it's okay to cry.

"He did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him." - 1 Samuel 15:35

When was the last time you spent tears to mourn over another's sin?
It seems that men in scripture who spent much time with God, who heard from God, who walked with God, tended to be pretty emotional people. David flooded his bed with tears. Paul had unceasing anguish in his heart. Moses sang. They rejoiced, they delighted, they mourned, they cried, they begged. These and others were emotionally invested in God's glory and God's kingdom. And so anything pertaining in some way to God's glory (either affirming it or ignoring it), pertained to them.

What is our spiritual condition that we have so little emotion reserved for God? It seems like for most people--even the relatively calm--emotions are usually triggered in connection with the things most important to them. So what's the deal with us?

I'm not suggesting that we need to heighten emotionality to enhance our spirituality. I'm merely concerned that, in some cases, complete lack of emotion may indicate complete lack of investment.

When was the last time you spent tears to mourn over another's sin?
When was the last time you spent tears over your own sin--and God's mercy?

because the time is short.

"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on, those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away."

1 Corinthians 7:29-31

Dear friends! What will it take to awaken us to the raw fact of our mortality? You may not survive the decade, the year, the month! Your life is not your own, whether you can say that for you to live is Christ or not.

If the thought that tomorrow is not guaranteed does not inspire us, doesn't the knowledge that neither are the lives of those around us guaranteed? If we knew the hour of Christ's return, or the times set for their deaths, what kind of people would we be? Would we wait? Do we really know so little of the joy of life in Christ that we can't be bothered to see it embraced by others until the time is "more appropriate" or more desperate? Do we not already see the glaring signs of desperation and death and depression and disease and defeat and defiance all around us? What are we waiting for?

Dear friends, what will it take to awaken us to the glorious fact of our immortality? This present world is passing away, and do we prostitute ourselves to a vapor? Already our souls have outlived so many things--clothing, furniture, homes...We are not made for this place.

"Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation" (2 Peter 3:11-15).

Does God's patience, for us, merely mean more time to relax?

"How shall I feel at the judgment, if multitudes of missed opportunities pass before me in full review, and all my excuses prove to be disguises of my cowardice and pride?" ~ Dr. W.E. Sangster

But what to do with that cowardice and pride? We cannot shake them on our own, "But the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say 'no' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives..." (Titus 2:11,12)

May we ever look back to Christ on the cross as we move forward towards Christ on his throne."

A Note on Music

"The music we listen to often carries the message of the world, and the world uses the medium of music to squeeze us into its mold. And a Christian cannot help being gradually influenced if he continually listens to the world's music"

~Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness

I don't like this quote. I don't think many Christians my age would be prone to defend its reasoning. I do wonder, though, how Christians who don't actually listen to worldly music would respond. They have less at stake, and so perhaps slightly less bias.

I am challenged, and I challenge you: what are you allowing to shape you? Scripture? Then how? Is your decision to engage secular culture by buying its music and memorizing its lyrics a part of your pursuit of godliness? Have you filtered your CD collection through the grid of God's revelation?

The attitudes expressed in much music--about love, about revenge, about the meaning(lessness) of life--are we really immune to subtle persuasion?

1 John 2:1 says "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin." Will not sin. Do we live like that's what we want? Jerry Bridges, at one point in his life, realized that all he wanted was "not to sin very much." Do we settle for this unbiblical standard?

James 1:26 says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

In both of these passages, we are addressed as children as we are exhorted to pursue, or desire, holiness. I do not recommend that we publish a list of acceptable bands, or promote an all out ban on any music not labeled CCM. But I do think we should ask ourselves...would we obey if that's what God wanted? Do we even want to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world? Is that desire on our emotional radar screen? Is our father's standard of holiness important to us?

I have to say that often, for me, it is not.

One final thought--the other day the parable of the talents from Matthew 25 came to my mind. In the parable, the master returns and finds that the servant to whom he entrusted one talent has done nothing with it...he has merely buried it. The master's reaction is harsh: "you wicked, lazy servant!" That servant was wicked. He didn't lose what he'd been given. He didn't waste it, or squander it. He merely saved it. And he was wicked.

Many of those privileged to grow up in "sheltered" Christian homes have been blessed with innocence and instruction. And I'm scared--I'm scared that, worse even than the wicked servant, we aren't even protecting those gifts. I'm scared that we're throwing them away.

