, maybe we ought to discover our spiritual gifts by ministering in, with, and to the body of Christ.

Tiny Tidbits of Theological Truth # 1

Theology 101: Great faith is not trusting God to heal, but trusting God when He doesn’t.
I once saw God instantly heal a woman of a golf-ball-sized brain tumor in response to a prayer so pathetic that it would have made the faith of a mustard seed look like the muscles of a mountain-mover. Though it wasn’t the most confident prayer of my Christian life, God instantly and permanently healed her. I’ll never forget that bona fide, medically verifiable miracle. I was there. I was an eyewitness to God’s astonishing healing power.
But that was over fifteen years ago, and since that time I’ve prayed, fasted, and petitioned the same God for others suffering from similarly hopeless plights . . . to no avail. The God who answered my call on the first ring fifteen years ago has let most of my subsequent requests go to voicemail. I’d be lying if I didn’t say this has been a bit frustrating, especially since I know that He can and does heal.
Yet God’s silence has called me to an exercise of even greater faith. It has taken me more faith to continue to trust the goodness and greatness of a mostly silent God than it did when He healed the tumor. If faith is the “conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, ASV), and if God wants to nurture a community of sojourners on a walk of faith (2 Cor. 5:6), then I need to trust Him even more when He seems to rarely return that trust with mind-blowing miracles.

Introducing “Tiny Tidbits of Theological Truth: Expanded Editions”

Early in my tweeting days, I defined “Tweets” as “tidy tidbits of profound irrelevance.” Probably this definition applies to most tweets floating around tweetdom. However, some time ago I began tweeting a series called “Theology 101.” The idea was to compose informative, meaningful, challenging, or quotable tidbits of theological truth in less than 140 characters—including the “101” title.
This proved to be a challenging feat. Boiling down theological propositions to 140 characters can be downright dangerous! Much Christian theology stands in an uncomfortable tension between two or more vital truths. Heresy often results when people relieve the tension by embracing one part of the truth but neglecting another. Reducing theological affirmations to less than 140 characters can easily lead to the error of reductionism. I therefore proceeded with caution.
For the most part, I think I succeeded at avoiding any gross exaggerations or distortions. At least I haven’t started any virtual riots. And for each follower on Twitter that drops me in anger or disappointment, I seem to pick up two or three new ones who have a higher tolerance for my not-always-successful attempts at tidy tidbits of theological truth. But I always imagined that it would be cool if I could add to each 140-characters-or-less nugget a “mouse-over” feature with a short paragraph commenting on the Tweet. That way if a reader didn’t quite get it or didn’t agree with it, they could simply run their mouse over the Tweet and get a better explanation of my intention.
Alas, Twitter will never provide this kind of feature, so I decided to do the next best thing: 1400-characters-or-less less commentaries on my 140-characters-or-less Tweets. As long as my readers find this edifying, I will do this for most of my Tweets.
Of course, I’m still writing the stand-alone “Theology 101” Tweets, averaging a couple new ones a week—sometimes more, sometimes less. You can follow me (@Svigel) on Twitter to get the latest . . . and sometimes I’ll even recycle a few “classics.”

