June 2008

Earlier this week, I blogged about some good news in the pro-life cause, in the form of a Dallas, Texas, abortion clinic that closed. Then comes this bad news from Albert Mohler’s blog, which shows our opposition is clever, well-funded, and on-the-move.

It sometimes seems as though each time we see progress in one area, we see setbacks in another. Consider how some statistics show surgical abortions are on the decline in America, but chemical abortions are on the rise, due in part to the advent of the “morning-after pill,” Plan B, and the RU-486 drug.

But take heart, this is just one more reason to pray and work more fervently toward a culture of life.

I just received good news, my friends:

“In what pro-life advocates have described as nothing other than the miraculous work of God, a series of abortion clinics throughout Dallas have closed down after a prominent bishop began leading prayers for their closure 18 years ago.”

“Since Bishop Charles Grahmann of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas first began leading his monthly prayer vigils outside the doors of abortion clinics over a decade ago, seven of the 13 abortion clinics in Dallas have closed, including, most recently, the only late term abortion clinic that deprived life to babies over 3 months old.” Read more here.

This just goes to show that we Christians–Evangelicals and Catholics together–can accomplish great things, united in the Lord, to Whom we give the praise for this victory.

Over at National Review, Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn have published a list of their top ten concerns regarding the potential of an Obama presidency.  The list is pretty interesting, but I found it distressing a bit that life was listed at number 9, and then relatively briefly:

9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.

That quibble aside, it’s a good read for anyone thinking of voting for Barack Obama.

Check out the bad news from this AP story, which shows relativism is alive and kicking within the Church today. I just rue the near inevitable successor to it: the arrival of nihilism.

“America remains a nation of believers, but a new survey finds most Americans don’t feel their religion is the only way to eternal life — even if their faith tradition teaches otherwise.”

“The findings, released Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don’t know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.”

“Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.”

Whether reading books from Emergent Church writers, or visiting the local Christian bookstore, you may have run across a title for Jesus that I have not yet found in the Bible. “Leader.” I came across a new blog today, linked from ChristianityToday.com, that bemoans the title:

“Beware of any literature that starts with these words: ‘Jesus was the greatest leader of all time.’ The sentiment behind those words may be true, but the point they make is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if Jesus was the greatest leader of all time. Jesus is our leader (and, in a holy sense, we’re stuck with him).”

“The issue at hand is far from nit-picky. Evangelicals have long been accused of domesticating Jesus—making him one of “us” (often white, middle-class, socially respectable, and politically conservative). The glut of Jesus-as-leader books runs a tremendous risk as it attempts to introduce Jesus into the economy that surrounds 21st century leadership.”

Read the rest here.

You may recall me noting that last week, I attended the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. This week, The Weekly Standard, has an important piece about us. Entitled, “The Dwindling Baptists? Not Really,” the piece starts this way:

ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS “dwindling”? Recent headlines about the annual meeting of the 16.27 million member Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) refer to its ostensible struggles with membership decline. Having lost 40,000 members last year, America’s second biggest religious body was described as “dwindling” by a Washington Post headline, which other media echoed.

In contrast to Mainline Protestant denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the SBC is overwhelmingly conservative. During the 1980s, conservative Baptists, derided as “fundamentalists” by critics, were alarmed by liberal inroads and solidified their governance of church agencies and seminaries. Southern Baptist and other evangelical churches have enjoyed almost unfettered growth in recent decades, while the once dominant Mainline denominations are now in their fifth decade of decline.

Read the rest here.

[hat tip: JR]

In about twenty four hours, I plan to attend a lunch briefing featuring pro-tax-cut activist, Grover Norquist. He is perhaps most famous for forging the ‘Leave-Us-Alone Coalition,’ a “description of a hoped-for reality of cooperation between social conservatives, libertarians / free market supporters, and various single-issue voters such as gun rights supporters.”

The title of his new book, Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, says it all. Yet as a so-called one-issue voter (i.e. pro-life), I find myself increasingly uncertain as to what his philosophy has to say on pro-life issues and progress.

That may be a good question to ask Mr. Norquist.

While I was at the annual SBC meeting in Indianapolis, I was pumped to discover my favorite Christian scholar, Timothy Paul Jones (an Okie, by the way), would be signing his latest book.

