FreeTruth

By now you've probably heard about the firestorm surrounding an advertisement to be aired during the Super Bowl. Tim Tebow, by all accounts a remarkable young man of faith and courage--not to mention one of the top-five best college football players ever--is airing a simple positive ad about how his mother chose life over abortion. When this was announced, the fury of the abortion crowd came to an instant boil.

There were exceptions to this rage, and if you want to read a remarkable article about this, written by a Washington Post editorialist, go to CJ Mahaney's blog. But the exceptions are just that. The rule has been a blind, raging, irrational vitriol against this ad.

The question is why? Why do these folks loathe the thought that an opposing idea might get some air time? They have no opposition to ads promoting drinking (which kills millions) or illicit sex (which leads to untold sorrows), or raw materialism (which destroys countless lives) or scantily clad women (which presents women as objects to be drooled over rather than persons to be respected). They oppose only an ad that promotes family and life. Why the rage?

Oddly I see here another reason (one I hadn't planned to offer but I now cannot resist) why I believe the Bible is God's Word: because the wicked hate its light and truth so much. The Bible tells us that people will hate the light (John 3:19, 20). And they do.

People reserve for the Bible a level of hatred that they show to no other book, no other deposit of ideas, no other philosophy or belief system, or code of morals. Although Islam has killed its millions, Christianity is more hated. Although Hinduism has kept women and lower castes in abject poverty for millenia, Christianity is more despised. Although atheism has led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions (in the 20th century alone), people are more afraid of and opposed to biblical faith.

Why the irrational fear of the message of the Bible? Why do people foam at the mouth when a young man wants to take just 30 seconds of their time to present a view different from their own? The answer is simple, but profound: the truth is light that exposes the darkness of their souls.

People know when they open a Bible or when someone opens his mouth to speak simple Bible truth, that they are about to have the reality of their lives exposed under a shining light. The Koran or the Hindu scriptures or even the rantings of an atheist don't scare people--because their ideas pose no threat to man's guilty conscience; truth does.

It may seem ironic, but I'd say that the fact so many utterly despise the teachings of the Bible is one more reason to believe those teachings are true. The Bible gets the human condition right. The fact that people rage against it only goes to prove that it is so.

If God is real and God is holy and God's Law is right and pure and good, one would expect that all that is not holy will despise and want to silence them. And that is what is.

Tim Tebow's shining light and the reaction of those in darkness remind us one more time that the Bible must tell the truth about us. Why else would humans hate it so?

Labels: Abortion, Apologetics, Bible, The Word of God

Regarding the Manhattan Declaration (MD) I feel the need to post some thoughts for your consideration. Having read a number of articles pro and con on the merits of signing the MD, I have thus far decided against doing so. If you will indulge, let me give you several reasons why I would like to sign this document, and then a few reasons why I cannot in good conscience do so.

Please be ready for a more lengthy post today as I will not be able to post again on this matter in the near future. So if it takes a few days to digest this, feel free. You may want to read it in two sittings, first taking in the reasons why I'd like to sign; then reading the reasons why I don't believe I can.

Reasons why I'd like to sign the MD:
1. I am strongly pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom. Any chance one gets to support these values is worth seizing and supporting if at all possible. As one who has been involved in pro-life efforts for decades (ranging from preaching to letters to newspaper editors to active long-term support of a pregnancy center, to doing ethics talks at a local hospital to spending time in jail for the unborn, I would applaud every voice that joins in in the fight for life. I'd honor every God-glorifying action that defends the helpless and/or strengthens family and freedom.
2. As a matter of biblical principle, I stand against big government and the assault on freedom that MD opposes. It would be a delight to sign on to this publicly declared commitment to obey God rather than government. I'd love in this way to let the world know where I stand at this historical crossroads; one at which I am very convinced that persecution for faithful faith is soon to come.
3. I am a peace and unity lover. If there could be a way to declare my unity with all believers in the true gospel of God's pure grace, and at the same time express solidarity in common cause against the encroaching darkness, I would leap at the chance with a thrilled heart.
4. I respect many of those who have signed the MD and would be honored to have my name next to theirs. For reasons that some have expressed, but I cannot accept, many good solidly evangelical people have signed this document and I would love to join them.
5. I have no pleasure in being misunderstood as narrow-minded and marginalized as a provincial evangelical hick (as I know I am by some). There's no joy in being labeled, scolded, and derided as "doctrinally narrow" or "unloving" or "bigoted" or "Luther wannabes" as I and others like me have been. When one's heart is for love and peace in the Church, one's heart breaks when it is accused of obstructing the very unity it seeks.