Studies show risk of suicide elevated in women after abortion

by

July 28, 2013

One of the main arguments given for legalizing abortion in Ireland is that troubled women would become suicidal if they were forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Ironically, this was originally how abortions were made available in many US states before Roe versus Wade – as Dr. Bernard Nathanson describes in his books Aborting America and The Hand of God.
sad-woman-faceA woman in pre-Roe versus Wade New York, which had abortion laws more liberal than most of the other states, had to go to a psychiatrist and claim that she was emotionally unbalanced and would commit suicide if she was not allowed to abort her baby. Many of these meetings became “rubberstamping” sessions with their own script – a woman would say the right things, pay her hundred dollars for the “session”, and receive written permission to have an abortion, which she would then take to the abortion provider. This legal situation opened the door for abortion on demand.
But the underlying question is this: does having an abortion reduce a woman’s risk of suicide? Quite a few studies have been conducted addressing this question – and the answers they provide are very one-sided.
Researchers in Finland interviewed 600,000 women for a study that showed that women who became pregnant and had abortions were six times more likely to commit suicide than women who carried their pregnancies to term. Women who aborted were three times more likely to commit suicide than those who had not been pregnant. The statistics show that rather than increasing a woman’s chances of suicide, carrying a baby to term actually decreases them.(1) Also noteworthy was the fact that the study was based not only on interviews but also on medical records. This reliance on records in addition to testimony helped the study avoid “recall bias.” Recall bias is a phenomenon that sometimes skews the results of abortion related studies because many women who have had abortions are not willing to talk about them and will not reveal them on a questionnaire, even when asked.
A related study, in the European Journal of Health, found similar results. This study tracked 463,473 women who became pregnant between the years of 1980 and 2004 and recorded their mortality rates after either giving birth or having abortions. They found that women who had abortions were more likely to die within 10 years after their abortions than women who carried to term. Suicide was a common cause of death for these women.(2)
Another study in The British Medical Journal discovered that the rate of suicide in women after birth was 5.9 out of 100,000. Among women who had abortions, the rate was 34.7. The suicide rate for women who had not been pregnant was 11.3. Again, carrying a pregnancy to term was seen to reduce the suicide rate.
Another study, conducted by David C Reardon of the Elliot Institute, studied 173,000 American women who became pregnant and then either had abortions or carried to term. The survey followed them for eight years after the pregnancy ended. Reardon found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth.(3). Another survey cited by David Reardon in his book Aborted Women, Silent No More (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2002) discovered that up to 60% of women who had abortions had subsequent suicidal feelings, with 28% actually attempting suicide.
The magazine Women’s World reported a study of aborted women in which 45% said they had thoughts of suicide following their abortions.(4)
The statistics are even grimmer for teenagers. One study found that teenage girls who had one or more abortions were 10 times more likely to commit suicide than those who never aborted. (5)
Another study revealed that the rate of psychiatric hospitalization for teenagers who had abortions is three times higher than that of other teens.(6)
But statistics only tell part of the story. Numbers do not convey the anguish of individual women. A teenager identified as “Nelly R” describes being coerced by her boyfriend into having an abortion. She says:
“I remember when they started the IV and how I looked up and told one of the nurses to tell me what was the sex of the baby and to tell the baby that I loved it and I had no choice. from there I don’t remember anything but when I woke up in the recovery room crying and checking my stomach to see if it was a horrible dream. I remember screaming from the top of my lungs and saying I wish I could die too. I fell into a deep depression and I bearly [sic] made it to senior year. I tried to commit suicide. I didn’t care for my self [sic] or anyone else at the time I was a murder.[sic] I remember going to the police station and saying that I had murdered someone and saying that I killed my own baby. I thought that I would never be happy again.”
Read her full testimony here.
Another woman shared her story on the John Ankerberg show. She said:
When I was examined the doctor said that he had been mistaken, the baby was far more advanced than he had thought, and that it was 15 weeks, and I was really just in shock. Within a minute, I was aborted, waited a few minutes, and then I got up to get dressed. And when I went over to the dressing room, I saw bucket of blood. And, my baby was in the bucket of blood, and the baby was not an inch big, the baby was as big as my hand, and it was a real baby. All I could think of was that I had murdered my baby… I started deteriorating emotionally that night. Over the next month, I cried, not normal cries, I cried from the bellows of the earth. I remember just leaning at the top of my staircase, just wishing I could throw myself down to the bottom. I remember thinking of jumping on the roof and jumping off. I thought of every method of suicide, I tried to consider doing. And I cried so deeply, so constantly, and so deeply, it was like the wail of a newborn baby when they cry and their fists are clenched, and they just cannot control the crying and somehow I thought I must. It was the most extraordinary crying I could ever see myself doing.”
Read her testimony and others here
Another woman who aborted twins said:
“After aborting my boys, I was a wreck. I instantly had a nervous breakdown. I contemplated suicide because I had lost my will to live. I felt I needed to be with them and to help them somehow. I could hear them calling me at night reaching out to me, but I couldn’t touch them. I wanted out of my misery.”
Read her full story here.
Another woman told the story of her abortion in The Postabortion Review newsletter published by the Elliot Institute. She had her abortion when she was 16 in 1977, and still suffers. After describing how the clinic “counselors” lied to her about the development of the baby, she says:
I began to drink heavily and use drugs. I had severe depressions in which I contemplated suicide. I had, and still have, horrible nightmares involving babies and people trying to kill me. I still get depressed and cry a lot. I pray at night that God will let my baby know that I didn’t kill him because I hated him. I long to hold him so much now that it hurts, and I want him to know that.
I harbor secret fears that one of my children will be taken from me because of this horrible act that I have committed. This fear was compounded when I almost miscarried one of my children at twelve weeks. I feel sure the problem was connected to my abortion. The problems go on and on. I had never allowed myself to calculate the month that my baby would have been born. Recently I figured out when the baby would have been born and was horrified when I realized that it was within weeks of when both of my children were born. I had felt intense pressure from within myself to become pregnant at this particular time with both my children. And now the realization has hit me that subconsciously I have substituted my live children for my dead child, by conceiving and giving birth at the same times.
I have spent many years trying to push the memory of what I have done to the back of my mind, but it won’t stay there. I have constantly compared my dead child to what he would have been doing had he lived. I understand that most women who choose to abort experience the same feelings. My child would have been in first grade this year. It’s very hard for me to look at a first grader.
I have shed many tears over the last few years and now I’m angry. I’m angry at myself, my family, the abortion clinic, their counselors, the doctors (who can commit murder on a daily basis), and most of all I’m mad at my government, who prints “IN GOD WE TRUST” on our coins, yet has legalized the daily painful, violent slaughter of the youngest members of our society.
Read her full testimony here.
These are just four women out of countless thousands, maybe even millions, who have contemplated suicide after abortion. Is a lie to say that suicide can be prevented by abortion – both statistics and personal testimony show that the opposite is true.
  1. Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. Suicides after Pregnancy in Finland, 1987 to 94: Register Linkage Study British Medical Journal 1996 December 7; 313 (7070): 1431 – 4
  2. M. Gissler, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459 63,2005.
  3. DC Reardon et. al., “Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,” Southern Medical Journal 95(8):834-41, Aug. 2002.
  4. Martina Mahler “Abortion: the Pain No One Talks About” Women’s World, September 24, 1991, 6
  5. B. Garfinkel, et al., “Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota,” Responding to High Risk Youth (University of Minnesota: Minnesota Extension Service, 1986)
  6. R. Somers, “Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women Who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis Based on National Report Linkage” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California, 1979, Disseration Abstracts International, Public Health 2621-B, Order No. 7926066)

