CHRISTIAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Para, Brazil

Friday, September 26, 2008

IS AMERICA DOOMED?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3787 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, 28[9]:65-71

AP Content :: Reason & Revelation

Is America Doomed? [Part I]
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the first installment in a three-part series based on the author’s seminar and soon-to-be-released book—“The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage.” Part II will follow next month.]

The dark, sinister clouds of political correctness have been steadily gathering over America for some 50 years now. The result? A drastic recasting of American culture from what it was (for the first 185 years) to what it is now. In the words of one of the current presidential candidates:

Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community (Brody, 2007, emp. added).

Nevertheless, the Founders and architects of the American Republic insisted that Christianity must be thoroughly embedded in the citizenry in order for their grand experiment to be perpetuated (see Miller, 2006a). But America has strayed far afield from that initial intention in the last half-century. If something drastic is not done, the future of the Republic is in question.

What Can Be Done?
If Christians do not rise up and act, the downward spiral will continue, eventually resulting in inevitable catastrophe. So what may be done? What would God have Christians to do? “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). Consider the following succinct listing of seven recommended actions that could turn the nation around if enacted by a sizable number of Americans:

I. Self-examination and rededication of one’s own life to serious devotion to God, Christ, and the moral principles on which the Republic was founded.

II. Diligent dedication of one’s own family to God and Christ. Consider homeschooling to shield children from the subversion of political correctness that has enshrouded public schools. Return to modeling the home according to the Bible’s directives, including:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged (Colossians 3:18-21, NIV).

He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly. Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him. Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell. The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17).

III. Pray fervently, consistently, and continually that God will help us. Hold public prayer meetings. That’s what the Founders did. In fact, during the seven years of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued no fewer than nine public proclamations to the American people, calling upon the whole nation to set aside entire days in which no labor would be performed so that the citizens could devote themselves to praying to God (Miller, 2006b). [NOTE: See the Resources section of this issue for two examples.]

The Founders were merely echoing the Bible’s own teaching regarding the necessity of petitioning God for national assistance and protection:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily (Luke 18:7-8, emp. added).

However, keep in mind that a sufficient number of Americans may have so rejected God that He intends to punish America. The Founders were poignantly aware of this very possibility, as expressed by them in a proclamation they released to the American public on March 20, 1779: “Whereas, in just punishment of our manifold transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all events to visit these United States with a destructive calamitous war” (Journals of..., 1909, 13:343-344).

The time has come to face the fact that America may have plummeted too far in its departure from God’s will to be recalled. Young King Josiah came to a similar realization when, having discovered the Book of the Law which had been lost amid temple debris, its precepts largely neglected by the nation, in panic he announced: “[G]reat is the wrath of the Lord that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13). Though God was pleased with Josiah’s humility and tender heart, disaster was inevitable:

Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants...because they have forsaken Me.... Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched” (2 Kings 22:16-17).

If this be the precise predicament of America, we ought humbly to embrace the attitude of the psalmist when he said:

O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs—O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth; render punishment to the proud. Lord, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? ... Understand, you senseless among the people; and you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile (Psalm 94:1-3,8-11, emp. added).

The nations have sunk down in the pit which they made; in the net which they hid, their own foot is caught. The Lord is known by the judgment He executes; the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.... Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your sight. Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men (Psalm 9:15-20, emp. added).

When we plead with God in behalf of the nation, our every petition must be tempered with the same resignation Jesus manifested in the Garden: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, emp. added; cf. James 4:15).

IV. Learn the Bible—deeply and thoroughly. Delve into God’s Word. Show respect for His thinking by pouring over its contents. Encourage family and friends to do the same. The Founders viewed the Bible as absolutely indispensable and integral to the survival of the Republic, citing it in their political utterances far more often than any other source (see Lutz, 1988, pp. 140-141). Indeed, consider the eloquent testimony to this fact, as expressed by a few of the Founders. For example, Constitution signer and Secretary of War, James McHenry, insisted:

The Holy Scriptures...can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Patrick Henry believed that the Bible “is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed” (as quoted in Wirt, 1818, p. 402). John Jay wrote to Peter Jay on April 8, 1784: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next” (1980, 2:709). Noah Webster asserted: “The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men” (1833, p. v). He further claimed: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible” (1832, p. 339). Constitution signer, Gouverneur Morris, observed: “The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is” (1821, p. 30). Declaration signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, declared that the Bible “should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness” (1798, p. 100). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, John Adams stated that “the Bible is the best Book in the world” (1856, 10:85).

