Around the Horn – 7/29/16

At first is a political speech worth hearing or at least reading. Governor Rick Perry of Texas delivered this speech to the American Legislative Exchange Council. In it, he speaks of the failure of conservatives to reach out to Black Americans, to show that “it is Republicans—not Democrats—who are truly offering black Americans the hope of a better life for themselves and for their children.” It is filled with stories of Texas. It also notes the reality that in “the cities where the left-wing solutions have been tried over and over again…places like Detroit and Chicago and Baltimore…African-Americans are falling further behind.” What’s the solution? I am guessing “more of the same” is what many people think. I am not sure why. If it hasn’t worked yet, why will it work now? Perry has some good ideas, IMO. I don’t know why he didn’t get more traction in the presidential race.

At second Matt Walsh talks about why the nomination of Hillary Clinton sends a horrific message to the women of this country. Walsh is a strong writer, sometimes caustic, usually very pointed, and like many a preacher, one-third to one-half as long as he needs to be. But his point should be acknowledged. The nomination of Hillary Clinton sends all the wrong messages to the women and particularly the young women of our society. Walsh, like me and many others no doubt, says, “Call me sexist, but I don’t look at my little girl and think, ‘I hope you grow up to be just like Hillary Clinton.’” The question is who, knowing just what is available to be known, would say that? And why? What kind of person do you have to be to honor what Clinton has revealed about herself over forty years of public life?

At third, continuing on the theme of the election, Wayne Grudem lays out a case for Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice. You might disagree but Grudem makes some reasonable arguments. It’s worth considering. I continue to think the strongest issue in presidential campaigns are judicial nominations. Grudem makes a strong point about that issue.

Last today is an old virtual symposium of commentary on the pro-life movement and the killing of abortion doctors. No doubt most of us would consider it wrong to kill abortion doctors though we might make a philosophical case for it. Here are sixteen people who discuss it from various angles.

Monday Morning Reminders for Pastors

Yesterday’s message wasn’t as bad as you thought it was. Someone in the congregation was spiritually fed, so rejoice in that.

Yesterday’s message wasn’t as good as you thought it was. There were some things that would have made your message more clear and more precise and more connected to the people you spoke to. So work on that.

You get another chance next week, so stop fretting and get busy. Don’t get to Saturday and wish you had started on Monday. Start on Monday, even if it’s only a small start.

All the things you wish you had said yesterday? Say them next week, or trust the sovereignty of God even over our speech.

All the things you wish you hadn’t said yesterday? Forget it because everyone else already has forgotten it. Have more self-control in your speech next, and trust the sovereignty of God even over our speech.

Spiritual growth does not stem from a single incredible meal. It is the result of a lot of ordinary meals over the course of years. So don’t evaluate your ministry on the basis of one message, however good or bad you thought it was. Just get a solid meal ready for next week.

Around the Horn – 6/10/16

At first is an interesting article about how LGBT activism is changing our moral consciousness. It draws out some interesting implications about how things that have been historically considered wrong by virtually everyone suddenly are considered virtuous if connected to LGBT. To leave your wife and children has, historically, been wrong. But now, it is courageous if you are admitting you are gay. To cheat in athletics by using PEDs or hormones is wrong, unless you are transgendered. It is a good article about the world we are now living in.

At second is an article on the same theme, questioning whether Title IX actually matters anymore. Title IX was an act that essentially required men and women to have equal opportunity in sports. If boys are allowed to participate in girls sports, girls will be in the same place they were before Title IX, standing behind boys in athletics.

At third is an article about the funeral of Mohammed Ali that unwittingly highlights the problems of a works-based salvation.  Ali had been on the way to buy some Bibles and Qurans for a project. He picked up a hitchhiker who, when hearing of Ali’s trip to the store, offered him a Bible from his own home. Ali tried to give the man some money for the Bible, but the man refused. The article continues,

Ali says, 'Take the money, man, I'm trying to get into heaven.' And the man replies, 'So am I.'

Ali is not taking 'no' for an answer. He says, 'If you don't take the money, I might not get in.' And the man replies, 'If I do take your money, I might not get in.'

If you have a way of salvation other than Jesus Christ, what you need to do to get into heaven might be the same thing that prevents someone else from getting into heaven. And then what? Do you give up your place for theirs? Wouldn’t it be better to abandon both ways and just lean on Jesus?

Last today is a parody of a TED Talk. It might as well be a parody of a lot of preaching. If you don’t like that one, then try this one. I fear that the art and science of communication, even in its homespun iterations, has taken precedence over the simple act of preaching the Bible. Be wary of presentation. That is not to say ignore it. It is only to say don’t lean more heavily on the method of communication than on the content of the text.

Plagiarism?

These two statements are from two different published sources. Is this plagiarism? Maybe some of my more educated friends can weigh in here.

“Their former life and works had caused the very predicament from which they needed to be delivered.”

 

“Our former life and works only contributed to the predicament from which we needed to be delivered.”

Sad, Disturbing, and Confusing

A rather sad, disturbing, and confusing story brings the week to a close. The Detroit Free Press reports that a 25-year old mother was convicted of first degree murder and child abuse for having her baby in a garage and then letting it die.

It’s sad because a mother killed her baby. It’s disturbing because a mother killed her baby.

it’s confusing because I am not sure why it matters. (Don’t leave me yet.)

Isn’t this the natural end of being pro-choice? If, as the Supreme Court ruled forty-three years ago, it is okay for mothers to kill their babies, then why is this mother being charged for it? Is it the location that makes it a crime (i.e., it was in a garage rather than a clinic)? It is timing (i.e., had she done this just minutes before the baby emerged it would have been okay but she wait a few minutes too long)?

In a related story, this week, the Supreme Court is considering an abortion case regarding a Texas law that requires abortion clinics to have some basic medical standards in place such as the doctor having admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles and the clinic meeting standards for ambulatory medical centers. It’s difficult to see the problem with this bill. It’s hard to imagine these weren’t already requirements.

We have been routinely told that abortion is a medical procedure, a matter between a woman and her doctor.

In a strange twist, abortion supporters are now arguing that this medical procedure should not be required to be treated like an actual medical procedure.

Let’s tie these two stories together: Abortion supporters are arguing that mothers have a right to kill their children, that those who perform abortions do not need to admitting privileges at a hospital, and that abortion clinics do not need to meet ambulatory surgical center requirements.

This young mother meets all three parts of this argument.

So why is she charged with murder?

The fact that I even raise the question might be considered wrong. I am sure that everyone agrees that her act was heinous. It was. Heinous and heartless.

But why would a pro-choice person support the prosecution and conviction of this young mother? Why was there not a demonstration outside the courtroom protesting this prosecution?

She is what the abortion movement is about—a young woman who is pregnant and unable to care for another child. That’s why abortion exists—because young women should not be required to to be a mother if they don’t want to. And why should the state put undue burdens on her, like leaving her garage or something.

This young lady simply exercised her constitutional rights.

The fact that she chose to do it in a particular way should not really matter, should it? After all, doesn’t she have a right to choose what to do with her body?

There is something about this case that destroys the pro-abortion argument. It is simply this: Everyone knows this mother’s actions were morally wrong and reprehensible.

Why do they know this?

Because they know that that “thing” living inside of her was a baby and it didn’t change into a baby in that Eastpointe garage when it suddenly met the cold December air.

Nope. It was a baby in her body and it was a baby outside of her body.

And everyone knows that.

We are truly a corrupt and calloused people, not because we prosecute this young woman, but because we don’t see the intense irony of prosecuting her for doing exactly what she chose to do, to exercise her constitutional rights as a woman.