Friday, July 26, 2013

The Religious Left, Reborn

Steven Malanga

Everyone knows that the Christian Right is a potent force in American politics. But since the mid-nineties, an increasingly influential religious movement has arisen on the left, mostly escaping the national press’s notice. The movement expends its political energies not on the cultural concerns that primarily motivate conservative evangelicals, but instead on an array of labor and economic issues. Working mostly at the state and local level, and often in lockstep with unions, the ministers, priests, rabbis, and laity of this new Religious Left have lent their moral authority to a variety of left-wing causes, exerting a major, sometimes decisive influence in campaigns to enforce a “living wage,” to help unions organize, and to block the expansion of nonunionized businesses like Wal-Mart, among other struggles. Indeed, the movement’s effectiveness has made it one of organized labor’s most reliable allies.
The new Religious Left is in one sense not new at all. It draws its inspiration from the Christian social-justice movement that formed in the mid-nineteenth century as a response to the emerging industrial economy, which many religious leaders viewed—with some justification—as brutal and unfair to workers. In America, the movement gained traction thanks largely to the efforts of Baptist minister Walter Rauschenbusch, who served New York City’s poor. Unlike nineteenth-century reformers who sought to help the poor by teaching them the bourgeois virtues of hard work, thrift, and diligence, Rauschenbusch believed that the best way to uplift the downtrodden was to redistribute society’s wealth and forge an egalitarian society. In Christ’s name, capitalism had to fall. “The Kingdom of God is a collective conception,” Rauschenbusch wrote in Christianity and the Social Crisis, politicizing the Gospel’s message. “It is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven, but of transforming the life on earth into the harmony of heaven.”
Rauschenbusch’s “social gospel,” as it came to be called, fell out of favor after World War I, when the violence of the Russian Revolution and the radicalization of European workers alarmed many American Christians. But in milder forms, the notion persisted that clergy should minister to the needy not by guiding souls to heavenly paradise but by seeking structural changes in society. In 1919, the Catholic philosopher Monsignor John Ryan gained a wide following by calling for pro-union legislation, steep taxes on wealth, and more stringent business regulation. When FDR adopted several of Father Ryan’s ideas in the 1930s, the priest was given the sobriquet “the Right Reverend New Dealer.” His popularity reflected the tightening alliance between America’s mainstream churches and organized labor.
That alliance disintegrated during the 1960s. Left-wing clerics like the notorious rebel priests the Berrigan brothers began to agitate for a wider range of radical causes—above all, a swift end to the Vietnam War. The more culturally conservative blue-collar workers who formed the union movement’s core wanted no part of this. The rift between the Religious Left and labor leaders would last for several decades.
The mending of that rift—and the arrival on the political scene of a new, union-friendly, Religious Left during the mid-nineties—owes much to the tireless efforts of savvy labor bosses, especially AFL-CIO president John Sweeney. The son of Irish immigrants, Sweeney grew up in a prototypical Catholic pro-union household; when he took over the AFL-CIO in 1996, he resolved to restore the bonds between church and labor. In a 1996 speech to a Catholic symposium, Sweeney evoked an era when labor unions were mighty and churches stood squarely behind them: “In our modest home in the Bronx, there were three things central to our lives: our family, the Church, and the union,” he recalled. With union membership shrinking—from 24 percent of the workforce 30 years ago to 14.5 percent in 1996 (and just 12 percent today)—“unions need aggressive participation by the Church in our organizing campaigns,” he implored church leaders.
The Sweeney-led AFL-CIO reenergized the old alliance. Soon after he took office, the AFL-CIO launched “Labor in the Pulpits,” a program that encouraged churches and synagogues to invite union leaders to preach the virtues of organized labor and tout its political agenda. Labor in the Pulpits has steadily expanded: nearly 1,000 congregations in 100 cities nationwide now take part annually. Sweeney himself has preached from the pulpit of Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral, urging congregants to join antiglobalization protests in the capital. In Los Angeles, caravans of union activists have visited black churches on Labor Day Sunday, dispensing contributions from union locals. San Jose union leaders, seeing amnesty for illegal aliens as a way to garner new recruits, have asked churchgoers to support it. And in Des Moines, a vice president of the United Steelworkers told a Methodist congregation: “In America today, the pursuit of profits takes precedence over the pursuit of justice—and working families are suffering the consequences.”
Under the auspices of Labor in the Pulpits, clerics in America’s mainstream churches—Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians—have composed guidelines for union-friendly sermons and litanies, as well as inserts for church bulletins that promote union legislation. One insert, distributed in 2006, asked congregants to pray for a federal minimum-wage hike and also—if the prayers didn’t work, presumably—to contact their congressional representatives. Another recent one encouraged churchgoers to arrange home viewings of an anti-Wal-Mart documentary, to stop shopping at the retail giant, and to patronize Costco, a unionized competitor. A 2005 insert urged congregants to lobby Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act—controversial legislation that would let unions organize firms merely by getting workers to sign authorizing cards, rather than by conducting secret ballots, as is currently required.
Unions are also cultivating the next generation of church leaders. “Seminary Summer,” an initiative created with the Chicago-based, union-supported Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ), arranges for seminarians to spend the summer months working with union locals. “Within three years most of these students will be in leadership positions in congregations,” predicted IWJ head Kim Bobo shortly after the program began in 2000. Since then, some 200 seminarians have helped unionize Mississippi poultry workers, aided the Service Employees International Union in organizing Georgia public-sector employees, and bolstered campaigns for living-wage legislation in California municipalities.
Seminary Summer seems to be sparking considerable enthusiasm among participants. “Before Seminary Summer, I had been leery, even suspicious, of labor unions,” remarked Lori Peterson of Loyola University, a 2006 enrollee. But afterward, she said, “I began to believe in the labor movement again. The training gave me a new perspective on unions and how important they are to creating equality and justice.” Chicago Divinity School student Beau Underwood, who took part in 2007, is equally fervent. “One staple of a union organizer’s toolbox is the bullhorn and I love it,” he noted on his blog. “One of the very first days I led chants during an early-morning hotel picket line. Just today, I ‘bullhorned’ at customers of a hotel being boycotted by the union.”