Indeed, Americans need a strong dose of the absolutely critical essentiality of the Bible to both national and private life, as stated by the Bible writers themselves:

I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life. Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:93,97-98,100,103-105, emp. added).

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emp. added).

If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.... He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.... Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 8:31-32; 12:48; 17:17, emp. added).

The future of the Republic is inextricably linked with and inherently dependent on the extent to which Americans are willing to return to an intimate acquaintance with the Bible.

V. Petition politicians, school board members, and the media regarding spiritual (not political) issues, focusing simply and solely on morality—not money. As one steps back and evaluates the moral and spiritual condition of America, it is self-evident that our nation has strayed far from its moorings. America is now unquestionably characterized by rampant divorce, widespread sexual impurity, gambling, drunkenness, thievery, and the list goes on. Prisons are full to overflowing with more being built as swiftly as possible, in conjunction with early release programs. Crime statistics are at an all-time high in virtually every category. Yet, while sin (i.e., violations of God’s will—1 John 3:4) has increased in the land, two sins stand out from all others in our day. Two sins, particularly repugnant in God’s sight, have swept over America. These two sins have been politicized—instead of being left in the moral and religious arena where they belong. These two premiere moral issues facing the country are abortion and homosexuality. A nation can survive for a period of time even when murder, theft, adultery, and the like are rampant. (After all, sin is sin. All sin is destructive and eventually will be addressed by a perfect God.) However, history shows that when some sins become pervasive in a given civilization, its demise is imminent. The killing of children and sexual perversion are just such sins. Ultimately, America’s drifting from its spiritual moorings is climaxing in imminent moral implosion and inevitable retribution from God, based on these two critical moral matters. Please consider them briefly.

Abortion
Who could have imagined (the Founders most certainly could not have done so) that America would ever give legal sanction to a woman to kill her unborn baby? Yet, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court did just that by ruling that “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” (Roe v. Wade). Who could have imagined one day that more than 48 million babies would be butchered in the United States of America? And that figure does not include the millions more being sacrificed in the name of “embryonic stem-cell research,” as well as the millions more lost from selective reduction due to the use of fertility drugs. The killing of the innocent (Exodus 23:7), and the shedding of innocent blood—a thing that God hates (Proverbs 6)—are widespread in the land. If the voice of Abel’s blood cried out to God from the soil on which his brother had shed it (Genesis 4:10), the blood of millions of babies shrieking and screaming to God must be deafening.

If you care what God thinks, I urge you to read Exodus 21:22-25, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Zechariah 12:1, and Galatians 1:15. Read the three phases of human life in Hosea 9:11—conception, pregnancy, and birth. Read where God used the same word (brephos) to refer to John in his mother’s womb, and to refer to the baby Jesus lying in the manger (Luke 1:39-45; 2:12,16). God also used “son” to refer to John in utero (Luke 1:36). Read what is essentially an ancient description of the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion in Exodus 1:15-22. Read about God’s outrage at the Israelites for sacrificing their children to pagan deities—a reprehensible act that never entered God’s mind to enjoin (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35). The Bible clearly teaches that God possesses personal regard for human life from the moment of conception. Our own medical science verifies the same thing. Samuel Armas was a 21-week, unborn baby when doctors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee performed spina bifida surgery on him while he was still in his mother’s womb. During the surgery, his little hand flopped out of the incision opening and rested on the doctor’s fingers. Eyewitness photo journalist Michael Clancey insists that Samuel’s fingers gripped the doctor’s finger (see Clancey, 2001). In any case, Samuel was born 15 weeks later. Nothing about his exit from his mother’s body, suddenly transformed him from a nonhuman into a human. He was a human throughout his pre-birth circumstance (see Lyons, 2007; Imbody, 2003; Solenni, 2003).