"Jesus loves us regardless"

Tonight, a lesbian couple walked by while I was passing out tracts…routinely, with my trademarked awkwardness, I handed them a “Ten Reasons Jesus Came to Die” pamphlet.

“What, you gave us it just ‘cause we’re lesbian?” one of them laughed back.

“I’m giving them to everyone,” I said.

“Jesus loves us regardless,” she said dismissively, and they walked on.

In a way, she was right, but I wish she was more aware of what that really means. Christ loved his children regardless. He died for sinners. But he desires, requires, and affects a process of dying to sin in his children, and this does not appeal to the lover of sin. To his enemies, to those who reject him, the real Jesus poses a terrible threat. I wonder what the significance is of people feeling more intimidated by Jesus’ followers than by Jesus himself. The push-over Jesus is easy to dismiss. But he wasn’t a push-over, and that’s part of what makes his sacrifice so incredible. He laid his life down willingly. But his wrath-bearing sacrifice implies the existence of wrath-incurring sin. And that bothers people.

“Jesus loves us regardless.”

She was right, in the sense that he offers his love regardless, but I wish she was more aware of what that really means. Because then maybe she would love him back.

Bits of Folly and Fear

"Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you?" ~Psalm 85:6

Maybe he will. I'm sure he will. God will be faithful, even when we are faithless. But do you notice this psalmist's intended goal? "That your people may rejoice in you." Restoration of peace, of joy, of faith--to what end do we desire these things?

"I will listen to what God the Lord will say, he promises peace to his people, his saints--but let them not return to folly" (vs 8). How often i return to folly. Today I am sinful, today I am selfish, today I am deaf to the promises of God. I will resolve to listen to what the Lord says:

"Salvation is near those who fear him" (vs 9).

Fear of God...an elusive concept. I think of the "good" thief, crucified with Christ, and aware that he was no good at all:

"Don't you fear God? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41)

The gospel is crucial to remember, as the most intense demonstration of the glory of God--the rupturing of his very unity in the display of his indescribable nature: love. This is the love that should make us tremble.

So fear. Let us not return to folly. May love and faithfulness meet together in our hearts. May righteousness and peace kiss each other in our daily conduct. Let us not return to folly, that his glory may dwell in our land.

A Thought On Prayer

Prayer is often such a self-centered, self-indulgent activity, stimulated by personal desires, trials, or failures. The impulse to ask others to pray for things far removed is often hindered by a strong sense of reluctance. Usually we reserve such requests—about that cousin of ours, or this village in China we heard about, or the economy—for the gatherings when we’re all fishing around for prayer suggestions that deflect attention from any of our real needs.

Why should we pray about people we’ve never met? About places we’ve never been, about individuals we don’t care about because we don’t have the slightest connection to them? Well, if prayer is just about us, then we shouldn’t. But when prayer becomes about expressing to the Father a desire to see him glorified in our lives, the lives of others, and the world at large; when we have a vested interest in the advancement of the Truth because we love the Truth, because we have a vested interest in the glory of God being manifested in the world, then it seems it could be easier to see the point of speaking to God—petitioning him regarding any situation we become aware of where the glory of God is “at stake.” Somehow, it seems to make it worth it. And much more personal.

"Anonymous said . . ."

a response by Jack Roberts
to a comment posted dec. 5th, 2008

Your questions are important and indicate an inquisitive, thoughtful mind; they also touch on the core issue framed by Pilate to Jesus, “What is truth?” In order to address your questions, we need to back up a little and notice a word you used several times: the word ‘know.’ If you mean by the word an absolute, 100% certainty beyond even the possibility of error, then no one can ‘know.’ This is simply because we can’t be everywhere at once and have no way of getting outside of our bodies and minds to verify that what we ‘know’ actually corresponds with what ‘is.’ This means that everyone must have a starting point from which he begins to think, reason, evaluate. That starting point cannot be ‘proven’ with 100% certainty. For example, Des Cartes’ famous dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” assumes there is an “I” to do the thinking. But that is what the ‘thinking’ was supposed to prove. His statement should be more accurately stated thus: Thinking, therefore Thinking. In other words, the experience of thinking does not prove there is an “I” doing it; it may be there is a spirit being that is dreaming or thinking and there is no independent “I” at all.

