To Tithe Or Not To Tithe? Not Really The Question. Spiritual Authority? The Root Answer.

            After having written my very first novel last night, albeit some minor changes may need to be made, I had sworn silently to take a break from writing. Moments after making a rash oath, I stumbled across an online article on the biblical tithe and what it “states.” While this rebuttal is not an exhaustive, in-depth look at a stance that essentially denies any mandate to currently do so, I do wish to address what I believe the link sorely lacks: Understanding spiritual authority.

            This is by no means a post filled with red herrings, but as a student of history, it is noteworthy to point out that said link of which I wish to refute, http://tithingtoday.com, is taking what the writer believes to be a very thorough biblical approach. But historical context, when discussing Scripture is not the only context in which one must approach the text. If I say the Lord revealed to me one thing, and another says the Lord revealed to them something contrary to what I just said, then one or both of us is lying or deceived. They cannot be both biblically supported. Is not the apostasy of the Church the most biblically discussed end-times topic? In the prerequisite category of the link above, three definitions of the 20^th century are referred to concerning the definition of the tithe. Historically and ideologically, this is fascinating in and of itself. As the nation secularized, the 1938 definition still understood Christianity as a primary force in U.S. religion. No other faith had a stronghold by said date other than the unofficial religious encroachment of secular humanism. So the writer did rightly refer to the original Hebrew meaning of the tithe, “tenth.” From a more accurate definition comes, not the 1994 American heritage explanation in said link, but my copy of the original 1828 version, which referred to Deuteronomy 26 when explaining the tithe as, “To levy a tenth part on; to tax to the amount of the tenth.” Keep in mind that the tithe is essentially a lawful tax the Lord demands of the people, the Levite being another discussion of which I’m not addressing here.

            Deuteronomy 25 discusses a matter of law, but then why does the former Pharisaical scholar -turned apostle Paul refer to Deut. 25:4, quoting said law, in 1 Timothy 5:17-20 and also quote the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:7 when referring to the church elders?

“Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’ Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”

And this, my friends, is where the heart of the topic truly lies: Spiritual authority. It is extremely interesting how often authorities are mentioned in Scripture when a tithe has been given. Old and New Testament giving always deals with authority. If you have no one over yourself but you, don't assume you're operating in what God has called you to do & be. If we all freely gave what we “felt” like we should give, the majority rule would most expressly be to give little rather than more. Any naysayers who state they would give more are they themselves not the standard. Think about it for a second. You know this to be true. Also from a biblical perspective, they need to ask themselves if their heart(s) is/are right in making such a claim. One can wax eloquent, (a favorite phrase of mine), until they’re blue in the face, constantly arguing with people of opposing views until everyone involved believes their own nonsensical rhetoric is beautifully written prose (<<< Like this here). But ultimately what starts out as an argument against the tithe begins to bear fruit that has nothing to do with biblical increase. And by, that I mean dead works.  Let me show you what I mean specifically: A prophet much more intelligent and spiritually fine-tuned than myself once told me, “It is always the responsibility of the one offended to forgive.” We choose to be offended. Mom once told me the only perfect church is a church with no people in it. Truer words were never spoken. Why? Because attend any assembling of the brethren for a lengthy period of time and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Suddenly someone, somewhere received a “fresh” revelation that trumps the pastors, the priest, the elders, the senior pastor, etc, etc… per your denominational interpretation of leadership. This is not to say that church leadership is never, ever wrong biblically. What I am saying is that it is not our place in the body of Christ to usurp God’s anointed. When we do that, we not only risk God’s judgment, but our dead fruit begins to affect relationships, our personal lives, our jobs, and yes…, even our finances because we cannot possibly ascertain what financial expectations God had for us before we thought to buck his anointed from our lives. As Watchman Nee writes, “Submitting to the authority of other members is to possess their riches. Insubordination brings poverty.” This doesn’t exclusively mean financial woe. To assume the authority God anoints over us is there to restrict of from living the life we choose is ironic. We’re already living that life by casting them aside. When we buck the leadership, we buck those around us. We are untamed horses. The kind, unless tamed, no one wants to be around. Suddenly, an invisible wall separates us from those we thought to be loved ones. This is not finger-pointing. When you run into one another, think about the fact that you cannot seriously talk about what the Lord is doing in your lives or the spiritual progress either of you might have made in your lives. Why? Because neither one of you is taking the other serious. You now have a pre-conceived notion about what God is doing on the earth and that you are right. Because the elephant in the room is so large, it pushes you both in opposite directions and out separate doors. So when you say your goodbyes, you’ve said goodbye to a mere acquaintance, not a loved one or dear friend. If we cannot rightly determine that God has appointed governing authorities over us in the church, then we cannot assume we understand, in any more detail, what he is doing in our lives personally. We’ve made up our own minds about what God is doing. Thus the deception, which haunts us, often appears rationalistic, while silently floundering in a pit of spiritual despair. Or as the old maxim states, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

