On the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Introduction

I recently finished reading the “Complete and Updated” Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York : Doubleday, 1995. 845 pages!) which is the definitive statement of what the Roman Catholic Church believes. I thought I’d give my impressions and analysis from an Evangelical perspective.

First, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I probably agreed with 80-90% of it! For example, as I expected, it affirmed the deity and the physical resurrection of Jesus (# 654, 643). It also affirmed the reality of hell and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, i.e. the idea that Jesus died an atoning sacrifice in our place for our sins (#1035, #615).

I was surprised to see that the Catechism affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of authorial intent in interpreting Scripture (#107, #109, #110, #136). I was even more surprised to find that the Catechism affirmed belief in a coming tribulation period (of unspecified length) during which the Antichrist will offer men apparent solutions to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth (#675).

On repentance, faith and grace

I was somewhat surprised, to discover what the Catechism says about salvation, grace and faith. Although the Catechism says that “It is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone…that…salvation can be obtained” (#181, #816, #1445), it also paradoxically affirmed the salvation of people who belong to other Christian churches (#818, #819, #838, #1271) and possibly even some from other religions (#841-843, #947).

The Catechism also affirms that conversion “is first of all a work of the grace of God” (#1432) and that “Our justification comes from the grace of God…the free undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God” (#1996). This comes through faith which is also “a gift of God” (#153, cf. #154, #162, #179). Faith includes not only “assent to his words” (#1122) but also love for God (#1033) and the “personal adherence of the whole man to God” (#176) in which man “seeks to know and do God’s will” (#1814; cf. #546). Such faith is preceded by repentance which is,

A radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with the hope in God’ mercy and trust in the help of his grace (#1431).

These statements on repentance and faith would sound positively Evangelical were it not for some other statements that give Evangelicals significant concern. For example, the Catechism teaches that the sacraments, and the “service and witness to the faith” are all necessary to salvation (#980, #1129, #1816, #1256, #1257; emphasis mine). The Catechism says that “Conversion is accomplished in daily life by…concern for the poor, exercise and defense of justice and right…revision of life…endurance of persecution…” etc. (#1435; emphasis mine).

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul strongly condemned the teaching that circumcision and good works were necessary for salvation. So when the Catechism teaches that the sacraments and the “service and witness to the faith” are necessary to salvation, this sounds very similar to the Galatian heresy. 

Evangelicals argue that “service of and witness to the faith” are the fruit of salvation, not the means to salvation. We would insist that conversion is evidenced by concern for the poor, the exercise of justice, etc. not the result of such good works.

This may seem like splitting hairs but the difference is absolutely crucial. Over and over again Paul taught that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, not by any good works we do. Paul writes, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and not of yourselves, not of works lest any man should boast.” Paul is quick to add, however, that “we are his workmanship created for good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10).  Works are the necessary fruit of faith, not the cause of salvation.

Sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism

One of the sacraments seen to be necessary for salvation is Baptism. The Catechism says that in Baptism “all sins are forgiven, original and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin” (#1263, cf. #405). According to the Catechism, baptism “communicates…the life that originates in the Father” and baptism “gives us the grace of the new birth” (#683, cf. #405).

In Catholic theology baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. Paul specifically argues, however, that circumcision was a sign of the covenant, not a prerequisite to salvation (Romans 4:9-11). Paul argued that those who were trusting in circumcision for salvation were not saved at all (Galatians 5:1-4). Evangelicals see little difference between insisting that circumcision is necessary for salvation and insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation. This is not to say that baptism is unimportant, indeed, the informed refusal to be baptized may be evidence of an unconverted heart. But baptism is the initial sign and evidence of salvation, not something that communicates or brings about salvation.

The Eucharist is another sacrament seen by the Roman Catholic Church as necessary for salvation. The Catechism teaches that the Eucharist is a literal sacrifice of Christ in which he “gives us his very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (#1365). The Catechism points out that the Old Testament priesthood was “powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly…” (#1450). On the other hand, the Catechism teaches that Jesus instituted the Eucharist to “perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again” (#1323).

First, it seems a bit odd that the Catechism should criticize the perpetual nature of Old Testament sacrifice while teaching the perpetual nature of the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. Second, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist seems to downplay the “once for all” nature of Jesus’ sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:1-10). Finally, to take Jesus literally when he said, “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” appears to Evangelicals like insisting that when Jesus said, “I am the vine” he was affirming that he was vegetation.

Salvation

I was puzzled by the fact that although the Catechism teaches that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and that baptism actually imparts salvation, yet paradoxically the Catechism also held out hope that unbaptized infants might be saved (#1261). It also affirms that

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst who are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, an together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (#841-843).

Muslims certainly do not undergo Christian baptism which, according to the Catechism, removes sin and imparts salvation. In fact, the Qur’an not only denies the Trinity in general (Sura 4.171; 5.173) and the deity of Jesus in particular (Sura 5.72, 116), it even insists that those who worship Jesus will go to hell (Sura 9.30-35)! It is a mystery how those who adamantly deny and denounce the cardinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be seen by the Church to have eternal life—especially in light of First John 2:23 which says that “no one who denies the Son has the Father….” That alone is enough to cause Evangelicals to question the infallibility of the Pope and bishops, which raises the next issue.