If I say that logic is my starting point, I run immediately into a problem. I must assume the law of non-contradiction in order to reason, think or even communicate: that ‘A is not non-A’ cannot be ‘proven.’ What logic or ‘proof’ could be offered for its validation that does not assume that words or symbols cannot also simultaneously mean their contradiction? For example, if I say “A is an apple. A is not an apple.” If the terms in the two statements retain the identical meanings at the same instant, how do I ‘know’ that they are not both true? If they can both be true, then communication becomes impossible since my words can also mean their opposite. I cannot appeal to the ‘law of non-contradiction’ because that is what I am trying to ‘prove.’ I must assume that law in order to use logic and to have my words have meaning.

Hence, everyone operates under the rubric of some assumption. The scientific method uses this in order to come to conclusions in experimentation: make an assumption (hypothesis) about some phenomenon, evaluate if the consequences of that assumption correspond to observable, known data. If the conclusions match the expected results, the assumption is ‘proved.’ This is the way we daily live our lives: we do not have ‘absolute proof’ that the labels on cans are accurate but we make buying decisions based on what we read there. This is true at restaurants, medical appointments, lab results, pharmacies and medications – in fact, everywhere. We all live by faith every moment: we believe the car will stop when we brake; we believe that stove will not explode when we turn it on; we believe that the woman we call our mother really is our mother even though there cannot be 100% proof (as Augustine observed 1700 years ago).

Given that an assumption is necessary to live, there are only three possible: 1) this is all a dream, an illusion in the mind of the universal spirit (the religious pantheisms of the East); 2) there is only matter, simply the unfolding of the Big Bang following laws which we do not yet understand (the philosophic materialism of the West); 3) the Tri-Une God revealed in the Bible. Having stated that, the debate is which gives the best explanation for things as we experience them. Let’s take them one at a time.

If all this (the universe of our experience) is an illusion, life is utterly meaningless and it is useless to continue the discussion. In fact, nothing matters at all because it is not actually happening. This view is untenable because it is unlivable: no one can live as if everything is an illusion; as least, no one can live that way very long. I must act as if the truck is real or it will run me over; I must act as if there is a difference between good and evil, truth and error, life and death or my illusionary existence will end, probably quickly and tragically. So although it is theoretically possible that this all is an illusion and no one can prove it is not, no one really believes it is. It is an inadequate starting point.

The second possible assumption, nothing but matter (or stuff in various formulations) exists or ever has or will exist, undergirds the philosophical and scientific belief systems of the educational/social/cultural leaders of the West. Extrapolating backwards from the observations and mathematical formulae of the past several hundreds of years, the best conclusion is that sometime about 13 billion years ago (a few years ago it was 15 billion) everything that is began with The Big Bang. Since there is nothing outside of what can be construed to be part of the space-time continuum, all that is comes as a result of forces perhaps mostly only crudely understood as yet. However, the faith-commitment is that could we know everything at work, all phenomena is simply (though marvelously complex) a part of the machinery of the Cosmos. That means, in practical terms, if we could enter all the data that is into a computer large enough in a single microsecond, all that ever has been, is, or will be could be known. In other words, all ‘decisions,’ feelings and actions of every human being are not ‘free;’ everything and everyone is a robot, an action figure in the computer game of the Universe.

Again, as with the first possible assumption, this is theoretically possible but unlivable. Everything that is important to human beings - relationships, creativity, moral responsibility, achievement, honor, decisions – lose all meaning if they are simply the result of the evolution of “only stuff” from the cataclysmic event of the Big Bang. In fact, no one lives this way, nor can they. Even the ones who developed the naturalistic rationale for all of life want to get credit for their ingenuity. Everyone wants to believe that people choose to love them/be with them because they choose to, not because they are so programmed. No government can function, no human significance can be maintained without living as if people are not programmed but individuals responsible for their behavior. This deterministic view of reality is fatalistic and concludes in hopeless cynicism. It is an inadequate starting point.