So in an urban environment, where I don’t have a goat to offer a priest or pastor, one is completely missing the point of the spiritual ramifications of the above biblical text in Timothy. As 2 Corinithians 9:7 states, “… for God loves a cheerful giver…,” refers back to my earlier point. I choose to be under the God-appointed authorities. If said authorities wish to model the tithe off of the Levitical model, so that they may not be muzzled while treading out their grain, can I not freely give a tithe, then an offering, then the alms? What is stopping my cheerful giving? If they mandated such a tithe, can I not freely give it? Refer back to what I said about no mandate at all. Who would freely give? The norm would not suffice and the same backbiters who gnash about church leadership demanding a tithe would then be demanding said leaders, who’ve no financial support, start taking more time to tend the flock.  The layman usurps authority either way. Self demands to be appointed to the leadership position while feigning the notion that they’re really just there to “be a blessing to the body of Christ.” When we debate such foolish notions assuming we can buck a cheerful tithe or offering; we combat with vain notions that alienate us from God, the brethren, and the meatier matters to which we never could hope to obtain. Show me a Christian who wishes to be fed by strictly televangelism or a home study group, (and I’ve met plenty growing up), and one can easily see the dead fruit in their lives is no different from an unbeliever. Show me a church hopper and we’ll place bets on what day they’ll hop to the next one, if any. Is this gossip? No. It’s addressing the selfish need to go against God’s anointed. And that need is the lust of the flesh fulfilling self. It has no need for the tithe, because self had no need for God’s authority. Why? Because self wishes to be that authority. I immediately thought of a Ving Rhames line from Pulp Fiction on pride, but we’ll let that one go. Instead, I’ll go with Ravi Zacharias, who in his book, The Real Face of Atheism, writes, “The platonic deduction that all politics is law, and all law is ethics, is no longer believed. Living under the tremendous illusion that personal freedoms and freedom of speech are devoid of moral assumptions and responsibilities, we have bankrupted ourselves, so that honor, truth, and morality have been sacrificed at the altar of autonomy and self-worship.” While this topic isn’t atheism per se, the word, “secular,” in the same 1828 dictionary means, “Pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy.” In essence… outside the temple. And if we’re to be the temple of God, him dwelling in us, is the tithe really such an issue that one will allow division & alienation amongst family and friends because they chose to use their own historical interpretation of Scripture and pass it off as revelation?

            As Watchman Nee also writes, “A person who has known authority will naturally try to find authority wherever he goes.” The problem is that when we make ourselves the governing authority, it is because of what we wish to believe on a certain issue. The first link, that hopefully doesn’t start anyone down a primrose path, only attempts to explain the tithe from an historical context. And yet…, I did see the word, “believe,” mentioned in their own wording. Here in lies the problem: While referring to my above New Testament scriptures on authority and giving, one may still debate whether a strict literal tithe is inferred. Yet, they believe so in faith. Deception can allow anyone of us to choose how we read anything in or out a context. It’s how historians choose their sources. It’s how an atheist chooses with what to attack the validity of the Bible. But consider the Book of Revelation and the host of Christians of all walks of life who believe certain events will unfold in a certain way, according to an historical text on end-times prophecy. Whether or not one believes the tithe is necessary must also believe God’s governing authorities in the church are or are not necessary and that the Holy Spirit operates or not through said anointed ones. Lastly, ending with Nee again, “Brothers & sisters must learn to obey authority; otherwise the church will not have any testimony on the earth.” And why? Because when we alienate one another over doctrinal differences, it proves one or more are not operating under the authorities God has appointed over them. There is no church testimony and therefore we're not adding souls to the kingdom. This is a dangerous concept because it shows that people today within the church do not fear the Lord and are not ready to be the end-times bride of Christ. The Church at large may never fully agree on how the concept of giving is supposed to biblically operate. When I read of Chinese Christians, imprisoned for their faith, giving a tithe of their meager rations, it proves to me one thing: Americans do not understand persecution anymore than they understand the tithe. But one must caution that erring on the side of being under God’s anointed leadership is always fairer than erring alone, outside the temple, never truly fulfilling the call of God on one’s life. This is judgment on no one. This is addressing a key concept to ever fulfilling Paul’s wishes for the Church to operate in the meatier matters.