Final authority

One of the biggest disagreements between Protestants and Catholics concerns the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Ever since the Reformation, Evangelicals have regarded the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice. The Catechism, however, is clear that “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (#82) and that “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (#97).

First, this seems to contradict tradition itself. Ignatius (d. AD 110), for example, is careful to distinguish his writings from those of the apostles. In his letter to the Trallians he writes, “…I did not think myself qualified for this, that I, a convict, should give you orders as though I were an apostle” (3). To the Romans Ignatius writes, “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles…” (4).

Similarly, in about AD 110 Polycarp writes,

For neither I nor anyone like me can keep pace with the wisdom of the blessed and glorious 

Paul, who, when he was among you in presence of men of that time, accurately and reliably taught the word concerning the truth. And when he was absent he wrote you letters, if you study them carefully, you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith that has been given to you…” (3).

The same attitude toward the apostles seems to be found in Clement of Rome (AD97; To the Corinthians, 42, 47). It appears that authors of the very earliest post-biblical tradition did not consider their writings on par with the apostles and other writers of New Testament books. Instead, they regularly quoted from books now collected in the New Testament as their authority. This was even more true of later church Fathers. The idea that the Church would later lift their writings up to the level of Scripture would have been scandalous to them.

Second, the church fathers sometimes exhibit strong disagreements and outright contradictions among themselves. In other words, the only traditions that are treated as inspired are those selected by later Church leaders.

Finally, the Catechism is clear that “The task of giving authentic interpretation of the Word of God…has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone” (#85). More precisely, “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (#85). The Catechism teaches that the Pope and bishops have infallibility with regard to faith and morals (#890, #891, #2035).

Infallibility of the Church

To Evangelical ears this is especially puzzling. First, there is nothing in Scripture that would teach infallibility of the Church. Second, this doctrine seems to create problems for the Church itself. For example, the Catechism strongly affirms that Christians should continually read the Scriptures for themselves. It says, “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful” (#131). The Catechism goes so far as to say that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (#133).

On the other hand, in times past the Catholic Church, as a matter of official policy, was instrumental in the imprisonment and even execution of those who insisted that Christians should read Scriptures for themselves, e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and hundreds if not thousands of ordinary Christians whose only crime was the possession of the Scriptures in English. That raises the question: Which Church is infallible? Was it the modern Church which insists that Christians should read Scriptures for themselves, or the Church in times past that persecuted Christians who read the Scriptures?

Another example would be that the Church once taught that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church (vestiges of this teaching are still found in the Catechism, e.g. sections 181, 816, and 1445). On the other hand, the Catechism now affirms that many Protestants (and possibly even some in other religions) are saved. Which teaching is infallible; the teaching in the Catechism of today which holds out salvation for non-Catholics, or the Church’s teaching in the past which confined salvation to the Roman Catholic Church alone?

Yet another example is the fact that the Catechism condemns torture and killing (#2297).  The catechism even acknowledges that “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals of the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.” The section continues, “Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood” (#2298).

Many will undoubtedly find this section misleading if not outright deceptive. First, while it may be true that clerics were forbidden to personally shed blood, it was the bishops of the church who handed the “heretics” over to civil authorities to be tortured and/or executed for their opposition to the Church. I’m sure it made little difference to the victims whether they were being tortured directly by the Church, or by civil authorities on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. Second, it is simply not true that these practices were always used “to maintain law and order.” Torture was often used simply to weed out and punish otherwise law-abiding and peaceful “heretics.” 

The point of this discussion, however is to ask the question: Which Church was infallible, the modern church which condemns torture, or the Church in times past which, for hundreds of years,

made it a regular practice?

Yet another reason to question Church infallibility is the Catechism teaching that man “must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters” (#1782). In times past, however, the Church regularly sought to force people like Martin Luther, for example, to act or profess contrary to their conscience.

Mary

Catholics would no doubt protest that these were not official proclamations of the Catholic Church but such protestations would sound pretty hollow to Protestants who were often the victims of such official persecution carried out by the bishops in full communion with Rome. 

Therefore, while there is much in the Catechism that Evangelicals and affirm and celebrate, Evangelicals will insist that that the Pope and bishops are not infallible and that some parts of the catechism are merely “barnacles” of tradition, added by the Church on its own authority apart from the authority of Jesus and the apostles.

Take, for example the Church’s teaching on Mary. The Catechism teaches not only that Mary was devoid of original sin, but that she was absolutely sinless during her entire life (#411, #491, #493, #508, #722, #966). By contrast, the Bible teaches that “There is no one righteous, not even one” and that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”(Romans 3:10, 23). The Bible specifically indicates that Jesus is an exception to this rule (Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 8:46) but there are no statements anywhere in Scripture that would say or imply that Mary is also an exception. The sinlessness of Mary is a doctrine developed by the Church long after New Testament times and is in direct contradiction to what the New Testament teaches (It is interesting that the Catechism actually talks much more about the sinlessness of Mary than it does about the sinlessness of Jesus).