The third possible assumption, starting with the existence of the God revealed in the writings of the Old and New Testaments, is the only one that is both internally consistent and corresponds to reality as we experience it. It is important to note that this is not simply a ‘religious’ answer: if the Tri-Une God of Scripture did not exist, hard-core, radical atheism or total, suicidal despair would be the only ‘reasonable’ alternatives. There can be no god but the God of the Bible; all other posited deities are insufficient. For example, the god of Islam, Allah, is a single individual – “There is no god but Allah” - he is all-mighty, all-powerful, all-sufficient in himself. However, there had to be a time when he was alone (or whatever it was, is co-equal to Allah, at least in his timelessness). What was Allah before he created anything else? In our experience of reality, for love or power to have meaning it must be in relationship to something “other.” For Allah, he must have needed to create in order to have an “other” to love or to whom/which he could display his power. Without that, there was no ‘worship,’ no ‘glory’ no ‘love’ as we use the terms; he had to make something to be the sovereign over. No purely monotheistic construction of a deity can resolve this fatal flaw; such religious alternatives to the secular position are nothing more than the clever inventions of the mind of man. Lenin was right: “religion is the opium of the people,”…If that is the best there is.

Enter “In the beginning God.” Immediately in the ancient Hebrew text we are confronted with the hint of something different in the nature of God: plurality in singularity, singularity in plurality. As the Scriptures unfold YHWH’s self-revelation, we are teased with visions of a Creator who is beyond all human conception: the I AM and I AM WHO I AM to Moses, the Shepherd to David, the First and the Last to Isaiah. Here is a starting point which is simultaneously infinite and personal, one and yet three. Given that the Three Persons who are-is God are outside of space and time, they-he are the definition and initiators of all that is (except evil, which must be addressed later). The Scriptures state that “God is love” (I John 4:8), meaning that he is the source of all love and his very nature is love. This makes sense in the relationship of the Tri-Une God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: three equally infinite persons delighting in one another timelessly without ever being bored because of their equally infinite creativity. In other words, love is the word given to name the relationship between the Three-in-One; to understand love, we must understand something of that God. It also means that instead of a cold, empty universe or a meaningless illusion, the ultimate background of human existence is the breathtakingly exuberant love between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (e.g., John 17:22-26). Humanity can then be seen as God’s “love-child,” the expression of that eternal love relationship, where creating man in his image was not necessary to have an object of love, but the overflow of the Infinite(s) delight in one another.
Thus, Adam and Eve, each made in the ‘image of God,’ reflect something of each member of the Tri-Unity and together the unity and diversity of YHWH, so that the union of the two becoming one flesh makes a visible statement about the invisible Infinite. Heterosexual marriage, then, is unique in its ability to mirror in a tiny way the mystery of the Tri-Unity of God.

The problem of evil, again, can only be seriously addressed by the God of Scripture.
In the assumption of illusion, real evil does not exist; it is only a temporary misperception of the ultimate nothingness of the all. For the consistent materialist, evil is simply a handle given to particulars that are objectionable to the ill-informed. Things are not ‘good’ or ‘evil;’ they just are. There is no actual evil; it is all part of the Cosmic Reality and all moral judgments are programmed into space and time by space and time.

In stark contrast to this non-moral world-view, the Scriptures proclaim a God who is good and defines good for humanity. In fact, he has not only written it in a series of books/letters (called The Book) but on human hearts. The reason why the Ten Commandments (at least five through ten) are observable in rudimentary form in virtually all cultures is because “the law is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). Since God is good, why is there evil and where did it come from? Although the story of the origin of evil is not definitively recorded, we are told that Satan is the evil one, the father of lies, the deceiver. As a person-spirit (angel) created by God he was good also, but there is the hint of an explanation for the creation of evil by this one in Isaiah 14. If that is a record of an event before the creation of the world, evil is the creation of this spirit-being; he is the only one besides YHWH who created out of nothing. There was no evil, no temptation; he brought it into existence. Because God is sovereign and nothing happens apart from his will, he could have prevented or undone the creation of evil. However, since this angel was also a ‘person,’ and thus also reflected something of God’s personal nature, to disregard his creative act or destroy him, would be to dishonor his own image. Since God has always known everything and can do whatever he wants, it is impossible for the human mind to construct a logical sequence of events that would explain how he could simultaneously be sovereign and not be responsible for the existence of evil. Yet, that is the unequivocal position of Scripture.