            There will be no defense given for this post. Authority, of which I do not have, and self-defense are incompatible. But what I do have is the peace in knowing I’m personally where I’m supposed to be physically and spiritually. And that is the first testament to witnessing God’s love to anyone. Tithes, offerings, and alms are a portion of that love, in which through him, I wish to freely give. But I only understand this because of the authoritative discipleship of which I’m under. The delegated authorities over us, who may mandate giving in different fashions, depending on denomination & the like, have a mantle most of us would never want to carry. It is important that we take caution in rebuking that which we were not called to and therefore cannot personally understand. Pray for those in authority over you and pray that God reveals to your heart what may hinder your desire to tithe to support your eldership/leadership, offerings to support the church’s mission, and alms of love to serve the poor. May our first fruits be ready & ripe for the spiritual harvest. God bless you.

Misrepresentation of Scripture In the Political Arena: Poverty & the American Christian

I felt compelled to give a rebuttal, after reading the article written by Connie Schultz, author & wife of Ohio senator, Sherrod Brown, entitled: "First quote Jesus, then punish the poor.” First off, this is a blanketing statement. Because to the unbeliever, it makes the lofty claim that Christians, specifically in regard to this article, Christian Republican politicians, hate the poor. Instead of focusing on a Republican vs. Democrat approach, to the Bible, as many are wont to do, one must have a look at truth claims, and the origin of biblical compassion. Americans across the board are helpless knowing that their tax dollars are seemingly wasted on foolish government programs of all kinds. Since Connie Schultz started her argument with the Proverb 14:31, let’s take a look: “He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker,” which is where she stopped. The rest of the verse states, “but he who honors Him has mercy on the needy” (NASB). The subjective moral overtones are not in keeping with Scripture. More importantly, Christian combatting Christian in the public & political sector does more to undermine Christianity in the public eye than it does benefit.

Now from a purely general outlook of giving to charity, without covering religion albeit mentioning religion, is a bit of a misnomer as Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy put it, “Not to be too simplistic about it, but if you believe that government should take care of basic social services, then you’re going to go that way,” Palmer told International Business Times. “If you think charities should take care of things, and not government, then you’re probably going to give more generously to charity.” More on churchgoers giving more than their atheist counterparts can be found in the same article here: http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-giving-state-are-republicans-more-generous-democrats-or-just-more-religious-1700059, as well as, Robert Hutchinson’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, p. 93-94, Chapter 6.

So if ideology is a motivating factor, then who is right in the moral debate between Christians of opposing political views? It would make sense to refer back to the Bible. Jesus said, “For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always” (Matt. 26:11). So what is he saying here? He shot down his own disciples who said “Why this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor” (Matt. 26:9-10)? Was he saying never help the poor? Of course not, but there is a time and season for the individual of a biblical understanding, not government, to decide when to give to the poor. That time in particular wasn’t it. Alms for the poor is only a portion of the problem for the professing Christian who doesn’t adhere to biblical precepts. In Malachi 3:8-10, it states, “Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed you?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it.”

Ten percent of the nation’s wealth, from a free-market standpoint, would do far greater good for the poor than government spending ever did with the lax conditions the Republican leaders, that she mentions, are addressing. But either way, it will not eliminate poverty as Jesus stated. He tells us to essentially endure the taxation, but the moral ambiguity of civil government taxing for the battling poverty is senseless waste from this perspective. While there is essentially no cap on Congress, based on the Constitution, taxes for the poor are “legitimate,” but are said taxes morally right?

As author & historian Vishal Mangalwadi writes, “Greek, Roman, Indian, and Islamic civilizations produced great physicians and surgeons; however, they did not create caring cultures…. Western civilization was able to learn from preceding cultures and develop modern medicine because the Bible informed it that real sickness in human society was selfishness.” So, Connie Schultz’s argument is dealing with symptoms of societal decay, pointing fingers at Christians she disagrees with, not addressing the fact that America has become far removed from her Christian roots. The more we secularize the nation, the less caring we will see man become, essentially fulfilling the last days prophecy of 2 Timothy 3. Ironically, for politicians, in general, who attempt to wax eloquent about separation of church and state, using Scripture to justify government legislation is contradictory.