For these reasons and more, I'd love to sign on to MD, but for reasons of conscience I cannot do so. Among these reasons are the following (if you're just joining the conversation please read my heart from my previous post and comments before reading the following):
1. I believe the MD blurs and fuzzies the gospel. By calling social issues (however important they may be) "the gospel" MD confuses Christian ethics with what is the actual good news of our faith. The gospel is not the "sanctity of life" or the preservation of the family or defence of freedom. The gospel is that Christ died for sinners, and rose from the dead so that all who believe in His finished work alone for their salvation may be forgiven of all sin. The gospel is that sinners are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.

MD also blurs the gospel when it implies that those who preach another gospel are "Christians" and "brothers". MD states:

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations...

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers...

Paul would have called those who preach another gospel by very different names than "Christian" and "brother" (see Galatians 1:6-9 and Philippians 3:2). Every indicator is that the people Paul opposed so fiercely were right on nearly every doctrine except justification. He says nothing about them being anti-trinitarian or opposing the deity of Christ or denying any other cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith. Their only error was that they mixed grace with works/merit. That error was enough to elicit from him shocking epithets. He did not consider them brothers. Another way of putting this is: I have hard time seeing Paul signing this document if he were present today.
2. As a shepherd of sheep, my daily task is to lead my flock into the green pastures of the gospel. My sheep have a hard time keeping the gospel clear in their own minds. It's amazing how stubborn the tendency to fall back into legalism is. We are prone to measure ourselves before God by how we perform today. I love my sheep so much that I do not want to send any mixed signals about the gospel. The gospel must stay pure and central and all-important or else the road to legalistic bondage will once again be traveled by the ones I love.
3. I believe that the gospel is under full-scale attack on numerous fronts, so I cannot be unguarded in the fight. From the New Perspective on Paul to an increasingly popular rejection of the doctrine of imputation to the Roman Catholic system of merit to cheap grace theology I see the enemy assaulting the gospel from all sides. This is not a day for blurriness and neglect for the sake of lesser matters; it's a day for bold, unadulterated gospel proclamation.
4. I cannot sign the MD simply as a matter of personal integrity. Whatever may be the definitions some signers may be giving to the terms "Christians" and "brothers", I know that the history of key signers and spokesmen shows an understanding of those terms that I cannot accept. Thus to sign a document as a statement of unity when I know that at best, I mean something different than other signers, and in actuality I may mean and think the opposite, would be to compromise my integrity. I'd have to sign with my fingers crossed behind my back, which as you can guess I'm not able to do.

Well enough of this for now. Such conversations are never pleasant though sometimes needed. Whatever our conclusions may we be sure to always speak with respect and love for all men, even for those with whom our differences are matters of life and death.

Labels: Abortion, Culture War, Gospel, Social Action

I came into the office today, admittedly with a heavy heart. I knew I'd have to address an issue that the recent Manhattan Declaration has forced to the surface again. I'm heavy-hearted because no matter how carefully and humbly I may try to respond to this I grieve that some will be offended. I also grieve because every time similar conversations occur, I am reminded of how subtle and covert the Enemy's assaults are, and how hard it is to make sure that we recognize them and are not deceived by them.

Likewise I am very much aware of my own fallibility and limited perspective (it's possible that I am seeing an Enemy assault that is not really there at all!). Aware of my inability to see all things clearly, I feel a high-level hesitancy in declaring my views, lest I in ignorance miss something of significant import in the conversation.

With that said I need to respond to this development for the good of the flock entrusted to my care. I admire the views and the courage of all those who have signed on to this declaration. I am in whole-hearted agreement with their views on the moral issues they raise, and think that I have lived and pastored in such a way as to prove that claim. I have long preached and lived and counseled and insisted on the values that this declaration proclaims and seeks to defend, and have done so at some personal cost and sacrifice--in full expectation that more suffering is soon to come.