Similarly, the Catechism teaches that Mary was “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory” and was “exalted as Queen over all things” (#966, cf. #969, #974). The Bible knows nothing of this. This is another example of “barnacles” which attached themselves to Christianity long after the time of the apostles. Other “barnacles” include the Church’s teaching on indulgences (#1471, #1479), purgatory (#1030-1032, #1054, #1475, #1479), Mary’s perpetual virginity (#499, #500), and the teaching that 

Mary and the canonized faithful become intercessors for us (#1014, #828), none of which have any basis in the New Testament.

Veneration and Worship

One of the most serious “barnacles” is the doctrine of the “veneration” of Mary and of icons. The Church recognizes that if people were to worship Mary or icons they would be guilty of idolatry so the bishops are adamant that veneration is not the same as adoration or worship (#971). Unfortunately, the Catechism does not always make this distinction. For example, section #1378 refers to the “Worship of the Eucharist” in which “faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine” is expressed by “genuflecting, or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” The section goes on to say,

The Catholic church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during the Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hoses with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful” (#1378, emphasis mine).

First, in this section the words “worship,” “adoration,” and “veneration” are seemingly used synonymously, so when Catholics say that they venerate Mary and icons, but adore or worship Christ, Evangelicals hope Catholics will understand our skepticism, especially in light of the impression we have that many average Catholics don’t really seem to make much distinction between veneration and worship.

Second, in an attempt to explain that the “veneration” of the icon of Christ is not idolatry, the Catechism states that icons of Christ “can be venerated” because the one “who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted” (#477). Since the subject of this “veneration” is Christ himself, we can only conclude that the word “veneration” here is used synonymously with worship. It, therefore, appears to Evangelicals that the only distinction between veneration and worship is that if you “venerate” Christ, you are worshiping him but if you “venerate” Mary or icons you are not worshiping them. This is a distinction without a difference.

Third, section #2132 says,

Religious worship is not directed to images themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.

So the worship is not actually directed to the images but rather to what the images symbolize. Unfortunately, this does little to ease Evangelical concerns that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. After Aaron crafted the Golden Calf he immediately announced a “festival to Yahweh.” He apparently saw the calf as a visual representation of Yahweh worship. According to the story, Yahweh saw it as idolatry and considered it to be a very serious offense (Exodus 32:1-5). Evangelicals generally fail to see much difference between the use of a golden calf in the worship of Yahweh and the use of a crucifix (or other icon) in the worship of Jesus.

It would be possible to argue that I am just quibbling over words, and that the Church is not really teaching the worship of Mary and that the sections in the Catechism that use the words worship, veneration and adoration synonymously were just unfortunate, unguarded statements. Similarly, it would be possible to argue that the Church is really not guilty of the Galatian heresy of requiring works for salvation, rather the Church really means that baptism, the Eucharist, other Sacraments and good works are the essential fruit of salvation and not something people must do in order to be saved. If this was the case, it would go a long way toward unifying Catholics and Protestants if the Catholic Church were to revise the Catechism with a view toward making these positions more clear.

Conclusion

I agreed with the majority of the Catechism and found it a joy and blessing to read. Nevertheless, some of the disagreements—like the infallibility of the Church, the “veneration” of Mary and icons, or the precise relationship between faith and works, are extremely significant and could be matters of spiritual life and death.

Life, ten billion years old?

This article seems to support what advocates of Intelligent Design have been saying all along, i.e. that even the simplest forms of life are WAY to complex to have evolved in the 4.5 billion years of earth's supposed history. These geneticists, therefore, propose that life began 10 billion years ago somewhere else in the universe (where, conveniently, the origin of life can't be studied). 

Aside from the fact that this, IMHO, takes much more faith than belief in God, is it really plausible to believe that life began that soon after the big bang? As I understand it, according to standard Big Bang theory, stars were just beginning to form 10 billion years ago.

Intelligent Design and dogma

As I have encountered numerous books and articles attacking Intelligent Design, one thing that often stands out is that some scientists seem genuinely offended that their cherished scientific theories should be attacked.  They often respond with all the passion and even anger that so often accompanies the defense of dogma.

In an entirely different context, Paul N. Anderson discusses critical scholars in biblical studies who are offended when their critical theories are challenged. Anderson writes, “If critical scholars are threatened by critical theories being examined critically, one wonders if the theories or the scholars deserve the appellation, ‘critical’” (Anderson, Paul N. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus. New York : T&T Clark, 3).

It occurs to me that merely be changing a few words, Anderson’s statement could just as easily (and accurately) be applied to the scientists who attack Intelligent Design: “If scientists are threatened by scientific theories being examined scientifically, one wonders if the theories or the scholars deserve the appellation, ‘scientific or scientist.”