Another issue that Republicans and Democrats, in the public eye, seemingly push is: The American Dream. But we live in an era where that false utopia is no longer feasible. That is not a nihilistic statement, but a profession that the house surrounded by a white picket fence, with a trimmed lawn, and a washed car, is not something easily attainable in a world that is economically crashing around us. Christians have and will give to the poor. It makes sense that some legislators wish to demand stricter standards for those living in poverty, but dealing with the heart is most important. No one can make a person better themselves and one cannot make the accusation that all Republicans wish to shame the poor (another blanketing of both demographics). But even here, they will never be 100% successful. The importance of being impartial to each man’s plight is essential. One alleged contradiction in the Bible is the understanding of appropriate context, which Schultz posited in the very beginning.

The example: Psalm 41:1 says, “Blessed is he who considers the poor; The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble.” Or Proverbs 14:21, “He who despises his neighbor sins; but he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.” Now contrast those verses with Exodus 23:3, “You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.” So if a poor man is shown to not spend taxed money, given to him/her, in a way that will better his/her predicament, how exactly is the American public supposed to feel about their tax dollars being essentially wasted? The first two verses mentioned, as author John Haley writes, “comment the exercise of benevolence in cases where no question of law or justice is involved; the last teaches that, in suits between man and man, justice must be done. The judges must not be unduly swayed by the poor man’s pleading but must decide the matter impartially.”

There is a mocking tone to Schultz’s commentary as she is prosing on about “…the son of a pastor who likes to mention Jesus when explaining his opposition to the poor…,” in reference to State Senator Mike O’Donnell. Christians should be building one another up, not tearing them down over an endless debate concerning a topic Jesus addressed very bluntly. As Puritan preacher, George Webb wrote in 1621, “Poverty… may befall a wise man, virtuous man, a faithful man… Extreme poverty and necessity may befall the godly.… [But these] are the poor of God’s making, and our duty in respect to them, is… to pity them… comfort them… relieve them, and support them in deeds.” This is never understood to be the role of government, but of the Christian. So the honor that is mentioned in the second half of the verse she left out, isn't praise from men's lips for "doing the right thing," but honor from God for submitting to His will. If Schultz truly wishes to follow a biblical mandate, I suggest she read Exodus 23:10-11 and see if taking a year off, of farming nationwide, to let the poor glean from the fields is any more feasible than government ending poverty itself.            

Perhaps we should listen to our forefathers such as President Grover Cleveland who wrote concerning federal taxation for private welfare problems, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood.” 

Musings on Sex, Race, & Christianity as the New Counter-Culture

One of the most powerful lines in a film that I ever heard was when Cate Blanchett’s character, Galadriel, narrates the beginning of the first Lord of the Rings film. She says, “… Nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who, above all else, desire power.” Now we understand that this is fiction, but words on paper and produced on screen are powerful mediums that influence people whether they admit it or not. Note how men were gifted rings of power. Like all gifts, they have to originate somewhere, as nothing cannot produce something. But why is power such a fundamental desire in mankind? When one looks at the history of the world, all rights & wrongs are based in a world of governmental order & authority to varying degrees of success, but eventually all ending in collapse. If all ends in failure, why does mankind hope? Atheism is a belief system telling one that hope is fruitless. Without an origin for morality outside of mankind, each demographic, race, and sex will decide its own future and that future will most certainly come at the expense of another. This is why the survival-of-the fittest mentality is so prevalent in atheism even if atheists do not necessarily espouse evolution. Said ideology has nothing left to which it can cling to other than a Creator God, which they [atheists] summarily dismiss.

            The outcry in today’s Western civilizations has become apparent even to the untrained eye. Humanity’s economic woes, evil at the expense of others, sicknesses, and natural calamities on massive scales have all become the norm as people make light of an expected WWIII, so-to-speak, in casual conversation. However, these are all “symptoms” without so much as a word, from our ever-imposing, but very influential mass media, on the root cause. Oscar Wilde, the renowned playwright, who was imprisoned for homosexuality, even with young boys, in Victorian England, wrote some of his most powerful works at the end of his life when he was imprisoned for sodomy. In his suffering, he cried out to God and he came to the realization of his sinful nature and what his pursuit of pleasure cost him. Ravi Zacharias elaborates, “Prime Minister Konoye of Japan, who committed suicide after his role in the Second World War, is a fitting reminder. On his night table was Oscar Wilde’s De Profundis, The words he had underlined read, ‘As terrible as it was what I had done to others, nothing was more terrible than what I had done to myself.’”

