Don't compromise. Compromise is a language of the devil. Run in God's name and let the world stand back and in wonder.

Today marks the 150th anniversary of Captain George S. James sending the first mortar round through the air at Fort Sumter (SC). It was April 12, 1861. The Civil War was begun.

Abraham Lincoln was a polarizing figure, to say the least. On his agenda was dealing with a issue for which there really was no satisfactory compromise--slavery.

Were black folks afforded the same unalienable rights by the Creator?

I wonder how we'd feel about a president who split the nation and effected the death of more than 600,000 Americans if it happened today. What issues are worth that much bloodshed? Was the liberation of the slaves worth the price?

Suppose feelings about abortion were apportioned along geographical lines. How would we feel about a president whose conviction that pre-born babies are endowed by the Creator with the same unalienable rights as others moved him to drastic measures? Suppose the effects of that conviction led to a civil war and great bloodshed. Would their liberation be worth the price?

History has been kind to Lincoln, though it helps that his side was militarily successful. But, how would Americans 150 years later regard a president in our day who forced the issue on an issue for which there is no satisfactory compromise?

I honestly anticipate generations after us will see us as barbaric in our national lack of regard for the rights of those without a voice in our society, much as we view the proponents of slavery today.

I fear you are underestimating the sneakiness, sir.

Previously, I had written about Christian population growth and the obligation to be fruitful and multiply.

I'm even more convinced in that area and in our need to be more diligent in our evangelistic efforts where Muslims are concerned.

Watch this video clip about the world's changing demographics. (HT Gary Son) If it doesn't shiver your timbers, perhaps nothing will.

This should be particularly troubling to those who understand the essence of democracy ... majority rule.

It's part of a trilogy, a musical trilogy I'm on working in D minor, which is the saddest of all keys, I find.

Obama's presidential symphony is being written in D minor.

This is what many of us who opposed Obama because of his views on abortion were afraid of. Obama is lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research.

"The executive order undoes former President George W. Bush's directive that was based on his determination that using embryos to create additional stem cell lines was morally wrong and, therefore, research on those lines should not be funded by the government."

This means your tax payer money will go to experimentation on human beings not permitted to develop and grow.

"Days-old embryos — typically from fertility clinics and destined for destruction — are destroyed for the stem cells."

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message says, "Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord."

Don't be surprised if we see a boom in fertilizing eggs to bring on the conception of babies who were solely intended for research purposes, not treating them like humans, much as the Nazis did with the Jews in World War II.

To quote a buddy's Facebook status:

"Chris Ross [of the Daily Scroll] is sad that some humans are conceived only to have their bodies harvested for lab science."

Gunny is also sad. I fear at least 4 more years of D minor from composer #44, assuming we make it that long. Alan Keyes says it better than I ever could. (HT Tiffany)


See also Dr. Al Mohler's thoughts on this action: The Floodgate is Now Open -- President Obama and the Vulnerable Embryo

Those wondering when President Obama would make a clear move on a matter that involves the sanctity of human life now have their answer -- and its consequences. When President Obama says he will "respect" the point of view that such research is immoral, his respect is hard to detect.

See also the following Charles Krauthammer article Lance mentioned in the comments: Morally Unserious in the Extreme.

"I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix."

A man's got to know his limitations.

Recently, I was called out for being male and being pro-life.

"... did i mention how creepy i find it when MEN are over-zealous pro'life' campaigners/preachers."

The implication was/is that a male had no business voicing anything with regard to abortion, since it's an issue (only) affecting women.

But ...

• I don't think you have to have children to be against child abuse.
• I don't think you have to have a pet to be concerned about the treatment of animals.
• I don't think you have to have a wife to be against spouse abuse.

And I don't think one has to have a uterus in order to enter the conversation about protecting human babies from violent death, though it probably doesn't hurt.

The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Many may not aware of the Born Alive Protection Act and all that implies where Obama is concerned.

In a comment, Kasey wrote:

"I had planned to vote for Obama... until I saw a video of Gianna Jessen speaking about the Born Alive Infants Act. I had no idea that some infants who were to be aborted were actually born alive, and then thrown away to die. (See bornalivetruth.org.) Obama voted against Born Alive 4 times. My conscience won't allow me to vote for someone who thinks that's ok."

Gianna Jessen survived a botched abortion, but the issue is whether or not those infants born alive should receive medical assistance or be left to die or have their lives terminated. Here's a clip with Gianna on Hannity & Colmes (9/15/2008).


Kasey also recommends these 2 clips of Gianna's testimony found at
Radical Womanhood: Because being a biblical woman in a modern world is a radical act.




I encourage you to read the whole article, Abortion: The Strong Define the Rights of the Weak.

(See also BornAliveTruth.org, Barack Obama's record against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

I am not an animal! I am a human being.

I am unashamedly a one-issue voter. To clarify, there are MANY issues that I find of interest and/or importance, but all those issues are not created equal.

That one issue for me is the stance toward the rights on the unborn, either by a party or a candidate. On Oprah today is Lisa Ling talking about how we treat the animals we eat.

I wonder if Oprah would have someone on her show to talk about how human babies are treated. To further explore the different approaches toward animals or humans, I share John Piper's experience with animals that led him to be a one issue voter.

“…When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, ‘No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.’ Subdivision 7 says, ‘No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.’ The penalty: ‘A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.’