Massacre in Newtown, Connecticut

Let’s imagine that God decided, through some form of supernatural coercion, to force human beings against their will to always obey his law. In other words, imagine that human beings were supernaturally prevented from ever behaving in ways that were violent, immoral, hateful, dishonest, greedy, envious, manipulative, unloving or selfish.  Imagine if we were all required to be generous with our money. Imagine if we were required to set aside one day a week to rest and worship God. Imagine if we were supernaturally prevented from ever giving our own comforts, entertainments, pleasures or pastimes a higher priority than God.

In such a world there would be no murder, rape, robbery, assault, immorality or dishonesty but in such a world there can be no doubt that most people would view God as a micro-managing tyrannical dictator and would hate him with every fiber of their being. They would only worship him out of compulsion, not love.

So God has taken the alternate approach—probably one of the worst things he could have done to us. He lets us have our way, or in Paul’s words, “God gave them up.” God gives us the freedom to gossip, lie, cheat, steal, slander, get drunk, take drugs, fornicate, commit adultery, rape, rob and murder. In other words, he gives us freedom and allows us to suffer the consequences for our sin. Humans then shake their puny fists in God’s face demanding to know why he allows such evil in the world.

But Christianity teaches that God then did the most amazing thing. He became human himself—a fact celebrated in the Christmas season—and entered the world of suffering that we largely created. He allowed himself to be mocked, beaten and tortured—all so he could deliver us from the consequences of our own sin.

At a time when atheists demand to know where God was during the tragedy in Connecticut we should note that if atheism is true there will never, ever be justice for the victims and their families. If atheism is true the parents will never, ever see their children again. There is no hope. There is no real comfort. There is only unfathomable grief and despair. 

The Bible teaches that the gunman will not escape justice, and holds out hope that through Christ the parents could see their children again at a time when “our present sufferings are not worth comparing” with the glory God has for us; a time when “the former things will not be remembered” and God will wipe away all tears (Romans 8:18; Isaiah 65:17; 25:8; Revelation 7:17; 21:4).

Our hope is that the tragedy in Connecticut will ultimately lead people to turn their hearts to God who is able to re-unite parents with their children and turn temporal tragedy into eternal triumph.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday, 2012

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Introduction 

     This is “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.”  In 1954 an amendment was added to the IRS tax code that “absolutely prohibited” pastors from speaking on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidates.  According to the IRS, “Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.”[1]

     For 50 years pastors generally followed this IRS rule. Even though most of our Presidents were probably not Christians, none of them were openly hostile to Christianity or biblical values. Why make and issue out of something that didn’t make much difference?

All that has changed! We now have the most openly anti-biblical President in the history of the United States. While I could talk about all kinds of issues that sincere Christians can disagree on—like the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Obamacare, the stimulus program, the enormous debt buildup, the failed Green energy programs, the Fast and Furious cover-up, the immigration debate, and so on, this sermon will cover only four issues that I believe to be biblical issues. When the Bible speaks, we cannot remain silent—not even if the IRS says so. Just as prophets in the Old Testament were not silent about the social and political realities of their day, pastors in our day must not be silent either. The four biblical issues I’m going to address, therefore, are Israel, abortion, homosexuality, and freedom of religion.

I.                   Israel

My first topic is Israel. Now, granted, even Evangelical Christians disagree on Israel, but hear me out. According to Genesis 12:3: God gave a promise to Abraham; a promise which was later passed down to his son Isaac and to his grandson Jacob, also known as Israel. God said, “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.

In Genesis 27:29 this blessing, “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!” was specifically passed down to Abraham’s grandson, Israel.

These passages would seem to indicate that God has a special blessing on the Jewish people. Now some would argue that God is done with the Jews and that all the blessings given to Israel now come to the Church. It is true that many of the blessings God gave to Israel in the Old Testament are now inherited not only by believing Jews but also by Christians who have been grafted in to the promises of God, as Paul teaches in Romans 11.

But the idea that God has rejected ethnic Jews is absolutely unbiblical. In Romans 11:1-3, Paul asked, “has God rejected his people?—and in the context Paul is clearly talking about Israel. His answer is, “By no means!”  Paul says, “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” It is hard to see how Paul could have been any clearer.

I believe, therefore, that a nation is walking on dangerous ground that sets itself in opposition to Israel. No this doesn’t mean, “Israel right or wrong.”  Even Jesus severely criticized his generation.  But I do think it means that in general we should stand by Israel and that any talk about destroying Israel is unbiblical.

We have a serious crisis brewing in the Middle East. By virtually all accounts, Iran is on track to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian President Ahamadejad has made his position on Israel perfectly clear.[2]

·         In October 2005 Ahamadejad said that “Israel must be wiped off the map….” Now some have tried to say that that’s not what he meant but the fact that he said this in a conference entitled, “The World Without Zionism” along with his other statements on Israel, seem to make perfectly clear that we have not misunderstood him. For example:

·         In November 2006 Ahamadejad said, "Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear."

·         In August 2008 speaking of Israel he said, "We will witness the dismantling of the corrupt regime in the very near future."

·         In October 2009 he said, "The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever 'Death to Israel.'..."

·         In April 2011 he said, “I am telling you that a new and greater Middle East will be established without the existence of the U.S. and the Zionist regime…..”  [The “Zionist regime, of course, is Israel].