“Younger seminarians may be particularly receptive to such experiences,” suggests Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, which tries to educate religious leaders on the compatibility of free-market principles with Christian beliefs. “Seminarians are preaching all the time,” he adds, “and if they don’t have an economic background, it’s easy for them to fall into the fallacy of the Left that our economy is a zero-sum game that demands conflict between business owners and workers.”
Working with IWJ, the labor movement has spawned some 60 new Religious Left groups, ranging from the Massachusetts Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice to the Chicago Interfaith Committee on Worker Issues to the Los Angeles–based Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (Clue). These organizations have given unions an effective ally, especially in town councils, city halls, and state capitols, which have proven more union-friendly than Washington, D.C., in recent years.
Nowhere have these efforts borne more fruit than in Los Angeles, where Clue has recruited some 600 religious leaders to back worker causes. Clue clergy helped crush several 2005 statewide ballot initiatives that unions opposed, including one that gave union workers the option of not paying dues that would fund union political activities. In 2006, Clue pressure, including a fast for striking workers, helped prompt building owners in greater L.A. to allow security guards to unionize. Two years earlier, Clue had united about 50 local congregations to support 4,000 workers demanding more money and better benefits from 17 area hotels. Clergy asked the faithful to boycott the hotels until their owners caved—as, in the end, they did.
Interfaith coalitions have scored similar victories elsewhere. In Memphis, for instance, clergy fought relentlessly—via newspaper op-eds, public fasts, and preaching—for the passage of living-wage bills that since 2004 have forced local businesses to hike wages well above the federal minimum. “The living-wage effort here was pushed mainly by local clergy,” says Ken Hall, former vice president for the Memphis Regional Chamber of Commerce, which battled the measures.
Noting the success of Memphis’s living-wage battle and of similar campaigns in which religious leaders have played key roles, unions and their allies have made recruiting Religious Left support part of the activist playbook—an inspired strategy, since polls show that even secular Americans consider clergy our most admired profession. The Wayne State University Labor Studies Center’s “activist handbook” advises living-wage campaigns always to put religious leaders out front. “As soon as you have clergy arguing for something called a ‘living wage,’ you’ve lost the battle if you’re representing businesses,” Hall observes. “If I was debating against union members advocating for a ‘surplus wage law,’ which is what living-wage laws actually are, we would have won.” Pro-labor Berkeley city councilman Kriss Worthington echoes the point from the other side of the fence. “When a politician or union proposes something, people start out with a questioning attitude,” he said after clerics helped sway the council to endorse a labor initiative. “When you have a faith community, it adds a moral and ethical component”—all the more effective in that the Religious Left essentially has the spiritual terrain to itself on economic matters, which Christian conservative groups have mostly ignored. The labor-religious coalitions have worked spectacularly well: some 125 municipalities have passed living-wage laws.
Some of America’s most venerable Protestant denominations have thrown their institutional weight behind the new alliance with labor. More than 100 religious organizations support IWJ financially, including the National Council of Churches of the USA (NCC), an umbrella organization of nearly 40 mainstream Christian denominations. Key NCC members such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Episcopal Church are particularly active. Though it was founded in 1950 to promote ecumenical cooperation, the NCC has become a clearinghouse for religious participation in left-wing causes. Heavily funded by liberal groups like the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation, during the 2004 national elections the NCC organized the Let Justice Roll campaign, which focused on voter registration drives in Democratic areas, and it renewed the campaign in 2006, this time with an emphasis on helping statewide groups pass referenda raising the minimum wage.
The new alliance between labor and religion also enjoys the powerful backing of the Catholic Church, whose American hierarchy, though often conservative on social issues, is firmly left-wing in its economic views. Several dozen major Catholic groups—including the Catholic Conference of Bishops, Catholic Charities, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles—contribute financially to interfaith workers’ groups and assist their lobbying efforts. At a national conference, Bishop Gabino Zavala of L.A. went so far as to compare labor leaders with Old Testament prophets, praising them for “bringing the same conviction, ideals, passion, commitment to justice, energy for human rights, and sense of mission to their bold words and actions, to their union organizing and coalition building.”
Having established itself in many places as the moral authority on economic issues, the resurgent Religious Left has brought back the fiery redistributionist language of the social gospel. Despite decades of economic progress that have reduced unemployment levels to record lows and made America a magnet for opportunity-seeking immigrants, clerical anticapitalism increasingly echoes Rauschenbusch’s old notion that “it is hard to get riches with justice.” Leading clergy have depicted the free market as a vast, exploitative force, controlled by a small group of godless power brokers for their own gain. Speaking to a national conference of religious and labor leaders, IWJ’s copresident, the Reverend Nelson Johnson, called for America to save itself from “its own arrogance, its selfishness and greed” and admonished an elite “wallowing in the obscenity of massive unearned wealth.” In a scriptural reflection distributed for Labor in the Pulpits this year, the Reverend Darren Wood, a Methodist and the author of Blue Collar Jesus, criticized “the gluttony of the wealthy and the abusive powers of corporations” and declared that Christ envisioned “an alternate economy of equality.” To achieve that egalitarian vision, the IWJ’s Bobo recently pronounced, America needs a “redistribution” to “shift wealth from a few to working families.”
The Religious Left reserves some of its most hyperbolic rhetoric for Wal-Mart, the labor movement’s bête noire. Clergy describe the giant retailer in terms that its thousands of suppliers, millions of employees, and tens of millions of customers would hardly recognize. The Reverend Jarvis Johnson, an IWJ board member, has urged congregants to invite the “hurting, blind and crippled” to a metaphorical banquet. Who are these poor, abused souls? “They are Wal-Mart associates who have to wait six months to a year to qualify for a health care plan,” Johnson explained. The Reverend Alexia Salvatierra, a Lutheran minister and head of Clue, compares Wal-Mart with “the noblemen of Luther’s time,” whom the German monk denounced for robbing the poor.