A terrible and tragic inconsistency and incongruity exists in America. Merely taking possession of an egg containing the pre-born American bald eagle—let alone if one were to destroy that little pre-birth environment and thus destroy the baby eagle that is developing within—results in a stiff fine and even prison time. Yet one can take a human child in its pre-born environment and not only murder that child, but also receive government blessing to do so! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to American civilization than pre-born humans (see Miller, 2004)! What has happened to our society? This state of affairs cannot be harmonized in a consistent, rational fashion. The ethics and moral sensibilities that underlie this circumstance are absolutely bizarre (Miller, “Abortion and...,” 2003).


The combined population of the above red states is equivalent to the number of reported abortions in America since 1973.

The number of known abortions in America since 1973 is nearing 50 million—approximately 50 times more than all Americans lost in all of our wars. That figure is staggering, if not incomprehensible, to the human mind. That figure constitutes essentially one-sixth of the present U.S. population. If we awoke in the morning to face the terrifying news that terrorists had detonated nuclear devices in major urban areas, that resulted in the death of 50 million Americans, we would be shocked, panic-stricken, and heartsick. Or, imagine a deadly virus released by unconscionable terrorists that wiped out the populations of the above red states. Yet, Americans have tolerated the wholesale slaughter of that many of its children—entire generations of young people who will never see the light of day. I wonder if one of those would have found the cure for cancer. What untold potential and productivity has been snuffed out by a calloused, cruel, self-centered people! At least the pagans of antiquity killed their children for religious purposes, thinking they were pleasing a higher authority. We do it mostly for convenience—to evade the consequences of the sexual anarchy that runs rampant across our civilization.

The ethical disharmony and moral confusion that reign in our society have escalated the activity of criminals who commit a variety of heinous crimes—from murdering and maiming fellow citizens on a daily basis, to raping women and molesting children. Yet, a sizeable portion of society is against capital punishment. Many people feel that these wicked adults, who have engaged in destructive conduct, should not be executed (a viewpoint that flies directly in the face of what the Founders believed and what the Bible teaches [Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14], since God wants evildoers in society to be punished—even to the point of capital punishment). So we rarely execute guilty, hardened criminals. But we daily execute innocent human babies! How can one possibly accept this terrible disparity, the horrible scourge of abortion? The latest polls verify our deteriorating morality. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted in June of 2008, reveals that 53% of adult Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while a May 2008 Gallup poll found that 82% believe that abortion should be legal under any or certain circumstances, with only 17% maintaining that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (see “Abortion and Birth Control”). The nation has embraced moral insanity. Abortion is a glaring manifestation of the expulsion of God from American culture. Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS MONSTROUS ATROCITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED.

Homosexuality
As if killing the unborn were not enough to condemn a civilization to eternal punishment, America is experiencing another horror of seismic proportions. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, commented on the issue of gay rights in the face of a nationwide contest over religious and civil rights: “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it. There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times” (as quoted in Gallagher, 11[33], 2006; cf. Haynes, 2006). A sobering realization. Think of it: the battle of our times. Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and the American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (see “Gay and Lesbian...,” 2002; Herek, 2002). Large corporations and businesses across the country have been subjecting their employees to mass propaganda under the guise of “sensitivity training.”

Among those who are attempting to coerce the country into altering its longstanding code of Christian moral values are activist judges. Their tortured interpretation of constitutional law demonstrates that they have no respect for God, existing laws, America’s history, or the will of the people. Instead, they apparently see themselves as qualified social architects to redefine marriage and morality by usurping their constitutional role and legislating from the bench. They have placed themselves at odds with the history of Western civilization. With no regard for American legal history and the body of constitutional law that has remained largely intact from the beginning of the nation until the mid-20th century, they essentially have brushed aside over 150 years of American judicial history with a flippant wave of the hand. They are literally restructuring the American moral landscape with an unflinching vengeance that is undaunted by the widespread national outrage to the contrary. Those who characterized governmental control and Christian morality in the 1960s as equivalent to Orwell’s “Big Brother” are now living a self-fulfilled prophecy—they are “Big Brother.”