·         As recently as August 2012 Ahamadejad said "…any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime…”

A nuclear Iran would not only threaten Israel but the world! Failure to take these threats seriously is no less insane than was the failure to take Hitler seriously before World War II. Yet President Obama refuses to even draw a “red line” beyond which we will not allow Iran to go. In the mean time we continue with endless negotiations and worthless sanctions that simply give Iran more time to develop nuclear weapons!

The Obama administration argues that the sanctions are increasingly isolating Iran. Charles Krauthammer, writing on September 14, 2012 responded, “Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement…Even the U.N. secretary-general attended…” Krauthammer said that the “director of national intelligence testified to Congress” in 2012, that the sanctions had absolutely no effect in slowing Iran’s nuclear program.  And yet, while the administration does nothing, according to Krauthammer, it “warns Israel [3]sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program.”

In the meantime, Israel’s very existence is at stake. The lives of millions of Jews are at stake.  But it is not just Israel that is at stake. A nuclear Iran would either encourage other Muslims nations to develop their own nuclear weapons in response, or Iran would succeed in pressuring them into its dream of a revived Islamic empire. In any event, a nuclear Iran has the potential to make the threat posed by Hitler’s Germany seem trivial by comparison.

By contrast Romney has made it clear that he would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons…period.

But Iran is not the only issue regarding Israel. Last year—May 2011 to be exact—President Obama publicly called on Israel to move back to its pre-1967 borders. Some call these borders “suicide borders” because they are indefensible.[4]

Now if Israel were living at peace with its neighbors this might be an issue that was at least open to negotiation. But as we saw above, Iran has publically declared its desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map and they are funding the terrorist groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to do just that!

In 2005 the Israeli government required all Israeli citizens to leave their homes in Gaza so the land could be given to the Palestinians. This was a perfect opportunity for the Palestinians to prove they could live in peace with Israel. It was a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the “two-state solution” would work. Instead, the people of Gaza freely elected a terrorist Hamas government and since then Gaza has fired literally thousands and thousands of rockets at innocent Jews living in border towns all the while the world and even our own government stands by and criticizes Israel.

In 2006 the Israeli-Lebanon War began when Hezbollah terrorists fired rockets at Israeli border towns and launched an anti-tank missile attack on an Israeli patrol which was guarding the Israeli side of the border.

The world—and many in the United States—treat these incidents as if there is a moral equivalence. In other words, as if both sides are equally at fault. This is simply not true. The only thing necessary for peace in the Middle East would be for Muslims to stop attacking Israel. But some Muslim nations won’t even recognize Israel’s right to exist: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen do not recognize Israel.  Hamas and Hezbollah, supported by Iran, actively prepare to destroy Israel.

In this context, President Obama’s refusal to deal with Iran, and his call for Israel to move back to its pre-1967 borders—suicide borders--is dangerous to Israel and therefore, in my opinion, unbiblical.

Unfortunately, President Obama and many others seem to live in dream world in which they imagine that if we were just understanding enough, if we would just negotiate enough, if we would just give the Palestinians enough land, we could have peace. These politicians are secularists who really don’t understand religion. Someone who does understand is Jamaan Al-Harbash, a Kuwaiti parliament member, who said in 2010, “This is a war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis, or a war between liberators and occupiers.  This is an ideological war, an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad.”[5]

Oh, but we don’t want to be one issue voters, do we? Very well, let’s look at the second issue.

II.                 Abortion

I want to preface my remarks by saying the we worship a God of forgiveness. We have all sinned against God, sometimes in major ways. Abortion is not an unforgivable sin. Those who sincerely repent of their abortion(s) can find forgiveness in Christ Jesus. But having said that, I need to say that the Bible is very clear, Thou shalt not murder, which is the more accurate translation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder is the premeditated taking of innocent human life. And scientifically speaking, human life begins at conception. The fetus is not a non-human animal, it is not vegetable, it is not mineral, it is human and it is unquestionably alive! 

Now our Catholic brothers and sisters might disagree saying that human life begins before conception. After all, the sperm and egg are human cells and they are living. True, enough, but the same thing could be said of human cancer cells. They are living, human cells too. The difference is that unlike cancer, for example, the embryo has a separate DNA structure from both parents, and will eventually grow into an adult human. Biologically, life begins at conception.

But it’s not that simple, we are told. How can the zygote formed at conception possibly qualify as being a person. It is just a collection of cells. It doesn’t have a brain, or a heart, or limbs. The embryo is not a person, or so we are told. So how do we know when we get a soul or become a person? Fortunately, we don’t have to decide. All we need to know is that life begins at conception and that God condemns murder, which is the premeditated taking of innocent human life.

We are on very dangerous ground when we tie murder to how we choose to define personhood. If you want to kill Jews or blacks, you simply define them as not having personhood. If you want an excuse to kill the severely mentally retarded or those will severe medical problems, you simply declare that they are not truly persons. If babies are inconvenient, we simply deny that they are persons. But let’s not kid ourselves. We are merely playing games to get around God’s commandment.