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.’ Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to ’maim, mutilate and kill’ a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.”
Read the rest of the article, One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society by John Piper (1995).

How looks 2008?

Princeton professor Dr. Robert George:
“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress…” (HT Justin Taylor)
Read the rest of the essay, Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George (10/14/2008).

I think you can do the math on this one. I must oppose Barack Obama, for this issue alone is enough to disqualify him.

Obviously, you're not a golfer.

I had previously addressed the topic of the number of children required to meet biblical expectations (Three Shall Be the Number Counted and the Number Counted Shall Be Three, April 3, 2006).

If you missed it, you may want to read it for context, but I thought I would respond to a comment made on that post last week, particularly since my view has changed somewhat.

The (9/10/2008) comment:

"I really hope that this entire blog was meant humorously and not to offer spiritual advice of any kind. The idea of "net increase" is especially bizarre. You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3

The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more! You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

My response ...

Well, my original post starts with:

"Previously, I posted my suspicion of the modernistic notion of quantification (These Go to Eleven), partially so that when I posted this diatribe it would be taken in a light-hearted manner. So, before the "sub-par" golfers try to throw me under the bus, you may want to read the aforementioned post.

Okay, with that caveat made ... let me have some fun with it."

That being said, I will interact with the above criticisms.

"You gave no consideration to the fact that successive generations will also likely bear children, so increasing in number would be cumulative in nature. Even if parents had a only one child, there is an increase. Simple math proves that. 2+1=3"

Actually, that's not so, per very simple math. Take 8 couples, each producing one child. 16 people just produced 8. Those 8 pair up and produce 4 kids. Those 4 pair up and produce 2 kids. Those 2 pair up and produce 1 child.

So, in "successive generations" of having only 1 child the population decreases dramatically, as is seen in the above example where the population went from 16 to 1 in just 4 generations.

"The whole golf analogy is just silly. A birdie is one less than par, not one more!"

Well, the golf analogy works because a birdie is ONE BETTER than par.

"You make it seem as though there are penalties and rewards based on the number of children a couple has."

It had been quite a while since I read this piece, but reading it again, I think that's either an unfair accusation or misunderstanding of the post.

The children are themselves the reward, according to the post and according to Scripture (e.g., Ps 127:3-5).

Continuing with the trend of seriousness, I would be interested in hearing a biblical argument in favor of being able to have many children, but choosing instead to have 0, 1 or 2. Or really, one might say to limit the number at all.

Since this post, I have actually become more convinced that even the church has bought into the cultural perception of children as things to be avoided or minimized lest they cramp our style.

This is often voiced as, "We can't afford X number of children."

But is that really true?

I'll close with this, if the biblical command is to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”, then the burden of proof lies on those taking measures to prevent that from happening.

I'm not saying the only legitimate reason to have woo-hoo is for procreation, but when people mock a mother who has a 5th child, considering her irresponsibile, the church should at least be ready to enter the conversation with the biblical value on children.

Remember, it's "Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!" (Ps 127:5) and not cursed or punished.

You see ... abortion is a deceptive issue.

Today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.

In that regard, check out ProLife.com and here's some good stuff from John Piper:

15 Pro-Life Truths to Speak

"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." - Jesus Christ

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.
13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.
14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.
15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.

We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I recently read a challenging piece about the role of a pastor in the pro-life effort. His thesis is a response to the question, "What does a pro-life pastor looks like?"

In summary ...

“The pro-life pastor commits himself to four essential tasks. First, he preaches a biblical view of human value and applies that view to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Second, he equips his people to engage the culture with a persuasive defense of the pro-life view. Third, he restores lost passion for ministry with cross-centered preaching. Fourth, he confronts his own fears about preaching inconvenient truth.”

This came at a time wherein I've been asking a similar question, "What does a pro-life Christian look like?"

There's much talk about a 3rd party candidate because of fears the GOP might nominate a pro-choice candidate (namely, Rudy Guiliani). So, being pro-life is a topic of conversation once again, but this is normal leading up to an election.

Many are in fact self-described as "single issue voters," using a candidate's stance on abortion as the litmus test of whether or not to support him/her. This is particularly important with regard to the president, since it is the president who appoints judges and it is ultimately in the (Supreme) court where this battle will be won or lost.

But ... other than voting pro-life (i.e., voting for a candidate who purports to be pro-life), what do these people DO?

What does, or better yet, what should a pro-life Christian look like?

Is it more than just casting a vote every 4 years? I think so, especially since in many places the vote actually accomplishes nothing.

For example, someone who lives in Texas will (effectively) make no difference because the state will be a "Red State" and the pro-life Christian who cast such a vote actually accomplished nothing for the cause.

Now, that may sound harsh and I know about the "categorical imperative," but everybody doesn't think that way, so it doesn't negate the reality.

Let me state my point more directly: I think it ironic at best and pathetic at worst that so many make such a big deal about being pro-life (i.e., with regard to being anti-abortion) but actually DO nothing more than cast a vote.

It's easy to make fun of those who claim to be Christian but only actually go to church one or two times a year, right? But aren't the VAST MAJORITY of "pro-life Christians" only really so during an election?

What should a Christian do in keeping with his/her conviction of being pro-life? What should he/she not do?

We want to temper our zeal, for I'm not advocating doing violence or blowing up buildings, but there seems to me more than can/should be done than just clamoring for a pro-life candidate and then voting accordingly.

If you call yourself pro-life, what have you done to further the cause?