            Like Oscar Wilde, we have grown comfortable in our everyday lives dismissing as common practice or even human nature what God has deemed sinful. Not strictly speaking on sex, but even in our daily lives, a devotional life toward self and not toward God only promotes an atheistic lifestyle to others when we claim to be Christians. This is why, when we do pursue the Lord, those around us grow uncomfortable with how to approach us, even in small talk. It is not the God-pursuing Christian that bothers them, but the conviction of the Holy Spirit that prompts them. I am reminded of the great evangelist Smith Wigglesworth, who drew people to repentance simply by being in their presence. As one reads this from an outside perspective, they may dismiss these writings as those of a Christian belief and that is only one of many religions. Yet, in our pluralistic culture where any belief is encouraged, it is interesting that Christianity is the one so heavily critiqued. One piece of commentary I saw after the Martin/Zimmerman trial was that everyone on Facebook had suddenly become lawyers. So true is this kind of thinking in terms of understanding the Bible and the notion of truth. People dismiss the Bible as a racist, sexist, homophobic piece of simplistic literature where the God of the Old Testament is cruel and the God of the New Testament was just a good teacher. Yet, when one is presented with all the words of Jesus, one can find that they compliment the Old Testament in a miraculous way that only a miraculous God could have presented. The Bible is made of sixty-six books, written by multiple authors, establishing one narrative: God’s kingdom established on earth. Note how the God of the Old Testament continually woos the children of Israel back to Him after His justice has been served. Note that the story of Ruth shows God’s mercy while the Book of Esther never actually mentions the word, “God,” but shows his divine intervention into humanity’s affairs. Note how Eve’s eyes were not open to her sin after she ate the fruit, but only when Adam ate after her, did they both realize their nakedness and hid themselves. Adam could have spiritually covered his wife’s sin by rebuking the serpent and not eating the fruit. Even in perfection, the husband was to be the wife’s covering. She was never to be in submission as a servant or slave, but in the authoritative structure ordained by God.   

            By not accepting the supernatural along with the natural, we have relegated our society to the depths of despair mocking the very notions of hope & truth. In Ravi Zacharias’ powerful book, Deliver Us From Evil, he refers to C.S. Lewis’ classic work, The Abolition of Man. “But alas! What have we done to ourselves? We have told a generation that science is real and therefore the human brain is real. We have told them that food is real and therefore our stomachs are real. But we have told them that good and bad do not exist and therefore our emotions have nothing to do with reality. In effect we have produced a generation of ‘men with brains and men with stomachs. Men with no heart. Men without chests.’ Now as we witness wickedness at its worst we wonder how the criminal could be so heartless. ‘In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings [castrated animals] be fruitful.’”

         As I then decided to open up my own copy of The Abolition of Man to read on, I found the compelling argument, which definitely needs to be reiterated in Western societies. Lewis refers to Natural Law as not being “one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected.” Natural Law, like any law had to originate with a Creator. The idea that biblical morality is traditional, or dare I say, conservative is because conservatism is defined as holding to traditional values. Thus, American law traditionally stood upon the Bible as its chief source of influence. Yet our secularizing of biblically based American culture means focusing on a different "ethic." As Lewis further elaborates, “The Nietzschean ethic [God is dead] can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgments at all.” In accepting the secularization of the culture as a whole, misuse of the Bible to oppress others actually gets replaced entirely as atheism enslaves the minds of the people. Putting focus upon mankind instead of God allows for the hope to be seen in the present instead of faith in God for an unseen hope in the future. However, atheism breeds despair not hope. Evidence of this can clearly be seen across the globe where atheism breeds socialism and inevitably, communism. People discuss the horrors of the African slave trade and yet they do not know that its very existence can clearly be seen as starkly contrasting what the Bible says on slavery [I refer to my researched “Revolution” blog post as well as The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson]. Yet, one wonders if anyone has read of the horrors that Communism wrought throughout Russia and Eastern Europe post-WWII. Richard Wurmbrand wrote that the horrors that the Nazis brought, he felt God used to prepare them for what was to come after that. In fact, in all his years in Russian imprisonment, witness to horrific tortures, rape, and murder, none of it can be justified, to be immoral, outside of a moral Creator God. It is survival-of-the-fittest coming to fruition. It does not care what skin color it persecutes, but it will seemingly use it to its advantage. The Bible says that the thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. How fitting that in a secularized world, we have seen our definition of the removal of slavery [only through Christian influence], but we have aborted millions upon millions of future generations, which through our reasoning, were redefined, as humanity is wont to do when pleasing self, not God. The sex trade becomes more and more prevalent in secularized nations, subjecting the woman to the evils of sexual desire outside of God’s plan for the marriage bed. We’ve told the black race in America he/she is now equal, yet one look at how they’re treated shows no trace of Christian influence, but an atheistic focus has kept them enslaved to men who desire power above all else. One can Google the pdf file, “Democrats and Republicans: In Their Own Words A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison of the Early Platforms of the Two Major Political Parties,” not because of the Republican party having a moral high ground, but because there was always a focus on persecution that can only be demonically influenced [The conservatism of the Republican party is not always biblically based, but that is another discussion]. To say one is racist only focuses on the outward manifestation, the symptom, when the Bible says that the Lord looks at the heart or the root cause. A few years back, I remember a French pastor saying that the true Church in France, which was very small, was heavily the work of Africans who moved to France. Something about the worship I have witnessed, in African style worship, is something that is not necessarily recognizable to the white American, but their worship does show that God pulls leadership from all walks of life and worship is one area where the African is blessed & blesses. How sad that reports have gone out of God sending Africans today to the United States as missionaries [which itself shows God's grace] when our nation was to be that City on a Hill and has sent out missionaries on a grand scale only to ultimately allow our own nation to crumble from within as President Reagan lamented in the past.