Now granted, a President only has limited power to stop abortions. He cannot simply overrule the Supreme Court. But he does not have to support abortion either. Although President Obama once said he wants to make abortion rare, he has done more to promote abortion than any President in history.

I’d like to quote some excerpts from a 2012 article by James Dobson at length because I think he explains the issue quite well. Dr. Dobson writes:[6]

You and the American people have been deceived about matters of enormous significance. You may remember that on the night of Sept. 9, 2009, President Barack Obama gave an address to a joint session of Congress, which was televised to the nation…As he explained in his opening remarks,

… We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

The speech was filled with promises and assurances that have proved to be shockingly false, and the president’s premise was based on deception. This comment stands out:

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

---

The first indication that we had not been told the truth came in March 2010. Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews, filed this report:

The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health-care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

Later on in the article Dobson quotes the Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee as saying that “The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds” to fund abortions. Dobson continues,

A mere six months after the president’s solemn promise to Congress, he endorsed a federal abortion plan for the people of Pennsylvania in preparation for a $5 billion national rollout. It was done quietly, and of course, the media were silent about it….The Big Promise of Sept. 9 had already been abandoned.

Then Dobson says,

Well, the plan that was hatched in secrecy in 2010 came to fruition early this year when Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius announced an expansion of Section 1303 of the Obamacare law. Her ruling requires many millions of Americans to pay a minimum surcharge for abortion services, whether or not they receive or want them…The president had parsed his words very carefully in 2009 when he said funding for abortion would not come from the federal government. Clearly it won’t. It will be compelled by the federal government to come from YOU.

Here is a summary of the new regulation: When an insurance company provides coverage for abortion, it MUST charge all employees an amount sufficient to cover the costs of abortion services, even by those who are horrified at the thought. No one can opt out of the provision….

Additionally, as you probably know, HHS announced recently that businesses and non-profit organizations, including churches and Christian nonprofit institutions, will have to provide free contraceptives with health insurance. It must also pay for medications that kill babies, known as abortifacients.

When Catholic and evangelical church leaders objected strenuously to this assault on religious liberty, the president simply announced an “accommodation,” requiring insurance companies to pay for the contraceptives. Of course, they will pass the expense along to their customers, and employees will all be in the abortion business.

It gets worse. It was announced a few weeks ago that colleges and universities, including Christian institutions, must provide free contraceptives that kill babies (abortifacients). 

Dobson continues,

This brings us to another falsehood spoken by the president Sept. 9, 2009. Let me quote his words again…:

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

This second sentence contains another big lie. The president never intended to protect the conscience clause. Indeed, on Feb. 18, 2011, he canceled President Bush’s executive order guaranteeing doctors, nurses and other health professionals would not have to violate their beliefs.

Finally, Dr. Dobson concludes:

The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.

The situation is actually even worse than Dr. Dobson presented.[7]

·        In addition to the above, our president opposed legislation that tried to keep minors from crossing state lines to get abortions, and he opposed notifying the parents of minors who seek out of state abortions.

·        The President has opposed a bill that would have prevented someone from aborting a baby just because the baby was a girl or a boy. In other words, if you find that you are pregnant with a girl and you don’t want a girl, President Obama thinks that should be all the reason you need to get an abortion!

·        Mr. Obama supported the “Freedom of Choice Act” that would have eliminated virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion—even limits on partial birth abortions in which a baby is partially delivered and then killed!

·        In fact, when he was senator, at least three times he argued in favor of allowing living babies who survived abortion to be left in some cold stainless steel pan to die unattended!

This has been the most rabidly pro-abortion President in American history. 

But we don’t want to be one issue voters, do we, so let’s look at a third issue:

III.              Homosexuality

In Leviticus 18, the prohibition against homosexual behavior occurs among such sexual sins as sex with one’s father, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, or even with animals! The text calls these behaviors “depravity” and “abomination” and says that the land of the Canaanites would “vomit out” its inhabitants for such behaviors. The writer intends his readers to understand that these sins are so vile that God even expects pagan nations to know better. The condemnation is repeated in Leviticus 20.

But that’s just Old Testament, right?

Contrary to popular belief, the New Covenant does not wipe out all Old Testament commands. But even if it did, this is one command repeated numerous times in the New Testament, in Romans 1; First Corinthians 6:9-10; and First Timothy 1:10. In fact, when Jesus condemned sexual immorality in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, there can be no serious doubt that he was referring to the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18 and 20.

But what difference does it make? Who cares? After all, we don’t outlaw other sins like adultery, right?

True. And no one is trying to outlaw homosexuality either. We just don’t want to give it government recognition which would make it official public policy. Once same-sex marriage becomes public policy, there will be disastrous consequences for religious freedom. 

Don’t take my word for it. Anthony Piccarello, president of the Becket Fund which specializes in religious freedom cases, said “The impact will be severe and pervasive.” “This is going to affect every area of church-state relations.”

