COLUMBIA, SC

“South Carolina lawmakers are joining distinguished company in passing the most commonsense pro-life bill available,” said AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest. “Surely all Americans can agree that a child–born, helpless and living–deserves the protections of the law and the compassion of all people.”

South Carolina is slated to join 24 other states in providing legal protection for infants born alive at any age or gestation. Efforts to pass this type of legislation began more than 10 years ago, when the federal government acted to protect infants in this manner after revelations by Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, reported that babies born alive as a result of failed abortions were routinely left alone to die on the cold metal countertop in the hospital’s utility room. States have also been acting to pass similar legislation that is more comprehensive and protective than the federal version.

For a copy of AUL’s model bill on this issue, click here.

Not to say it can’t happen because I don’t want to put God in a box.  He can do anything He desires to do.  Legislation, however, won’t change hearts and minds, just like the Old Testament law didn’t transform hearts and minds.  Old Testament law only condemned and it along with any legislation can only be preservative in nature.  Hearts and minds will only be transformed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A marriage amendment won’t do it.  Striking down Roe v. Wade won’t do it either.

I say this however with an understanding that we do have a responsibility as the Church to be a prophetic voice.  Where we fail is that our voice often gets swallowed up in partisan rhetoric and party politics.  Matt Anderson responding to a post written by Rachel Held Evans made an astute point regarding our rhetoric.

It may be, in fact, prudent to simply avoid celebrating much altogether.  We ought to recognize, after all, that the overwhelming passage of traditional marriage amendments are not signs of our society’s health, but its disease–and we are all implicated in it.  Legislation ought to be the fruit of a long and careful discernment, what some have called “judgment” if we can get beyond the stereotypes for a moment.  That process costs us all something, for it demands reflection upon both the moral norms we ought to strive for and the society in which we live.   The attempt to close the gap, with legislation or some other effort, must be founded upon the recognition of failure.  It will not do to foist the burden of responsibility on others before moving on.  Not as Christians, anyway.  ”Weep with those who weep” is an exhortation given to the church, but it is for the world.  For as George MacDonald wrote somewhere, were it not for our tears the world would not be worth saving anyway.

Paraphrasing Anderson instead of being boastful of a victory that happened in North Carolina and 30 other states we should instead mourn the fact such amendments are necessary to begin with.  We should mourn that many in our society (and unfortunately in our churches as well) are calling what is wrong – right.

I know I have failed in numerous instances to speak on this issue from that perspective.  I know I’ve been guilty of being boastful when marriage amendments have been passed.  I’ve spoken uncharitably on numerous occasions that I wish I could have back.  Even in the midst of my failure I don’t believe I shouldn’t write about or not be concerned by culture issues such as abortion and marriage, but I know I must take care in how I write and how I express that concern.  (FYI – I want to point you to an excellent post by a J.D. Greear, a pastor in North Carolina, prior to the marriage amendment vote.)  However I do believe that being salt and light compels me to engage this and many other topics.  We must take care about how we speak, but we shouldn’t be silent whether the issue is marriage or some yet unforeseen issue in the future.

Some examples via Commentary Magazine:

• On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+,LinkedIn, etc.
• In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.
• President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”
• On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.
• In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

Our President’s narcissism never ceases to amaze me.  I would assume his speeches would be drastically shorter if he’d drop the words “I” and “me” from them.  This is shameless behavior those biographies should be left alone regardless of who is in the office of President.  They definitely shouldn’t be used to promote the current administration’s policies.

HT: Elizabeth Scalia

Pleasant Hill, Iowa.

The following new candidates have secured the endorsement of The FAMiLY LEADER because of their proven ability to lead and stand firm for constitutional, conservative pro-family principles.

• Joan Acela:  House District 25
• Dennis Guth:  Senate District 4
• Jane Jech:  Senate District 36
• Jeff Mullen:  Senate District 22

The following incumbent candidates have shown bold conservative leadership and have represented their districts well.  They have championed pro-family legislation in the Iowa House these past two years, including strong support of all pro-life legislation.  The FAMiLY LEADER believes they are clearly more qualified than their opponents and deserve this primary election endorsement and their party’s nomination.

• Rep. Cecil Dolecheck:  House District 24
• Rep. Joel Fry:  House District 27
• Rep. Kevin Koester:  House District 38
• Rep. Jarad Klein:  House District 78
• Rep. Tom Shaw:  House District 10

The qualifications for an endorsement from The FAMiLY LEADER include the belief that society and government work best when citizens accept a high level of personal responsibility and that the only way our nation can reclaim a God-honoring culture is to defend strong families.  Other key qualifications include the protection of life from conception to natural death and the belief that marriage is a permanent, lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.  The FAMiLY LEADER also only supports candidates who believe it is the duty of parents to oversee the education of their children and that an ethical, free enterprise system is consistent with the biblical notion of stewardship.  Endorsed candidates will be expected to support and defend both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.