How can this be? If God is good and evil exists, either God is also evil or he is too weak to prevent it. The self-revelation of YHWH, the I AM WHO I AM, must always be the backdrop of our understanding. There are two perspectives, represented in the Old Testament by Deuteronomy 29:29 and in the New Testament by Romans 9:19-20a.

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are
revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the
words of this law.”

“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can
resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?’”

The OT viewpoint is that there are things that cannot be revealed to man because they are rooted in the nature of the Tri-Unity of God and are inaccessible to the human mind. If a brilliant genius could explain God, then a brilliant genius could have invented God. The inexplicability of the Triune God makes acceptable the apparently contradictory truths of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of angels and man. Like parallel lines, they meet only in infinity: the Tri-Une, infinite-personal God of the Biblical record is the infinite reference point. This means that it is not surprising that when the infinite (God) intersects with the finite (man), he cannot be understood. It also means, and gloriously so, that eternity will not exhaust our knowledge of God: there will always be more!

Paul the Apostle in the NT brings the other necessary consideration which makes the ‘mysteries’ palatable: man is the creature; he did not create God. As creatures, we did not invent the rules, define the meanings or determine the outcome. The Creator has the right to do whatever he wants and whatever he wants is good by definition: his definition. This is remarkably consistent with the revealed nature of God. Imitations of the real God who are human constructs may be more amenable to the creature’s sense of justice, goodness and truth, but they are little more than ‘man writ large.’ As such they are insufficient to explain things as they are and impotent to give lasting hope. The revelation of the only true God goes against the grain of humanism’s founding principle: humanity, the apex, center and hope of reality. This sovereign, uncompromisingly holy, inscrutable Tri-Une God would not be the invention of any man; something/someone more manageable and reasonable would be more attractive.

This counter-intuitive revelation even explains why other ‘gods’ are so popular: by nature and by choice man does not want the true God. The created evil has entered the ‘good earth’ by means of disobedience by the first parents and now that corrupt mindset pervades everything. Sin is a rejection of the Tri-Une God and his rule over us; it is inbred in us to be repulsed by this God and prefer virtually anything else. The Scriptures state that in our inner/unseen self we have a committed hatred of God; that we do not see that or exhibit that fully is God’s mercy to us. Because of our inescapable self-deception, to see it fully requires the uninhibited light of God’s holiness; but that holiness would completely shatter us, wither us into utter judgment. If the corruption of our hearts were to be fully manifested, human life would be ‘hell on earth’ and no flesh could survive long. Such is the pronounced verdict of God: “The heart is deceitful above all things and (desperately wicked.” (Jeremiah 17:9)

This brings us to the focal point of human history and God’s intervention into it: YHWH became man. The Eternal Spirit becomes flesh and blood; the Creator becomes the creature. This was not simply to model a better way of life (like Buddha), or deliver a set of requirements demanding submission (like Mohammed): Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many. He came to die a death that would absorb the full and everlasting wrathful judgment of the Holy God. To qualify for that he had to be God and yet man. If he were not a man, his life could not substitute for a man just as a sheep was an inadequate substitute. If he were not God, he could die for only one other life and then his life would have to forever experience the judgment of God. Because he was fully man, he could substitute for man; because he was God, he could substitute for many people. His death as the Lamb of God accomplished what no one else could do: the Infinite One experiencing an eternity of hell in a moment of human time, was equivalent to many (finite) individuals experiencing God’s wrath for an eternity. When Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), he was separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit for an instant of human time. In other words, he experienced hell, which is being cut off from God and everything good that comes from him. That this was complete suffering to substitute for sinners is proven by his next statements from the cross: “It is finished” and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” The payment was made; nothing more to be done.

Again, this goes against our natural inclination to do something to make ourselves acceptable to God, something to redeem ourselves and make up for foolish or wicked acts. In this revelation from the Creator, he makes it clear that the only contribution corrupt humanity can make to God’s work of salvation is to nail the Son of God to the cross. There is no room for pride, or sense of accomplishment or self-cleansing; God did it all. There is nothing to do but to bow before this awesome, loving, holy, sovereign God and receive the gift of forgiveness from him.