These judicial junkies are aided by politicians from the left coast to the east coast, who have taken it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses for homosexual partners. Additionally, the public school system is being transformed into an incubator for nurturing the next generation of Americans, breaking down any resistance toward the impropriety of homosexuality that they might otherwise have had. These developments were inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination of state sodomy laws (Lawrence..., 2003). The high court’s decision was a reversal of its 1986 decision that upheld State sodomy laws and reinforced the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right (see Bowers...). What’s more, no bona fide scientific evidence exists to demonstrate any genetic cause of homosexuality—even as no genuine genetic linkage will ever be forthcoming to legitimize pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, or incest (see Harrub and Miller, 2004, 24[8]:73-79). Indeed, homosexuality is nothing more than a behavioral choice.

The Founders on Homosexuality
The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In “Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth,” “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a work concerning its punishment.




THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.

How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army? The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George...,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Click images to enlarge

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”

Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original 13 colonies, and eventually every one of the 50 states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws...,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. God’s warning to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark this down, too: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.


[to be continued]

REFERENCES
“Abortion and Birth Control” (2008), Polling Report, [On-line], URL: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.

Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).

Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.

Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=186.

Brody, David (2007), “Obama to CBN News: We’re no Longer Just a Christian Nation, CBN News, July 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx.

Clancy, Michael (2001), “Story of the ‘Fetal Hand Grasp’ Photograph,” [On-line], URL: http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html.

Gallagher, Maggie (2006), “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, 11[33], May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191 kgwgh.asp.

“Gay and Lesbian Issues” (2002), American Psychiatric Association Public Information, [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw110081)).

Harrub, Brad and Dave Miller (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[8]:73-79, August, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553.

Haynes, Charles C. (2006), “A Moral Battleground, A Civil Discourse,” First Amendment Center, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16664.

Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

Imbody, Jonathan (2003), “A Flash of Life,” Free Republic, October 31, [On-line], URL: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts.

Jay, John (1980), John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, ed. Richard Morris (New York: Harper & Row).

Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.

Jefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage.

Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102 (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.

Lutz, Donald (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press).

Lyons, Eric (2007), “Tiny Babies Abortionists Would Rather We Forget,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3280.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Babies, Eagles, and the Right to Live,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/babyeagles.pdf.

Miller, Dave (2006a), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.

Miller, Dave (2006b), “Are Americans Abandoning God?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3156.

Miller, Dave, et al. (2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

Morris, Gouverneur (1821), “An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris on September 4, 1816” in Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss & E. White).

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol= 113.

Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel Bradford).

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

Solenni, Pia de (2003), “Miracles of Life,” National Review Online, September 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/solenni2003 09301002.asp.

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland: 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society).

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Webster, Noah (1833), The Holy Bible Containing the Old and NewTestaments, in the Common Version. With Amendments of the Language (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Wirt, William (1818), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Marital Treachery

Dealing Treacherously with One’s Spouse
By WAYNE JACKSON

May 15, 2007


The book of Malachi, the final document of the Old Testament, contains a series of scathing rebukes against the Hebrew people in the post-captivity period (c. 457-432 B.C.) of the nation’s history. The Israelites had drifted into a state of spiritual lethargy and were involved in numerous manifestations of sin, not the least of which involved flouting the vows of their marriage covenants.

Marital Treachery
Malachi declared that the Hebrew people flooded the altar of God with their tears, yet were puzzled as to why he rejected their worship. They failed to recognize that the moral dimension of their lives was in shambles. Listen to this charge:

Jehovah has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, even though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant (Malachi 2:14).

The term “treacherously” suggests actions that are inconsistent with (unfaithful to) the covenant vow before God. We must emphasize that what applies to the husband applies likewise to the wife.

The Three-Way Covenant
It is a tragedy that most folks in society, and not a few who profess to being Christians, think that marriage is mostly a civil arrangement that they can treat with disdain whenever they please. Irrespective of “civil” law, which ebbs and flows with changing times, and from society to society, there is a higher “contract.” It is a covenant between two eligible people and their Creator—who himself instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden and provided stipulations for the relationship’s regulation (Genesis 2:21-24; cf. Proverbs 2:17; Ezekiel 16:8).