I recognize that we are on a cultural trajectory that in my judgment, is leading inexorably to an ever-darkening culture of death and also to an inevitable persecution of the church. I do not believe we can ignore this or be silent about it. The Church must be salt and light in the world of our day. We must say all that God would say to this generation--for we are His voice in our times. And we must be willing to back up our words with lives marked by blameless character, fearless witness, and tireless love.

Martin Luther's famous words are apropos for this moment:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

But oddly as it may seem to many, it is this very commitment to confess Christ at the "point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking" that keeps me from being ready to sign the Manhattan Declaration. Friends, I will agree that all the concerns addressed by the framers of this declaration are points of Satanic attack in our times. But what I really do believe is that there is another point of Satanic attack even more critical for the cause of the gospel and glory of Christ that this very same declaration (perhaps unwittingly) may actually assist.

I believe there are aspects of this document that undermine the very heart of the gospel, that One Thing that matters most, and for this reason I cannot in good conscience sign on. I'll have to explain further in a later post since this one is long enough already.

But for your consideration let me ask some questions, questions that I would ask that you think long and carefully about before you actually try to answer them in a comment: "If the Bible calls people Christians when they trust in Christ alone for their salvation, in no way trusting in their own merit for that salvation...and if those who preach another gospel other than a gospel of God's free justifying grace by faith alone through Christ alone receive apostolic anathemas (which is what Paul's letter to the Galatians is all about, see Galatians 1:6-9) do we not need to be very careful in how we describe those who so distort the gospel? Can we really, under any circumstances call one a "Christian" or a "brother" whom Paul would anathematize? And does not the Manhattan Declaration do that very thing?

My concern with the Manhattan Declaration is not in what it says on paper so much as what it assumes about those who signed it. I really do believe that those underlying assumptions undermine the integrity and essence of the gospel (because they suggest that people that proclaim another gospel are nonetheless brothers in the faith). And I am convinced that in the long run this kind of blurring and fuzzying of the gospel will do more harm to the cause of all that is good, than all other cultural threats to morality ever will.

I know that this is controversial, but for reasons I'll expand tomorrow (and until I am presented with reasons I've not yet considered) I seem bound by faithfulness to the gospel to take my stand here. I truly am open to sound reasons to convince me otherwise, but thus far, I have not been convinced by any I've seen.

Labels: Abortion, Culture War, Ecumenism, Social Action

Jim Pouillon, a peaceful pro-life advocate, was shot to death outside of a Michigan high school on Friday. He regularly seated himself outside of the high school with a large photo of a baby to remind the teen-aged students that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The man who shot him was irritated by his pro-life message.

When violence is aimed at abortion providers (who are in the business of shedding innocent blood), the abortion industry is quick to publicize, and then denounce the violence. What are these same people saying now? They say that Jim Pouillon is responsible for his own death because he dared to sit on a public corner with a bold pro-life message.

Moral depravity and twisted logic go hand in hand, and help support each other.

Labels: Abortion, Guest Post

Last month there were a number of posts under the label "culture war." Some recent news has me thinking about this topic again. Brothers and sisters, it isn't good news, and it does not seem like the "war" is going our way. Consider these 3 items:

1. The Times of London recently reported on the views of one, Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the British government's "Commission on Sustainable Growth." He's been called the U.K.'s "Green Guru." Here is what he said:

"I think we will work our way to a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. Curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate..."

"How they decide to procreate"? Last I knew, there was still only one way to do this... but perhaps I miss his meaning. Folks, this is the U.K., and culturally much "closer to home" than China which has had a strict birth control policy in place for years.

To lend credibility to the "Green Guru's" ideas, the article goes on to point out that "every baby born in Britain will, in his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2 1/2 acres of old-growth oak woodland." Horrible to imagine wasting over 2 acres of woodland just so a little baby could come into the world, live, thrive, and yes, eventually pro-create more carbon footprint villains!

2. Yesterday, President Obama offered the commencement address to the graduating class at Notre Dame. America's foremost Catholic University invites one of America's foremost abortion supporters. This is the man who opposed the ban on partial birth abortion, and promised that one of his first acts as President would be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act? And for this he is honored with a speaking invitation, and an honorary degree from a Catholic University. Folks, this is insane-- They even gave him a standing ovation! It doesn't make any sense. The old categories are getting blown apart!