Chuck Hurley, Vice-President of The FAMiLY LEADER, said, “The FAMiLY LEADER is happy to endorse these nine candidates whose worldview is consistent with the Judeo-Christian principles that will defend and honor issues relating to the family.  We are confident these individuals will honor God with their attitude, behavior, and value system.  We will be praying diligently between now and June 5^th for these bold, compassionate conservative candidates.”

Washington, D.C.

The site features commentaries, reviews and blog posts by an array of policy experts and scholars whose work covers statistics, medicine, bioethics, health care and law.

“We envision lozierinstitute.org as a crossroads for both new information and fresh analysis of policy questions that vex the modern world, centered on the value of human life and care for mothers, the children they carry, and the family,” commented Charlotte Lozier Institute president Chuck Donovan. “We will address topics from abortion, to population policy, advances in fetal medicine, health policy, and even end-of-life care.  We will supplement and encourage existing organizations, as well as provide a balance to existing research organizations embedded in the abortion industry, by focusing on mid- and long-term topics where reflection and deeper examination can make lasting contributions.”

The web site includes articles on such topics as eugenics restitution legislation in North Carolina, the sudden and unexplained surge in abortion in the District of Columbia, the status of Chinese human rights activist Cheng Guangcheng, and the adoption of “whole women” legislation in a number of states to prioritize family planning funding to agencies offering primary care.  Topics coming soon to the site include the quality of U.S. abortion reporting laws and the growth of perinatal hospice as a form of compassionate care for parents facing the birth of children with lethal anomalies.

Staff members of the Institute represent some of the most experienced writers and editors in the area of life issue studies.  Chuck Donovan is a four-decade veteran in Washington policy circles and has written and spoken widely on public policy issues during work at the National Right to Life Committee, in the Reagan White House, at Family Research Council and, most recently, the Heritage Foundation.  Gene Tarne, who edits lozierinstitute.org, is the founder and president of Tarne Communications.  He has 30 years of experience in public affairs, journalism, media relations, and issue advocacy, representing a variety of non-profit, international, and public policy clients.

Launched late last year, the Charlotte Lozier Institute is named for a feminist physician known for her commitment to the sanctity of human life and equal career and educational opportunities for women.  She was an associate of Susan B. Anthony and her capsule biography is also included at lozierinstitute.org.

Presently, debate rages over wealth redistribution, taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. For many months, politicians have disputed the pros and cons of this issue. Primarily, the subject concentrates upon increased taxes upon the rich (without defining them). They think that increased taxation of the wealthy will improve the conditions of the poor. (Even Robin Hood took from the government, not private citizens, to give to the poor.)

In their attempts to support their plan, proponents of increased taxes have resorted to using the Bible to endorse it (see here). Ironically, those who refer to the Bible for confirmation of their proposals have simultaneously declared that America no longer qualifies as a Christian nation.

They have invoked the “Heads I win, tails you lose” strategy. They quote sections of the Bible that appear to support their cause, but conveniently disregard those parts of the Bible that refute their position. One cannot choose isolated phrases from the Bible to suit one’s fancy. Biblical scholars describe this interpretation error as “proof texting.”

Granted, the Bible does frequently urge people to care for the poor and disadvantaged. However, it never instructs government to take money from those who have it and give it to those who lack it. Since the advocates of wealth redistribution quote the Bible to support their ideas, an examination of disregarded sections from the Bible on these issues becomes necessary.

In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus Christ taught certain truths that apply to our immediate circumstances (Matthew 25.14-30). In the parable, a man called together his workers before a lengthy trip. He distributed to them various amounts of money based upon their different abilities.

Upon his return, he evaluated his workers. In the master’s absence, one man turned his 5 talents into 10, another turned his 2 talents into 4, but the third unwisely buried his single talent. In the end, the master took that one buried talent and gave it to the one with 10 talents.

In this brief parable, Jesus taught that some have greater abilities and money than others. Those who do nothing with the share given to them lose it. In the end, the one who dispensed the goods to the workers in the first place did not take from the successful ones and give it to those who lacked. Instead, he recovered what he had given to the one who buried his gift and gave it to the one with the most talents and abilities.

These principles contradict the modern approach. “Helping the poor” consists of more than outright grants of money to the poor. The Bible describes how help can come from many other avenues.

