Ray Comfort on Abortion

I admit I feel grieved when causes of every stripe recruit Hitler and "the gang" for their argumentative purposes; but we can't shy away from historical disasters and the ideologies that spawned them.

I think Christian-Jewish author and evangelist Ray Comfort makes a convincing argumentative connection between Nazi Germany and abortion in the short film linked here.  Critics will complain about semantics games, but I think even from a critical perspective, there's something more than language games at stake here, and Comfort presents some compelling moral thought experiments.

I warn you that it does contain some graphic images, and some objectionable language, I would also add though that this isn't a gross-out anti-abortion film.  There is a frank gospel message at the end to tie it together, so those that can't handle that are also forewarned.

Apologies aside, have it a watch, it may at least make you rethink one of the greatest ongoing crimes against humanity ever perpetrated.

I have to say, the most shocking thing in the video for me: how do you NOT know who Adolf Hitler is?  That's a red flag in and of itself!!

Why I Don't Believe in World Peace

Rick Warren's endorsement of McGrath's book Heresy (see last post), in light of his recent inter-faith bridging efforts with his mega-church's P.E.A.C.E. Plan strikes me as no coincidence. There's no sense in Muslims, Jews, Christians (and heretics alike) killing each other. I think we can all agree that we should try as best we can to work together and live harmoniously, respecting one another.  As a result, we want to have some neutral ground from which to come to the table and talk it out.  But there are couple major problems that stress the need for caution lest we fall into the trap of revising the gospel:

1. The problem is that despite our similarities, we have radical divergence of opinion as to how "World Peace" should be carried out.  Sharia and Christianity don't mix.  Period.  Certain forms of government (like democracy) do not port easily to certain faiths.  It is all well and good to establish "common ground" but this may be tantamount to compromise for more than one religion.  I remain unconvinced that many faiths, including Christianity, have not had to water down their convictions in order to start playing politics on a grand scale.  It's one thing for a politician to make sensible compromises to lead a country.  It is entirely another for an entire faith group to submit itself to a government which will only tolerate a particular (watered down) form of its theology.

Corollary:  If differences between religions are watered down to accomodate a single geo-political objective, we not only lose the uniqueness of said religions, but we then run into the problem of perpetuating the one thing we all have in common: evil.  World peace becomes essentially a code word for PAX ROMANA; there's peace because there's nobody who can have individual beliefs anymore without appearing as a virus in the system.  We tar these individuals as "bigots" "racists" "sexists" "Islamophobes" "homophobes" "anti-Semites" "heretics" "fundamentalists" "infidels"...and they are criminalized for having unpopular opinions that 'rock the boat'.  But of course, the extermination of dissent is not peace.  


2. There is no such thing as a neutral unbeliever.  Part of my love for a Muslim or Jew or Hindu would include being honest with him, where required, about his status before God.  He is not "saved" and he is not going to heaven and furthermore he is a child of the devil on the road to hell.  I owe him that much to tell him that he is in the same place I was before I trusted Christ as Saviour.  This deeply offensive message, as you can imagine (or as you are foaming at the mouth with rage about at this very minute or scoffing with indifference), does not lend itself easily to inter-faith dialogue writ large. I do not think this radical honesty annihilates dialogue, I believe it should actually strengthen it; but there will remain those who will only fume with rage.

The reason for this is that this is not an ideology of man we are talking about, this is the Word of God, and man's rebellion against it is far deeper than any issue-driven pet-peeve.  The continual witness of Scripture is that Christians will meet with hate, threats, imprisonment, torture, death, attempted extermination and so on.  I don't know what your eschatology is like, but our relative hey-day in the free west will not last forever.  The writing is on the wall.


I don't believe in World Peace.  It is a myth, and not a neutral one.  It's a lie.  We are not good.  We don't get along.  We never will.  Jesus calls me to be a peacemaker and perfect: I have done my best and I try, but I have failed at both and will continue to.  I am responsible to continue struggling; but beware the utopian myth-makers.

Alister McGrath & "Heretical Neutrality"

I found myself frustrated and a little disappointed by a central thesis of the book. Dr. Alister McGrath contends that heresy is not the product of "malevolent and arrogant apostates", but well-meaning "insiders" of the church. (p.175)

Let me state for the record that I have great respect for Dr. McGrath as a Christian brother and scholar.  I don't argue with the fact that heresy arises from within the church. I also agree that we could hardly call the work of many heretics in such hyperbolic terms as some kind of conspiratorial Satanism.  I also think I understand at least some of Dr. McGrath's intent.  Let me take a stab.

A Possible Intent

Too often, when a person within the church reveals beliefs to the general Christian populace which are radical, strange or challenging to comprehend and/or just plain out of line with what Scripture teaches, the response is like a team of attack dogs going for a piece of meat.  In addition to those people who actually care about the person, this attack contains elements of those who:

a) Don't really care about learning a new perspective.
b) Attack heresy for the sheer joy of destroying someone with their own virulent legalism.
c) Are only interested in destroying the heretic to make themselves look good.
d) Can't handle paradox, mystery or questions about/to their faith.

Any one or more of the above and you have an allergic reaction which overall doesn't help anyone.  But there remains a problem when we suggest that heretics were "well intentioned" insiders.

The Problem

First and foremost, this appears to fly in the face of Scripture.  Jesus Himself stated in Matt 7:15, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."  Or how about 2 Timothy 3, where Paul warns Timothy about those that "hold to a form of godliness but deny its power" and are "evil men" "impostors" "deceiving and being deceived" followed by his famous admonition that Scripture is "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;".  Or how about Acts 20:29, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock."  Paul clearly wasn't talking about anyone particularly well-meaning in these passages, nor was Christ.  It's also clear they weren't talking about Roman soldiers, they were talking about insiders, people who would come in and rip the church apart from the inside out.