Marc Stern, one of the attorneys for the American Jewish Congress said the coming conflict between religious freedom and gay rights is “going to be a train wreck”[8]

The problem is that when homosexuality becomes part of official U.S.

public policy the government will take legal action to enforce it.  For example, in Massachusetts a couple complained when their second grader was forced to read a book about romance and marriage between two men. The school refused to let them opt out of the assignment. The case went to court.

A judge ruled that since gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts—in other

words it was public policy—the school had a duty to promote same sex marriage to children and had no obligation to let children opt out! In direct opposition to the Constitution, public policy was seen to trump freedom of religion.

In 2009, a group of law professors sent a letter to a New York assemblyman warning of the potential consequences of a same sex marriage bill. While their concerns specifically addressed New York, the same concerns apply nationwide. They warned that:[9]

• ·         Religious colleges may have their accreditation revoked and could be sued for not allowing same-sex couples to live in their married student housing, or for even having codes of conduct that say homosexual behavior is wrong. [And by the way, this would put many Christian colleges out of business].
• ·         “Religious camps, day cares, retreat centers, counseling centers, or adoption agencies could be sued if they cannot, in good conscience, offer their services to members of a same-sex marriage.”
• ·        Religious “Doctors, psychologists, social workers, counselors” and other professionals could be sued and/or have their licenses revoked for holding to biblical convictions regarding homosexuality.
• ·          Religious organizations and even churches may be sued if they fire employees for marrying someone of the same sex.

The letter cites the legal reasons for all of this and also cites actual cases in which these things have already happened. The issue is that once same-sex marriage becomes public policy, the flood-gates of litigation and government intervention are likely to burst wide-open.

Remember now, that this letter was not sent by a coalition of right-wing

talk show hosts. The letter was sent by law professors and constitutional experts from universities like Washington and Lee, Valparaiso, the University of Missouri, and Notre Dame.
          Some of the things they warned about have already happened. For example,

·        In San Diego, a Christian doctor was sued by a lesbian because he could not in good conscience artificially inseminate her.

·        In Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to go out of business when they could not, in good conscience, comply with a new law requiring them to adopt children to gay couples.

·        In Georgia, a Christian counselor was sued and lost her job merely for referring a lesbian client to another psychologist who was more sympathetic to lesbian relationships.

·        In Virginia, the Christian owner of a small film company was sued because he could not in good conscience reproduce a lesbian’s pro-homosexual movies.

·        In New Jersey a Christian organization was sued for not allowing its private facilities to be rented for a same sex civil union.

·        In Boston, public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray homosexual marriage in a positive light.

Whether you agree or not with the position these Christians and organizations

took, no one should be forced by the government to violate their religious convictions. It is unconstitutional.

Now contrary to the lies sometimes spread about us, we do not hate homosexuals. Homosexuals are people for whom Christ died. They should be treated with kindness and should never be mistreated—especially not by Christians.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible condemns sex between people of the same sex in the strongest possible terms. It doesn’t change the fact that ultimately, this is an issue which has been used to trample religious freedom.  It doesn’t change the fact that President Obama has done more—far more— to push homosexuality on this country than any President in history.

The problem of course, is that Romney’s record is not spotless on this issue either, but at least with Romney we have his promise that he will defend religious liberty—something that Obama has already trampled.

But we don’t want to be one issue voters, do we? OK, let’s look at the fourth issue:

IV.              The Constitution and Freedom of Religion

The Bible never commands a nation to have a constitution or to provide Freedom of Religion, so in one sense this is not a biblical issue.  Yet it is a biblical issue in the sense that Christians are to have no higher authority than God and we must obey God rather than man. Therefore, it is crucial that Christians, as part of “we the people” promote a government that allows us to follow the religious dictates of our conscience legally.

At its root Freedom of Religion is the freedom to not have one’s conscience violated by the government. This was a core principle on which this country was founded. Thomas Jefferson once said, `[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”[10]

Let that sink in. Thomas Jefferson said that the Constitution was intended to protect the rights of conscience against government!  With this in mind, Barack Obama’s record on religious freedom should terrify us!

·        For example, the Bush administration had passed provisions that would protect doctors and nurses who had religious objections to participating in abortions. In February 2011 Obama eliminated those protections.[11] In other words, the Obama administration has taken the position that Christian doctors and nurses who cannot in good conscience participate in abortion, should not have the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

·        The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The Obama administration simply decided that it would no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act, and administration lawyers have even attacked it in court.[12]

·        In “Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC, the Obama administration argued, in effect, that employment discrimination laws have priority over the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections—even concerning the choice of ministers.” Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s arguments in a unanimous decision.[13]

·        In January 2012, the President approved regulations that would require employers to provide sterilizations, contraceptives, and even pills that cause abortions, to all employees. While the regulations exempted churches, they applied to other religious employers like hospitals, Christian schools and colleges, and Christian charities.[14]

After a firestorm of protests, Obama announced a “compromise” which would “shift the costs of the contraceptives from the policyholders to the insurers.” Of course, they will simply pass the costs back to the policy holders who will be directly funding “services that they consider immoral.”[15]

Unfortunately, some Evangelicals seem to think, well this contraception thing is a Catholic issue. It doesn’t affect us. We would do well to remember Martin Niemoller’s remarks regarding Hitler’s rise to power. Neimoller said,[16]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

If the government gets away with trampling the rights of the huge Roman Catholic Church, they can easily crush the tiny North American Baptist and C&MA denominations like bugs!