Religious Left leaders have blindly accepted all that the unions claim about corporate America’s sins. In backing the Employee Free Choice Act, for instance, clerics argue that laws and rulings by anti-union government bureaucrats have crippled workers’ ability to organize—the big reason, they claim, that union membership has plummeted. “Our government seems determined to undermine the people’s right to organize in the United States,” charged the Reverend Nelson Johnson earlier this year, in reaction to a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadened the definition of “supervisor,” narrowing the number of people eligible to join unions as hourly employees. But the real reason for labor’s decline is simply that many workers, enjoying their mobility in the prosperous, dynamic twenty-first-century American economy, now view unions as irrelevant. A 2005 Zogby poll found that only 35 percent of non-organized workers would join a union if given the opportunity. And contrary to the clerics who rail against abusive corporate power, 70 percent of workers in the same survey said that their companies cared about them, and 72 percent claimed to be happy in their jobs.
The Religious Left also refuses to acknowledge the considerable academic research showing that mandated wage hikes often eliminate the jobs of low-skilled workers—the very people whom it seeks to help. In editorials, the Reverend Rebekah Jordan, a Methodist minister who heads Memphis’s local interfaith group, used union-sponsored research to argue that living-wage laws benefit workers and do little harm to employment rates. But David Neumark, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley’s Institute of Business and Economics Research and one of the world’s foremost authorities on wage laws, has found that while living-wage laws do boost the income of some low-wage workers, they also have “strong negative employment effects”—that is, they vaporize jobs. In one study, Neumark noted that a 50 percent boost in the living wage produced a decline in employment for the lowest-skilled workers of between 6 and 8 percent.
Further, the leftist clerics ignore mounting evidence that much poverty in prosperous, opportunity-rich America results not from a failed economic system but from dysfunctional—dare one call it “sinful”?—behavior. Around two-thirds of poor families with children today are single-parent households, largely dependent on government subsidies. Single women with little education head most of these households. The kind of work for which these mothers are qualified—entry-level, low-wage—makes it hard to support large families; and the time that they must devote to raising their kids makes it hard, in turn, to climb the economic ladder. Poverty, in other words, is increasingly about the irresponsible decision—again, we might once have called it sinful—to have children out of wedlock. In a recent study on American poverty highlighted by the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists from the University of California at Davis found that “changes in family structure—notably a doubling of the percent of families headed by a single woman—can account for a 3.7 percentage point increase in poverty rates, more than the entire rise in the poverty rate from 10.7 percent to 12.8 percent since 1980.”
By contrast, observes Catholic neoconservative writer Michael Novak, research demonstrates that the way out of poverty for most Americans is to make a few simple life choices. “Some 97 percent of those who complete high school, stay married (even if not on the first try), and work full-time year-round (even at the minimum wage) are not poor,” Novak points out. “Nearly all poverty in the United States is associated with the absence of one or more of these three basic accomplishments”—not with insufficient social spending or a lack of economic opportunity.
Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, charges that leftist clerics have become part of the poverty problem. “The Religious Left has abdicated responsibility as a moral authority,” says Palmer, who in 2003 faced off against religious leaders after they backed Alabama governor Bob Riley’s push to raise taxes. Palmer argues that religious groups can play a significant role in fighting poverty—but only by striving to strengthen the family and personal responsibility. “The attitude of the Religious Left seems to be, ‘Let government do it,’ and they would drive us toward a kind of Christian socialism,” he says.
Not only are the Religious Left’s fuzzy, shopworn ideas out of step with the latest poverty research; they’re also at odds with the opinions of many congregants. Consider the leftist clergy’s latest initiative, “New Sanctuary.” Opposing government efforts to deport illegal immigrants, the IWJ has helped organize a national network of congregations that grant illegal aliens sanctuary in their churches. Responding to critics who complain that religious leaders shouldn’t assist lawbreakers, Bobo counters: “There is a strong belief among many people of faith that if laws are unjust, there may be times and situations in which laws should be broken.”
But many American Christians don’t share that belief, at least when it comes to immigration. According to a Pew Center poll, more white, mainline Protestants and non-Hispanic Catholics condemn helping illegal immigrants evade the law than condone such behavior. “Despite the strong pro-immigrant statements issued recently by a number of prominent religious leaders,” Pew noted, “polls show that a large segment of the public—including many Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals—harbor serious concerns about immigration and immigrants.”
The dissonance between Religious Left leaders and their congregants on immigration isn’t anomalous. While the NCC and its member churches pursue a variety of left-wing causes—even partnering with the activist organization MoveOn.org and featuring speakers like Michael Moore at events—a Pew poll has found that 54 percent of white, mainline Protestants and 50 percent of Catholics voted Republican in the 2004 presidential elections. Those who attended church regularly voted Republican even more heavily—at nearly the same rate as evangelical Christians, in fact.
Those numbers are a reminder that for four decades, as the leadership of America’s mainline Christian churches has moved steadily leftward, those churches’ memberships have declined as a percentage of the U.S. population, even as the number of Christian evangelicals exploded. Cultural issues drove most of the flight from old-line churches, which became as liberal socially as anticapitalist economically; believers moved to more conservative congregations, whose positions on issues such as abortion and the traditional family lined up more comfortably with their own. So the left-wing clerics may be buying greater political influence with their new alliance through organized labor, but in so doing they may wind up further alienating their shrinking flock.
Steven Malanga is senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of The New New Left, a collection of his City Journal essays.