The reason for heresy may at first be simple misunderstanding; this is the point at which we come alongside a brother or sister and attempt to correct gently with instruction.  But persistence in error, in contravention of what is plainly taught by the Scriptures is sin.  It is the failure to take God at His Word and believe it.  This is what Paul was talking about in 2 Tim 4:3, where people do not find the teaching of Scripture to be agreeable to their human reason and/or their lifestyle.  This is the point at which you take your two or three witnesses and give this person the heave-ho.

Take Marcion for example.  It amazes me that McGrath can maintain this thesis when he details the fact that Marcion excised large portions of Scripture because of his distaste for Judaism (p.129).  Does this sound like someone who is humble and submissive to God's Word, or someone trying to revise it for his own ideological tastes?  It's an absolute no-brainer.

How many heretics do you know would openly claim, "Yes, I am a false teacher attempting to change the clear teaching of the gospel to suit my own interests and destroy the church."?  I doubt we will find many takers. People want to believe what they tell themselves is true.  Fortune tellers, faith healers and other charlatans depend on this human habit every day.  "Well-meaning" is irrelevant if it cohabits with self-deceit. Heresy is a subtle self deception; and it is also perfectly natural.  Nobody, except for an avowed opponent of the church would wake up and plot its destruction.  There is always a back story; a mitigating compromise of mind in sin which leads the heretic to deny the orthodox.  Our recent encounters with the universalist heresy for example, I believe are motivated by a genuine interest in loving people and getting along combined with a willful ignorance of what the bible actually teaches. 

McGrath's efforts appear to be an attempt to find some neutral ground from which to dialogue with past and present "heretics"; but I don't think this presentation of the "friendly wolf" lines up with Scripture.  People deny the orthodox because they are sinners or are genuinely uneducated in Scripture.  Heretics are those who have been told but still rebel anyways.  They may not have some malevolent desire to dismantle the church, but failing to "token" this explicit desire in the head does not absolve the heretic from an ultimately evil motivation.  Believing, "I'm right" in the head can be far more destructive than possessing the intent, "I'm out to dismantle the church".

The Challenge

As believers we are all "heretics" at various points in our lives in varying degrees.  Many "Christians" have never confronted many of the "hard" sayings of Scripture. This makes it easy to pronounce many as "Christians" before they have ever wrestled with and assented to the life-altering implications of the gospel.

We do not work from a faith of "deductive proofs"; but neither are the Scriptures an unintelligible mass of socially constructed metaphors.  Preach the gospel and be patient with the unlearned; but boldly throw out the deceived. The day we have no more heretics is the day we have no more courage for faith.

  

"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha." -1 Cor 16:22

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerors and idolators and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."  -Rev 21:8

Education for Newborns

It is with some sadness that the Christian brings a little being into the world; a little child of the devil, born into the sin of Adam.  He or she will make many or all of the same mistakes you did.  Maybe more than you did.  Maybe more often than you did.  It is not as though you do not feel the burden of responsibility, or the enthusiasm to succeed where others abscond on theirs; the reality is simply that our children are born into the human race the same way we all have been: fatally flawed in a state of spiritual death.  The idea of infant baptism is one which I find psychologically attractive though unsubstantiated in Scripture; no matter, it is enough for me that God is Judge – the soul of every child is His. Although tainted by original sin, I have no further fear of or stock in the myth of "generational curses".

My thought is not about baptism; it is enough to say that the child will grow up and find "many devices".

Without despair, in Christ we begin training the child early, but at the very beginning with the easiest, most primal of things: eating, sleeping and defecating.  These are acts Christ Himself had to learn.  The "Holy infant tender and mild" I imagine screamed just as any baby might.  In the absence of rational conversation, I doubt that Jesus would have expressed the gnawing pain of hunger any differently than John the Baptist or your very own bundle of joy incarnate.  The absence of original sin did not remove the consequences of the rest of our folly for a suffering baby Jesus. 

I know a particular child who has the particular habit of avoiding the important necessity of eating.  The pain of the sinful world, that threat of death which rises from the stomach, rouses the baby from deep slumber.  The baby's father responds quickly, his ear is trained and he is always within earshot.  He is listening for signs of life.  At the beginning, the child sucks the milk vigorously, her eyes are transfixed on her father.  At a certain point she may become uncomfortable: she has swallowed more than nutritious milk.  Her daddy straightens her and vigorously pounds on her back until the malaise lurches forth.

The feeding carries on, but soon the child's eyes leaden in weight.  She grows quiet and all-too comfortable and her limbs drape limply at her sides.  Knowing that she needs to keep drinking, father tickles the hand, nuzzles the foot and does what he can to rouse his daughter.  This prompts a short revival.

But soon the little newborn, with eyes closed and arms flailing blindly with all their poorly coordinated might is fighting daddy, pushing the bottle away.  With some consternation, he manages to keep the nipple in her mouth.  She is still wailing, but does not remember why.  A little distraction by daddy causes her to forget the crying and the link is finally severed. Suddenly she is tender and mild, draining the sustenance vigorously.

She wonders why daddy would ever do such a cruel thing and hide the milk from her. Why would he hold her arms from getting that milk she wanted all along?  I imagine that when she is old enough to eat solid food, the question will have vanished into the advent of a new perspective.

Perhaps the inexperienced father has misread the signs. I am not deterred. There's a greater lesson. It is about the death and resuscitation of children, adults and entire nations.  It must be remembered and retaught; or our newborns will give us an inevitable, untimely and terrible re-education.