Where We Are and Where We Need to Go, Part 1

Today America rejoiced. The celebration of my countrymen permeated every avenue of communication with a frigid reality. On this day, January 20, 2009, the man who received a resounding endorsement from Hamas, who was named “the most liberal Senator of 2007” by the National Journal, and who promised to make his first act as President the passing of a radical bill that would wipe out state abortion restrictions (Freedom of Choice Act), was worshiped as he was sworn in as the forty-forth President of these United States. Yes, America celebrated, literally weeping in her ecstasy. I too wept. However, grief ushered forth my tears, not the opium of false hope. I wept and clawed at the anxiety searing my soul.

He is elected; it is done. It cannot be changed. We should be praying for our new president, as we should all our leaders, but this does not mean we turn a blind eye to his priorities and principles. The election of Obama says a lot about this country. It is now clear we live in a country whose people care more about “making history” than about doing what is good and right to build a stronger nation. We live in a country where the color of a man’s skin elevated him into the most powerful position in the world. We live in a country where the black evangelical church used worship services to praise God for their new idol, abandoned Scripture, and failed to embrace the conviction of their own martyr (MLK) that a man should be judged by content and character, not color. We live in a country where God’s people sit at home mourning the direction of this world, yet fail to stand up and fight. We live in a country where laws forbidding cruelty to animals are abundant, while laws forbidding cruelty to unborn babies are constantly opposed. We live in a country where almost 2 million people will brave harsh elements to “make history,” while only 125,000 will show up to fight for life. We live in a country where people mock the outgoing President as he exits with words of praise for his successor, even though he kept them safe for seven years. We live in a country where we claim the color of a man should not be an issue, yet heap effusive praise on a man whose color is at the very heart of the issue. We live in a country where tax breaks are more important to its citizens than the sacredness of human life. We live in a country that condemns voting on a single issue, but that votes the single issue of the economy. We live in a country where more stock is put in financial security than the security for those in a womb. We live in a country where the Church says the government has failed the poor, when it is really the Church’s responsibility and the Church who has failed. We live in an immoral, postmodern country. What are we going to do about it?

Until this point the Christian lawyers, theologians, educators, and the evangelical establishment as a whole have not “been in there blowing the trumpet loud and clear.” On January 22, the March for Life is one tremendous way to help blow the trumpet.

Just think: Today as America raised her voice in celebration there were 4,000 new voices joining the already 50,000,000 silenced voices in the grave.

In the Words of Schaeffer

The following is an excerpt from A Christian Manifesto, which should be on the top of everyone’s reading list.

We must understand that the question of the dignity of human life is not something on the periphery of Judeo-Christian thinking, but almost in the center of it (though not the center because the center is the existence of God Himself). But the dignity of human life is unbreakably linked to the existence of the personal-infinite God. It is because there is a personal-infinite God who has made men and women in His own image that they have a unique dignity of life as human beings. Human life then is filled with dignity, and the state and humanistically oriented law have no right an no authority to take human life arbitrarily in the way that it is being taken.

We must see then that indeed the cry has not been given. We must see that here, on such a central issue as abortion, the true nature of the problem [is] not understood: Christians fail to see that abortion [is] really a symptom of the much larger problem and not just one bit and piece. And beyond this as the material-energy-chance humanistic world view takes over increasingly in our country, the view concerning the intrinsic value of human life will grow less and less, and the concept of compassion for which the country is in some sense known will be further gone.

A girl who has been working with the Somalian refugees has just been in our home and told us their story and shown us their pictures. One million – and especially little children – in agony, pain, and suffering! Can we help but cry? But forget it! In the United States we now kill by painful methods one and a half times that many each year by abortion. In Somalia it is war. But we kill in cold blood. The compassion our country has been known somewhat for is being undermined. And it is not only the babies who are being killed; it is humanness which the humanist world view is beating to death.

The people in the United States have lived under the Judeo-Christian consensus for so long that now we take it for granted. We seem to forget how completely unique what we have had is a result of the gospel. The gospel indeed is, “accept Christ, the Messiah, as Savior and have your guilt removed on the basis of His death.” But the good news includes many resulting blessings. We have forgotten why we have a high view of life, and why we have a positive balance between form and freedom in government, and the fact that we have such tremendous freedoms without these freedoms leading to chaos. Most of all, we have forgotten that none of these is natural in the world. They are unique, based on the fact that the consensus was the biblical consensus. And these things will be even further lost if this other total view, the materialistic view, takes over more thoroughly. We can be certain that what we so carelessly take for granted will be lost.