To tell you the truth, I wasn’t all that jazzed about Dr. Jones’ new book, but I bought one nonetheless. Boy, am I glad I did. In it, he twists so-called Christian skeptics into an intellectual pretzel, in his usual engaging style. The book is summarized here:

“So far, the twenty-first century has been rough on Jesus. Theories that have been swirling around for hundreds of years claiming to discredit His life have suddenly become hot again. None of these theories are completely new. In fact, the hundreds of books, movies, and other reconstructions simply recycle the “top ten” conspiracies. Timothy Paul Jones has researched them all and discovered there is no reason to fear these skeptical reconstructions of Jesus. When subjected to actual historical evidences, each conspiracy crumbles beneath the weight of its own overblown claims.”

It is a must-read, which I try not to say too often. Shortly after meeting Dr. Jones, I took advantage of the long afternoon break to see another Dr. Jones, the new Indiana Jones movie. Something about seeing it in Indiana made it better than it otherwise would have. I give it 3 stars (out of 4). Is it a must-see? Probably, though not nearly as much as Prince Caspian.

So I am writing this post from Indianapolis, where the annual meeting of the SBC is going on. This is my first year to attend and first year to serve as a messenger (i.e. delegate) for my church.

If you are pretty connected in Baptist circles, you may have already heard that the new SBC president will be Johnny Hunt. In addition to the winner (who received 52% of the vote), there were five other candidates for the position, all of whom appear to be conservatives in every sense.

The conference, which is attended by more than 7,000 Baptists from all over the map, has included big name speakers like Al Mohler and Paige Patterson. After tonight’s dinner break, Dr. Richard Land is set to speak.

The resolutions committee meets tomorrow, so things could get even more interesting there. Until next time …

Fox News is one of several news outlets carrying an amazing story.  Fox’s story is titled “Stem Cell Treatment Credited for Helping Boy, 2, Regain His Sight.”  It’s a heart warming story about a 2 year old boy who was born with a rare disease that guaranteed to rob him of his sight.  His parents, though, paid $43K to fly to China for a medical procedure using stem cells that they hoped would fix his sight, and that it did.  As a father of two boys, of course, I was thrilled to see such a happy outcome, but the pro-lifer in me wanted to know what kind of stem cells were used, so I started digging.

The first link didn’t say, so clicked the link at the end of the story to read the original article written by the Fox affiliate in Orlando.  This article, too, lacked the all important detail for which I was searching, so I turned to Google News.  A search for the boy’s name (Tre Burgos) turned up four articles, some of which had questionable relevance.  The search did, though, turn up an article that brought an end to my short search.

The New Smyrna Beach Observer had an article on the boys plight,  but with much more detail, including the object of my quest.  Written prior to the Fox News articles above, the NSB Observer reports (emphasis added):

On Feb. 21, of 2008, Elioe [Tre's real name] will travel with his mother and father, to Bieke Biotech Treatment Center in Hangzhou, China and undergo 4-6 umbilical stem cell injections, which consist of 10-15 million cells per injection.

The miracle treatment, then, was not embryonic stem cells, but umbilical, or “adult” stem cells.  Now, you can call me paranoid if you want, but why is that the Fox News story doesn’t mention what kind of stem cell was used?  Could it be that by trumpeting the success of this stem cell treatment (and omitting the type of stem cells involved), someone hopes to sway the popular opinion with regard to any type of stem cell treatments (namely embryonic), thus removing the political and emotional barriers to emryo-destructive research in the future?  Nah, surely not.

A study should be done on how foolish and inconsistent the phrase “reproductive rights” is. Apparently the originator and deprived endorsers believe the birth mother is the only one responsible for a pregnancy to occur and thinks she should be the one who decides whether or not her unborn child should be born.

If you can’t tell, I totally detest the phrase. The loathing I possess goes beyond the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. It may equate ice picks in eye sockets.

Who actually qualifies for “reproductive rights”? What about women who are barren? What are their so-called “reproductive rights”?

And what happens when a woman who tries to demonstrate this monstrosity and aborts her child, only to discover that the baby survives the procedure?

Am I being ridiculous? Am I over-dramatic? Not at all.

As reported in this article, Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, decided to abort her unborn son eight weeks in her pregnancy. She decided to do so because he was projected to have a life-threatening kidney condition.

The abortion failed. Percival was angry at first, but her frustration turned to joy.

“I just couldn’t believe this child had got through it all and looked so perfect,” she said.

Her son Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life. 

“He may need an operation but as only one of his kidneys is affected he can survive,” said Percival. “I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he’s here I wouldn’t change it for the world.”

So I ask again, how does this wonderful occurrence fit in the absurd philosophy that promotes “reproductive rights”? 

Operation Rescue, no stranger to bad press, has posted some photographs of our neighboring state Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (who by the way, is rumored to be in the Veepstakes for Sen. Obama), with one of the most notorious late-term abortionists in the country, George Tiller. Yikes.