• Those with greater funds can loan to those appropriately qualified to bridge difficult times (Leviticus 25.35-37).
• Those in need can receive grants of money in exchange for a share of future earnings, which can benefit both parties. In this case, the one who contributes funds to the enterprise looks only to potential earnings to recover the contribution (Exodus 14-15).
• Those blessed with higher incomes can hire those in need to perform some of their duties. The Bible describes how farmers must not reap the corners of their properties nor collect the grains left on the ground from harvest. Those in need could then glean these residuals for their benefit (Leviticus 19.9-10).
• Those in need, especially the elderly, must look first to family for assistance before seeking aid from those outside of family (Exodus 20.12; 1 Timothy 5.4).
• If a person does not work, they should not receive any benefits (2 Thessalonians 3.10). Obviously, some cannot work because of physical impairments. They should receive assistance. Yet, no one who chooses not to work should receive free money. How did America, built on the industry and hard work of its citizens, decline into a nation where work has become demeaning while money for not working has become acceptable? Unfortunately, millions of people game the system, receiving money without performing any responsibilities in exchange.

These references provide only a few of Biblical instances that reject the notion of something for nothing. Instead, Americans must refuse this fallacious proposal, and take steps to reform the bottomless pit of social welfare in all of its forms. The impossible becomes possible only with a start to reform it, followed by the determination to complete it.

“Heads I win, tails you lose” describes a sucker’s bet. America has played it many years to its precarious detriment. Sadly, the USA now reaps the consequences of its misplaced gamble. To entrench it further guarantees America’s eventual demise.

While you aren’t seeing a huge wave of support one way or another over same sex marriage Romney gets more of a boast because of his opposition (23% say they are more likely to vote for Romney, 20% among independents) than what Obama sees from his support (16% are more likely, 14% among independents).  25% of voters registered said they were less likely to support Obama as a result of his endorsement, 22% of independents.

Also nationally 51% of Americans don’t believe same sex marriage should not be made legal.  While certainly you see this as a prevailing view among Republicans (81%), a majority of independents (53%) say it should not be made legal and 25% of Democrats say it shouldn’t be.  There is, to be expected, a gap when you compare 18-44-year-olds to those 45 or older.  A majority among younger voters 55% to 44% believe same sex marriage should be legal.  A majority of older Americans believe it shouldn’t be, by a larger margin, 56% to 31%.  50% of those surveyed favor a marriage amendment.

Looking at 2012 while the economy still is the top issue, an issue that Obama will have problems with, his position on same-sex marriage isn’t going to do him any favors either.  So from a political point of view his recent endorsement seems like a miscalculation on Obama’s part and will do him more harm than good.  Especially when coupled with a struggling economy.

He said, very clearly, that President Obama is wrong to support same sex marriage.  The argument (at least some of it) he uses wouldn’t necessarily be one you’d use lobbying on the issue (unfortunately); he does make a strong case why Christians shouldn’t embrace same sex marriage and why it shouldn’t be linked to civil rights.  I also believe this is symbolic of the type of push back he’s going to receive from Black churches.

Here’s the clip of that interview:

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was the keynote speaker at Friday night’s Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Annual Spring Kickoff.  Here is video of his speech courtesy of The Iowa Republican:

Here is part one:

Scriptures, however give the believer something much greater than fear of men: fear of God and the blessing that attends it.

Psalm 147:11 The LORD takes pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in his mercy. 

Psalm 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, On those who hope for His lovingkindness. 

Because the Lord is on the side of His people (the church), we do not have to fear what men will do to us. This does not mean that God is on the side of the United States. To make such an assertion is to confuse the two.

Luke 12:31f  But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 

Isaiah 41:13 For I the LORD thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. 

Some of you have also suggested that the gospel is at stake in this election.  As most Republicans and Democrats alike have been willing to legislate away free speech, it is not unreasonable that Christians might eventually suffer persecution for the gospel’s sake. Nevertheless, I think that many in the conservative Patriot movement have the relationship between the gospel and freedom backwards.

I have written elsewhere:

We are being told that if we somehow “restore liberty” in our country, we will then see some great awakening of religious blessing. But liberty is a result of blessing, not the cause of it. Right now we can freely preach the gospel, but many worry that it may someday become illegal. What shall we do then, we fretfully ask? The answer is simple. We will freely preach the gospel:

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound [chained] (II Timothy 2:8f)

The effect of the grace of God, the work of Christ, and the preaching of the gospel are not dependent upon Constitutional protections and the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court. As Pastor John MacArthur notes, “The ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance God’s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s word.”

After the Apostles spent time in jail for preaching, they were released with this warning:  And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18-24, 29). The disciples responded:

Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto 

God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed. And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said…. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word. 

We do not know what will happen tomorrow, let alone after the November elections; but we must not let a fear of Obama cause us to disobey God in other ways. Later this week, Lord Willing, I am going to examine whether or not a Christian is permitted by God to vote for an unbeliever.

_________________________________________

David J Shedlock has written a book showing how Biblical doctrines should rule our understanding of  politics and government called With Christ in the Voting Booth: Casting Down Imaginations Before Casting Your Vote, with a Foreword by Governor Mike Huckabee.