Can a Religious Left Rival the Christian Right?

July 25, 2013|7:40 pm
A new report from the Public Religion Research Institute and Brookings Institution showed that young adults are much more likely to identify as religious progressives than older Americans. The results have prompted some writers to suggest America may see the emergence of a strong Religious Left movement in the near future. At last Thursday's panel discussion introducing the report, though, the report's authors and discussants noted significant challenges to a Religious Left social movement.
The report is based upon a May 30 to June 16 survey of 2,002 American adults (margin of error is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points). Using composites of several different survey questions, the report divides the sample into religious conservatives, religious moderates, religious progressives and the nonreligious. They found that a plurality of Americans are religious moderates (38 percent), followed by religious conservatives (28 percent), religious progressives (19 percent) and the nonreligious (15 percent).
One of the most significant findings in the report was the dramatic decrease in popularity of religious conservatism in favor of religious progressivism and non-religiousness among Millennials, or those aged 18 to 33.
Only 17 percent of Millennials are categorized as religious conservatives compared to 23 percent of Generation X (ages 34 to 48), 34 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 49 to 67), and 47 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 68 and older). At the same time, 23 percent of Millennials are identified as religious progressives, compared to 16 percent of Generation X, 19 percent of Baby Boomers and 12 percent of the Silent Generation.
Given this data, some might conclude that religious progressives could become more politically influential than religious conservatives at some point in the future. Several of the panelists, though, who themselves could be described as religious progressives, expressed caution about such a prediction.
Peter Steinfels, professor emeritus at Fordham University, said there were two reasons to doubt that religious progressives could build a significant political movement, such as the one built by religious conservatives. Steinfels, who said he would probably be categorized as a religious progressive by the report, did not contribute to the report but was on the panel as a discussant.
First, Steinfels doubted that religion could be a motivating force for religious progressives because religious progressives are less likely to say that religion is the most important thing in their life.
Among religious conservatives, 54 percent answered that religion is the most important thing in their life, but among religious progressives, only 11 percent answered that religion is the most important thing in their life.
"Unlike the wishy-washy options of 'religion is among the important things' in my life, or 'religion is somewhat important,' the 'most important' response has always seemed to me a good measure of the strength and intensity of religious identity," Steinfels explained.
William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who formerly worked in the Bill Clinton White House, agreed. The fact that religious conservatives are five times more likely than religious progressives to say religion is the most important thing in their life is "one of the most important findings of the report," he said.
There is a big difference, Galston explained, between someone who says religion is "the most important thing" in their life and someone who says their religion is "one among many important things" in their life, because those who say it is most important are more likely to vote based upon their religious beliefs.
"If you say that something is the most important thing in your life and you mean it, that is, so to speak, a trumping value," he said. "And what that translates into is a willingness to vote on the basis of that whenever it comes into conflict with anything else. To say it is one among many important things is to offer a very different proposition about what drives you. ... [Religious conservatives] will vote on this basis. Whether or not religious progressives will vote and act on this basis, I think, is a more difficult question."
The second reason Steinfels is skeptical about the potential for a Religious Left movement is that most religious progressives, 87 percent, believe that religion is a private matter that should not influence political and social issues.
"Their view may provide a sort of negative counter to aggressive religious interventions on behalf of traditional sexual and personal norms," Steinfels argued, "but it does not provide much ground for religious engagement on the sorts of issues the study puts before us – helping the poor, maintaining the safety net, and opposing inequality."
Robert P. Jones, CEO and founder of PRRI, noted a third reason to doubt that religious progressives could become a significant political force: religious progressives are more dispersed and do not attend religious services as often as religious conservatives. Therefore, it is harder to find religious progressives in order to mobilize them.
Religious conservatives are mostly found in evangelical and Catholic churches, Jones explained, and they go to church often. Religious progressives, on the other hand, are scattered across Christian denominations as well as other religions – such as Judaism, Islam and Hinduism – and do not attend religious services as often.
"The challenge of finding religious progressives is a real challenge," Jones said. "You can't just walk into churches and find a bunch of them there. They're much more dispersed."