The marriage arrangement is designated as a “covenant” because it is “contracted in submission to the revealed will of God (Exodus 20:14) and with the expectation of his blessing (Genesis 1:28)” (Verhoef, 274).

The devoted child of God does not treat his/her marriage like the revolving doors of a modern department store. As one scholar has noted: “The loyalty of each partner to the covenant of God [is] a uniting bond which create[s] a lasting companionship between the partners” (Baldwin, 239).

When people enter marriage they promise, before God, to love and honor one another and to be supportive, through whatever adversities, for as long as they both are alive. This is a universe apart from the flippant disposition of many modern couples who pledge togetherness, “for as long as we both ‘dig it’.”

One young lady, in contemplating her probable future marital circumstances, quipped: “I will probably marry, have a couple of kids, and after ten years or so, divorce and find a new husband.”

Flawed “Solutions”
No marriage is perfect, because the union involves two imperfect people. A marriage between two people who are wholly committed to Christ (in spite of their personal blemishes) is the most ideal relationship within earth’s environment. A marriage where one or both partners are egocentric and worldly, can be a “hell on earth,” and the number of such matrimonial battlegrounds is legion.

It is an amazing thing that sometimes when a marriage experiences troubles, one (or both) of the Christian partners entertains the illusion that he or she (or both) can refrain from earnestly working on healing the problems that disrupt their relationship. The symptoms of this flawed mentality are sometimes manifest in a variety of ways:

One of the partners decides to withhold marital intimacy from the other as a form of punishment. When sex becomes a weapon, it has been degraded to an animalistic level void of any expression of genuine love.
Rather than earnestly working to resolve their problems, based upon probing the Scriptures for counsel, and perhaps seeking the assistance of wise and loving Christians who desire their reconciliation, one or both may turn to ungodly sources (“physicians of no value” – Job 13:4b), whom they are confident will “take their side.”
One may determine that he/she will pursue “some breathing space”; thus disrupt the relationship by “moving out.” Unless there is a genuine danger of one’s safety (not a manufactured case designed to re-enforce a predetermined course of action), leaving one’s mate is a sinful act. Rationalizations, such as, “I feel stifled,” or “I want to feel some freedom again,” can never justify a separation.
Finding a “Proof-Text”
Occasionally 1 Corinthians 7:5 will be cited as a proof-text, justifying a departure from the “together” relationship. Paul wrote:

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.

This text does not remotely support a selfish desire to “be alone.” Paul contemplates a situation where a couple may mutually agree to refrain temporarily from sexual intimacy for a spiritual reason during a time of external “distress,” e.g., persecution (cf. v. 26, “by reason of the distress that is upon us”). Other reasons for abstinence (e.g., a medical factor) would have to be justified by biblical principle.

This passage does not sanction a situation wherein a self-centered spouse chooses to leave his/her mate so as to be able to have “space.” Such an attitude magnifies a flaw in the heart of the one who seeks to avoid working out the marital stresses.

Others pervert the contextual meaning of 7:10-11.

But unto the married I give charge, yes not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

This context clearly contemplates the situation of a Christian woman who is married to an unbeliever; the unbeliever refuses to remain with his believing spouse. He thus abandons her.

She is charged not to leave him. Should she, however, be forced to depart (e.g., by reason of imminent danger), she may not remarry on that basis alone. And we must emphasize again that she may not fabricate some bogus case, justifying her departure, just so she can be a “single woman” again. She is not single!

The Church’s Responsibility
What is the church’s responsibility when a Christian husband or wife leaves his/her mate with no scriptural justification? Wise leaders need to counsel with the troubled parties, pray for them, encourage them to recommit to their “till death do we part” vows.

If the elders observe that one (or both) of the parties refuses to help repair the problems, the church may need to provide assistance in the form of more concentrated pressure.

“Covenant-breaking” is a very serious transgression (see Romans 1:31). It is not beyond possibility that church discipline might be warranted in some situations.

Sources/Footnotes
Baldwin, J.G. (1972), “Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi,” Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

Verhoef, Pieter A. (1987), “Haggai & Malachi,” The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).