         However, in all of this, there lies a glimmer of hope amidst despair. God still reveals himself to mankind. The calamity around us should encourage us to read The Book of Revelation. True worshipers understand the need for a life of devotion to God and not self. When our thoughts are for those around us and not ourselves, we begin ministering first to our spouses & children, to those around us at work or school, and the love of Jesus Christ will inevitably transcend racial lines amidst a corrupted secularized nation. If God did not continue to reveal himself, hope would be lost and yet, Jesus said to preach the gospel to all creation. God continues to woo his people just as he did in the Old Testament. When the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus to the unsaved, they are to be discipled and then to disciple. This is why it is fruitless to be caught up in the cares of the world, even though they bombard us every day. Each person has a destiny in God, which is why we hope and also why abortion is morally wrong…, because we understand it to be so from a biblical perspective. It is why we men are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. It is also why slavery was always a contradiction that should never have been imposed upon America. As the Declaration reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…” Peter Marshall’s excellent historical critique on where they went wrong submitting to the negation of abolition can be found in his work, From Sea to Shining Sea. That being said, Gandalf can summarize more eloquently than I when he says, “All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” 

Celina, OH Abortion Issue

Dear Editor,

            After I read the article on the abortion crosses last month, which were up prior to the election, talking with people on both sides of the ideological fence had me believing that this subject bears further scrutinizing. The controversy does not start nor does it end with one’s right to speech or expression. Political and religious discussions will always be controversial. Behind either side, the ideological belief system boils down to Christianity in its various denominational forms versus atheism in its various forms [secular humanism, naturalism, etc.]. Any serious inquiry into American history will show that our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. While not everyone today will claim to believe in God, and some only by familial or cultural affiliation, the fact remains that our laws were based upon biblical principles. Secular humanism has done a very thorough job of permeating our educational systems with the idea of pluralism, which is to say that all religions are the fundamentally the same. This is not only highly inaccurate, but this belief system seeks to supplant the Judeo-Christian belief in every facet of life with the belief of the pluralist. So when one claims that Christians are imposing their beliefs in the political realm, they do not understand that secular humanism does the same thing. Everyone has a belief system and worldview, which gives him or her a certain bias. The moral question of whether or not abortion is right or wrong refers back to one’s belief system. Simply put, one is hard pressed to explain away the concepts of good & evil, truth or falsehood, and right or wrong without a biblical moral framework. Everything in life must have meaning. To say there are no absolutes is to make that claim absolutely. When the secular humanist claims life has no meaning or purpose, they are making that claim with the belief that there is meaning behind their statements. How can one claim that nothing has value without first knowing where meaning & value originated? Humanity cannot simply have value here and now without understanding that value and meaning are inherently a part of its origin and destiny.

The subject of abortion is controversial because it brings the discussion full circle as to whether or not God exists and whether or not he would approve. One cannot simply ignore the issue because truth in a matter may or may not offend the individual. When controversial topics, such as abortion, are at any public level, it is the responsibility of the nation to adhere to truth when approaching any topic. This is not just on Election Day, but everyday. Jesus told Pilate that the reason he was born was to testify to the truth. He elaborated that everyone who hears the truth hears his voice [John 18:37]. Pilate answered with the same response that atheism asks today, “What is truth?” Now more than ever, Christians need to answer.