Ted Cruz Blasts Obama for Weak Foreign Policy; Commends Pro-Israel Christians

July 24, 2013|10:18 pm
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stirred up a crowd of thousands on Wednesday at the Christians United for Israel Annual Summit in Washington, D.C., as he criticized President Obama's foreign policy as one of "weakness" and "appeasement" while stressing the need to maintain a strong alliance with Israel.
"I commend everyone here for respecting the biblical admonition to stand with Israel," he said, praising their "commitment to speak the truth in an era when so many believe they know better than eternal truths." "The alliance between the United States and Israel must remain completely and entirely unshakeable."
Cruz sent a strong message to the Obama administration, saying what the United States needs are leaders who "clearly understand that America and Israel are not what's wrong with the world."
During his 18-minute speech on the last day of the CUFI summit, the Texas senator blasted Obama on a number of foreign policy issues, including how he has dealt with Iran.
"There's an irony that many don't seem to understand – that weakness encourages violence and military conflict whereas clear barriers and deterrents are the best way to avoid military conflict," he noted.
While Iran moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons, Cruz said "there is very good reason for the Iranian mullahs to believe that the threats from the United States are hollow."
"I wish that were not the case," he said. "I wish they were perceived as credible threats because the best way to stop their proceeding toward nuclear weapons capacity is to make unequivocally clear that grave and immediate and military consequences, if necessary, will follow."
Cruz backed Israel's right to defend itself if Iran gets too close to acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
"And if that occurs, I could not imagine a greater service that could be given to protecting the national security interests of the United States of America," he said. "Now frankly, Israel shouldn't have to act. The United States should be willing to act to protect our own interests."
The alliance with Israel, Cruz underlined, is driven by "overwhelming benefits that come to the national security of the United States of America." Israel, he described, is a "liberal democracy that reflects our values" and serves as a "beacon of freedom in a very troubled part of the world."
"We live in a very dangerous time," Cruz said, speaking of the unrest sparked throughout the Middle East by "the so-called Arab Spring." He mentioned the civil war in Syria, arguing that seven of the nine major groups of rebels are "affiliated in some significant way with al Qaeda."
Due to this terror connection, the senator argued against President Obama's recent decision to send arms to the rebels. "Don't give weapons to people who hate us … who want to kill us," he said. Requests to Cruz's office for further comment were not returned by press time.
"Before the president of the United States injects us into what could be a Sunni-Shiite war," Cruz argued, "it's incumbent on the president to come before Congress, to come before the American people and to explain why it is in the national interest of the United States of America."
Cruz also brought up Egypt, where Christians helped lead millions in what has been called "the largest revolution in world history," to further illustrate Obama's failing foreign policy. The recent revolution represented "millions of people protesting against a radical Islamic government that had become repressive and tyrannical."
But "the saddest moment" amid the protests, Cruz said, was to see "the protesters out on the street waving signs that said 'Obama supports Terrorism, Obama supports Morsi.'" While the president did endorse the new military-installed government, he had praised Morsi's election as a great victory for democracy.
"Truly we have gone through the looking glass when those suffering under a radical Islamic government of the Muslim Brotherhood look to the United States and see a government that supports the radical Islamic government and not the other way around," he lamented.
Cruz contrasted the alleged weakness of the current president with the firm strength of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy.
"It's not an accident that on the day President Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released our hostages after 444 days," he said. Obama, however, has let "the terrorist attack on our people in Benghazi go unavenged for more than nine months."
"What a different administration we have today."
In 1987, Reagan had the courage to tell the Soviet Union leader, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" as he stood near the Berlin Wall. More than 25 years later, Obama stood at the same Brandenburg Gate and said in a speech last month, "Openness won. Tolerance won. And freedom won."
"The Berlin Wall did not come tumbling down because of openness and tolerance and a bunch of folks with flowers in their hair singing kumbaya," Cruz said in his speech Wednesday. Rather, it fell "because we had an American president with the moral clarity to say 'our policy toward the Soviet Union can be summed up in one simple formula – we win, they lose.'"
Cruz argued that this firmness, as opposed to Obama's alleged policy of "leading from behind," truly keeps people safe. "Bullies and tyrants do not respect weakness and appeasement," he said.