Back © 1997-2008 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235. Website version: 2.0.0a
The Christian Courier is a journal dedicated to the study of religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and biblical ethics. It is associated with the churches of Christ.

Are Your BLESSINGS running over?

My Cup Runs Over
By WAYNE JACKSON

August 5, 2008


Psalm 23 has been called the “Nightingale” song, because it sings the sweetest at the midnight hour. The “title” suggests it is a “Psalm of David.” These superscriptions (116 of them) are not a part of the original text, but they are very ancient, going back at least to the third century B.C. (in the Greek version).

The Psalm falls into two divisions: (a) The LORD (Jehovah, ASV—the covenant God of Israel—Exodus 3:13-15) is portrayed as a “shepherd” (vv. 1-4). (b) In verses 5-6, the LORD is represented as a gracious “host.” Of special interest are the action terms and relationships, either stated explicitly or else implied.

As a “Shepherd,” God provides for our needs, he makes us lie down for necessary rest (sometimes even when we are inclined to resist), and he leads us beside calm waters. He restores (refreshes and sustains) our lives, and guides us in righteous ways. He does not exempt us from dangerous circumstances, but he does calm our fears, for we are confident he is with us, and in that assurance we are comforted.

As our providential “Host,” he prepares a table containing our needs. So confident are we of his care, we can enjoy the sumptuousness even in the intimidating company of enemies. From the background of the ancient world comes the metaphor of anointing our heads with oil (a reviving comfort and/or symbol of honor). Our cup runs over, and “goodness” and “kindness” are faithful traveling companions bestowed for life. In his household the saved abide forever.

The Overflowing Cup
Of special interest is the phrase, “my cup runs over.” The Hebrew term suggests the idea of “saturation.” What a marvelous expression! A “cup” is a drinking vessel, but in Scripture the term frequently is employed figuratively—either for an abundance of blessings, or else the pouring forth of intense wrath (cf. Revelation 14:10).

The former use surely is the significance of “cup” in this psalm. Elsewhere a psalmist asks: “What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the LORD” (116:12-13).

The same sort of symbolism is echoed in the New Testament when Christ described the reward of generosity: “[G]ive, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over” (Luke 6:38; see David’s case in 2 Samuel 17:27-29 for an illustration of providential abundance). The words of the cherished song, “count your blessings; name them one by one,” are sweet indeed, but it underestimates our blessings. The Christian could not completely compute his blessings in an entire lifetime!

Divine prosperity can be measured in at least three ways—physically, materially, and spiritually.

(a) Even those with severe health problems can thank God for the host of maladies they might have, but do not. Under a mountain of suffering, Job still could say: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him” (13:15).

(b) Contrasted to others, both ancient and modern, Americans are “filthy” rich. In Jesus’ time, the average wage for a laboring man was about 1.5 cents per hour—for a six-day, seventy-two hour workweek; thus a weekly salary of about $1.08 (see Matthew 20:2, 6). In 2005, the annual per capita income in the United States was $41,399, while in Malawi, Africa it was $596.

(c) How could the Christian possibly calculate the value of his spiritual blessings? One’s soul (“life” eternal) alone is worth more than all the world’s real estate combined (Matthew 16:26); yet in billions of instances it is treated as trash.

Conclusion
Jesus declared: “To whom much is given, of him much shall be required” (Luke 12:48b). That is a heavy load in view of our status in this land of “overflowing” prosperity. Far too many have never appreciated the Savior’s admonition that “a man’s life consists not in the abundance of the things he owns” (Luke 12:15). Unfortunately, more often than not, our things possess us, rather than the reverse being true. The good steward (manager), who acknowledges God as the real owner of everything (Psalm 50:10), will serve in happy anticipation of the day when he gives account for his management (Luke 16:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 4:2).

It would be prudent as well to reflect upon what will happen to our resources once we’ve passed from earth’s scenes (cf. Ecclesiastes 2:18-23). Stewardship applies not only to how one uses his affluence while living—but also how he bequeaths it from the grave.