As an illustration of just how radical this administration really is, the President appointed Chai Feldblum, a lawyer, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  “When questioned regarding a Christian employers’ right to hire an employees of their choice, Feldblum stated: “Gays win; Christians lose.

Similarly, Feldblum, when questioned about how she would decide cases in which religious liberty and homosexual ‘rights’ conflict, said she would have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”[17] In other words, for this Obama appointee, sexual freedom should even take priority over your constitutional protection of Freedom of Religion.

If Feldblum on Obama had their way, the government would force Christian colleges, Christian schools, Christian missions, Christian publishers, Christian charities, Christian doctors and nurses, Christian psychologists and Christian business people and even churches, to violate their deeply held religious convictions.

Remember the words of Jefferson, “`[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

So how do people get away with such a radical departure from what Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution was designed to protect? Easy, they just interpret it as a “living, breathing document.” This means they interpret the Constitution not as the founders intended, but however they want to interpret it in light of contemporary culture. Those who do this have no problem re-interpreting Freedom of Religion to mean “freedom of worship,” that is, you have the right to worship in the privacy of your churches and homes, but do not have the right to freedom of conscience.  This is clearly how President Obama sees it.

We now have four Supreme Court justices in their 70’s. If any of them die or retire, the next president will select a replacement. For three of the justices, it would mean that the living-breathing theory would continue for the next generation. If Justice Scalia were to retire, die or be incapacitated, the whole balance of the court would change and the new justices could easily re-interpret Freedom of Religion to mean “Freedom of worship,” again, the idea that you are free to worship in the privacy of your home or church, but you have no freedom of conscience.

We dare not sugar coat this. When we do not have freedom of conscience, we have tyranny. And with that, the America founded by our forefathers will be dead.

CONCLUSION

Two quick final questions about Mitt Romney: First, can Christians in good conscience vote for a Mormon?  The answer is almost a cliché now, but cliché’s often become clichés because they are true:  We are voting for a President, not a pastor! Let’s not kid ourselves, the choice is not between a Christian and a Mormon. The choice is between a Mormon who often tends to uphold biblical values, and a President who has been openly hostile to biblical values.

Second, if Mitt Romney is elected, will he solve our problems? Let’s not kid ourselves about this either. The answer is no. Ultimately our problems are spiritual and only a national repentance and turning toward God will solve them. But Mitt Romney opposes abortion, opposes same-sex marriage, supports Israel, and supports freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

Barack Obama, by contrast, has arguably been negligent at best in his relations with Israel, has done more to promote the murder of unborn children than any other President in history, has done more than any president in history to promote a sin God considers so abominable he even destroys pagan nations over it, and has on numerous occasions flat-out attacked Freedom of Religion and conscience.

I honestly believe the entire future and direction of America are at stake in this next election, and I believe it is our duty as citizens of America and as Christians to vote and let our voice be heard.

            Let’s stand together and be dismissed in prayer:

Almighty god, our heavenly father; our nation has sinned against you.

We have promoted sexual immorality in our government, literature, theaters and schools and call it safe sex.

Our government, schools and media have promoted behaviors we call “alternative lifestyles” but you call abomination.

We have worshipped the creation above the creator and call it earth day

We have made it illegal in many cases for students in our schools to pray publicly to you.

We have made it illegal for teachers in public schools to talk openly about you.

We have promoted the murder of unborn children, calling it freedom of choice

God help us! God forgive us our sins. Lord, turn our nation around. Turn the hearts of our politicians and our people toward you.

We pray, Oh God, that you would give us a President who would uphold biblical values and biblical principles and who will uphold our constitutional freedom of religion.

We ask this in Jesus’ name.  Amen.

---

[1]  Fox News, Sept 23, 2012.

[2] http://goo.gl/fcxLC

[3] http://goo.gl/qb0FW.

[4]  Hugh Hewitt, Brief, 112

[5] Robert Spencer  http://goo.gl/6pvRB

[6] http://goo.gl/LWzeV

[7] http://goo.gl/lSZ4w

[8]  “Trading Civil Unions for Religious-Liberty Protection? NationalReviewOnline, February 23, 2009.

[9] http://goo.gl/oDmxJ

[10] “The  Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011”; H.R. 1179.

[11] Family Research Council: http://goo.gl/hTy7Q; http://goo.gl/tdVh2.

[12] Chris Gacek, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council.  Family Research Council: http://goo.gl/hTy7Q.

[13] Chris Gacek, Family Research Council: http://goo.gl/hTy7Q

[14] Chris Gacek, Ph.D.,Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council. Family Research Council: http://goo.gl/hTy7Q ;Brief against Obama, 89.

[15] http://goo.gl/SLW0U .

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[17] Chris Gacek, Ph.D., is the Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs at Family Research Council. Family Research Council: http://goo.gl/hTy7Q.