'Why Atheism Will Replace Religion' Author: Economic Security a Characteristic of 'Godless' Countries

July 26, 2013|10:22 am
Bio-psychologist Nigel Barber details the socio-economic reasons why he predicts atheism will prevail over the world's religions by the year 2041 in his book, Why Atheism Will Replace Religion: The Triumph of Earthly Pleasures Over Pie in the Sky.
Barber claims that outside of the "possible exception" of the United States, "… citizens of countries that enjoy the best standard of living are the least likely to believe in God or see religion as very important in their daily lives."
He asserts, "Religion may have been useful to humans for tens of thousands of millennia thanks to its role in coping with stress and uncertainty" but it has outlived its usefulness because successful countries are turning away from religion.
"I argue that their citizens' lives are so comfortable and secure that they no longer need religious rituals to help them cope with anxiety. The key factors that make people feel secure include: relative affluence; good health and long life expectancy; economic security; and social trust; all of which are characteristics of 'godless' countries."
His claims are based on findings from a study he conducted that will be published in the Cross-Cultural Research journal next month.
After analyzing 137 countries "that partialed out the effects of Communism and Islamic religion both of which affect the incidence of reported nonbelief," Barber concludes in his study, "A Cross-National Test of the Uncertainty Hypothesis of Religious Belief," that increasing economic and income security, higher taxation and a welfare state lead to "disbelief," and is replaced by residents "trusting their neighbors and participating in civic organizations," opposed to religious activities.
"When one compares countries around the world, the happiest countries are not the most religious ones," he writes. "Countries where most people are rendered miserable by poverty, hunger, and disease, are the very ones where religious belief is at its strongest."
In an article published in Psychology Today, Barber notes: "In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism. Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64 percent nonbelievers), Denmark (48 percent), France (44 percent) and Germany (42 percent). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1 percent."
A 2012 WIN-Gallup International poll, titled "Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism" and based on interviews with more than 50,000 people in 57 countries, found that "only a minority of the world, mostly concentrated in China and Western Europe, claims to be atheist."
The poll found that 59 percent claim to be religious, compared to 23 percent who said they are not religious, and 13 percent who said they are atheist.
According to the poll, the top 10 religious populations are in: Ghana, Nigeria, Armenia, Fiji, Macedonia, Romania, Iraq, Kenya, Peru and Brazil.
The top 10 countries experiencing a decline in religiosity since 2005 include: Vietnam, Switzerland, France, South Africa, Iceland, Ecuador, United States, Canada, Austria and Germany.
Similar to Barber's findings, the WIN-Gallup poll shows that those who are "college educated are 16 percent less religious than those without secondary education." The poll also found that since 2005, religiosity has dropped by 9 percent, while atheism has risen by 3 percent.
Barber further asserts, "The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs."

A different poll, however, contends that the world is more religious now than it was four decades ago, and anticipates the trend to continue through 2020 and perhaps beyond.

According to the study titled "Christianity In Its Global Context, 1970-2010," conducted by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, there will be 2.6 billion Christians by 2020.
The study notes that in 1970, agnostic and atheist populations together claimed 19.2 percent of the world's total population, largely due to communism in Eastern Europe and China. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, large numbers of the nonreligious returned to religion.
Christianity and Islam represented 48.8 percent of the global population in 1970, and by 2020 they will likely represent 57.2 percent, according to the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary study.
The study also reports that the fastest-growing religion over the next decade is likely to be the Baha'i faith, which is growing by 1.7 percent, yearly. This to be followed by Islam at 1.6 percent, Sikhism at 1.4 percent, Jainism at 1.3 percent, Christianity at 1.2 percent and Hinduism at 1.2 percent. Each of these is growing faster than the world's population at 1.1 percent.