Back © 1997-2008 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235. Website version: 2.0.0a
The Christian Courier is a journal dedicated to the study of religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and biblical ethics. It is associated with the churches of Christ.

What is YOUR excuse?

The Erosion of Marriage
By WAYNE JACKSON

August 26, 2008


According to a 2004 census, some 5,080,000 American couples are living together without the benefit of marriage. Several decades ago this practice was relatively rare and considered a sexual aberration; today it scarcely raises an eyebrow.

Even in religious circles the walls of sexual restraint have crumbled. For example, according to a recent article in the New York Times, a special committee report on “Human Sexuality” within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called on the church to replace the historic Christian prohibition of sexual relations outside of marriage with a “new ethic” evaluating sexual activity, whether between married or unmarried people, or between heterosexuals or homosexuals, by broadly defined standards of responsibility, “mutuality,” and caring. Such has created a furor with many Presbyterians.

The allowance of so-called “gay marriages,” in both Massachusetts and California, demonstrates how far from legal rationalism our nation has departed.

Numerous professing “Christian” clergymen are suggesting that the sexual regulations set forth in the Bible merely were cultural and the restrictions imposed in biblical times may be ignored in our contemporary, “post-modern” world.

This position was argued recently at the self-designated “Christian Scholars Conference” on the campus of David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. Jared Cramer, who is currently affiliated with the Anglican Church (Episcopal), contended that certain sexual stipulations of the New Testament are merely the result of temporal cultural conditions, and are not binding rules for modern society.

Cramer maintains that a great variety of sexual unions are permissible, provided they are: “loving,” “faithful,” and “monogamous” (Homosexuality: But Why?). Strangely, he inconsistently appeals to the same Bible he largely rejects for the authority supporting those qualities he contends are essential for validating sexual relationships!

New Testament Teaching
The teaching of the New Testament regarding sexual conduct, however, is not cultural; rather, it is based upon moral principles divinely imposed by the Creator, metaphorically depicted as the “Potter” who “has a right over the clay” (Romans 9:21). These restrictions are to prevail in all societies and for all time. If one contends that “fornication” is simply a culturally conditioned activity, he might as well argue that idolatry, thievery, covetousness, extortion, drunkeness, and murder similarly depend upon the fluctuations of culture (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

In the New Testament, all sexual activity between people outside of a legitimate marriage relationship is designated as “fornication.” The Greek word porneia is a generic term, and it includes sexual intercourse between single people, or married people with other partners (Danker et al. 2000, 854). Porneia also embraces such actions as homosexuality, promiscuity, paedophilia, and prostitution; in a word, “any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse” (Reisser 1971, 497).

The inspired Paul clearly taught that to avoid “fornications” each man could have his own wife, and each woman could have her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2). If one cannot control his (or her) desire for sexual fulfillment, there is a solution, and it is marriage, not promiscuous indulgence (7:9).

In Corinth, sexual license was the order of the day, yet the apostle, bucking the “culture” of that environment, warned: “The body is not for fornication”(6:13). When an unmarried couple engages in fornication, the bed is “defiled” and God will judge this immoral activity (Hebrews 13:4; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7). Jesus Christ uncompromisingly taught that fornication degrades and condemns a person (Matthew 15:19-20).

Living together, apart from a legitimate marital relationship, is not God’s will for man and woman, and many harmful consequences result from ignoring the divine pattern.

For example, according to an article published some years back in Psychology Today, studies have shown that eighty percent of the women who live with their spouses before marriage are more likely to be divorced or separated than those who do not. There also appears to be a higher percentage of violence—thirty percent among couples who live together without a marriage commitment (TIME 1988, 54).

God’s plan was designed for maximum human happiness, the welfare of society, and the facilitation of one’s journey to heaven! Violations of the sacred sexual code assault each of these goals.

Sources/Footnotes
Danker, F. W. et al. 2000. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

New York Times. 2008, June 25.

Psychology Today. 1988, July-August.

Reisser, H. 1971. Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Colin Brown, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Time. 1988, September 5.


Back © 1997-2008 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235. Website version: 2.0.0a
The Christian Courier is a journal dedicated to the study of religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and biblical ethics. It is associated with the churches of Christ.