3. A friend of mine, one of the bloggers here in "FreeTruth", Ok, the original blogger... Ok, Tim Shorey... This friend and pastor sends in a well-written letter to the editors of the Asbury Park Press. The letter addresses what used to be a hot political topic, abortion. Tim sends in a thoughtful, well-written letter discussing the cultural "conscience plunge" since Roe v. Wade, and asks the public "is anyone awake?" Well, the editors turn it down. Friends, this is an opinion letter for the Opinion page of the public newspaper. If you want to gripe about the School Superintendent's compensation package they are happy to share your gripe (over money) with the public... but please, don't bring up life and death issues, or anything of eternal importance.

Brothers and sisters, these 3 stories are recent reminders that the culture war is not going "our way." Of course, the battle isn't over, and we know that the King, when he returns, will be victorious.

Even now there are signs of life, signs of a future for our Faith, and a reason to hope...

Yesterday, after the preaching of the Word (Psalm 78), an invitation was given. My 15 year old son felt a pounding in his chest, and obediently went forward for prayer, and, well, for "more of God." Not an easy thing to do. Praise God, the Spirit of God is active, he can still make the heart of a young man pound. The "generations to come" are getting it. And this is victory...

Labels: Abortion, Culture War, Guest Post

The following is a letter to the editor that I'll be sending to local and area newspapers. I'd be interested in any suggestions and thoughts.

How Far Have We Fallen?
Now that my town of Toms River holds a dubious place among those hosting an abortion clinic (American Women’s Services, Rt. 37), I find myself reflecting on how the abortion debate has shifted over time. Perusing the AWS website I see that it is “dedicated to reproductive freedom and quality women’s healthcare”, by providing procedures that are “safe, quick, and highly effective”, for the “emptying [of] the uterus”.

This is familiar euphemistic jargon that the abortion industry has used for years. But hidden behind it all is a shift of huge proportions. There was a day when the debate raged over the humanness of the unborn: was it really a human being or merely a “blob of tissue”? There was a day when even abortion-minded folks couldn’t stomach the idea of killing an unborn human, so they argued that the fetus was not really a human at all.

Today the argument over the humanness of the unborn is largely over (except, I suppose, among the few who haven’t seen a high-def sonogram recently, or who don’t know much about the DNA of the unborn). But if that argument is ended why hasn’t abortion ended with it?

This is where real horror should set in. The reason why abortion advocates remain impassioned in their cause despite the evidence of the unborn’s human status is that a conscience plunge has taken place in the wake of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. How far have we fallen? Consider this: in 1973 many pro-choice folks insisted that the fetus was a “blob of tissue” because it was abhorrent to them to think about killing an unborn human. Today many of those same folks will admit the fetus is human and kill it anyway. Consequently, Americans now regularly kill what they know to be human beings, and pretend it doesn’t matter.

Neighbor: this is what happens when humans trample their consciences in pursuit of personal or political agendas. Their consciences harden. Soon the unthinkable becomes acceptable, and the horrific seems a matter of no consequence. Where else might this all lead?

We are on a downward trajectory that should scare us to death. Is anyone out there awake?

Pastor Tim Shorey
Trinity Fellowship Church,
Toms River, N.J.

Labels: Abortion, Culture War

How do we find a voice in a generation in which all the megaphones seem to be held by those who oppose what is good? This is one of the perplexing questions we face in our times, and for which we need to discover answers. To get our thinking moving, can I suggest a few possibilities which able Christians need to consider:

1. Link up with community ministries like the Open Door here in Toms River, which gives voice to life for women and their families who are in pregnancies unplanned and perhaps undesired. This faithful pro-life voice needs our support and prayer. Their annual Walk for Life is coming up soon. Plan to walk or throw your support behind those who do!

2. Simply speak up. Talk to friends and family and neighbors and co-workers about the issues of life and the sacredness of what it means for humans to be made in the image of God. Don't let people mute your voice with flippant words about this being a private issue. It's no more private than any conversation they might have about the morality of murder. But I warn you: to speak intelligently you may need to study up by reading good books on the topic. And when you do speak avoid being shrill and harsh. Speak boldly, but with love.

3. Write letters to editors. We need able voices contributing to the discourse out there, and usually, well-written letters to editors can get published. Send them along to all local and area newspapers, and see what happens in the will of God.

This is a starter list. I'd love for you to throw in some more suggestions to help us all find a megaphone. What do you suggest?

Labels: Abortion, Culture War