I admire this nation formed by God. I respect the brave men and women, motivated by God, who fought to establish this country. The precise structure …America Was Established On God, But Then…
Category Archives: Abortion
Today is Sunday, and many of you will be going to church somewhere (or watching online). So here is a question:
Does the “preaching” part of the service have anything to do with your decision?
There are many opinions as to what constitutes “good” preaching. Some prefer a preacher who spits and hollers, bangs the pulpit, and makes that little “huh” sound between every amplified phrase. Others prefer the professor/preacher who reads from a manuscript in a mono-tone, non-offensive, Winnie the Pooh-like voice.
Either way, what we are talking about is delivery, not substance.
Does delivery matter?
When Paul told Timothy to pay close attention to his doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16) and to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2), content was the issue. However, if a sermon is poorly delivered, the efforts of the preacher could be nullified. If the hearer is distracted, bored, offended, lulled to sleep, or has his ear drums wounded, what is the point?
In my opinion, good preaching is preaching that contains solid, biblical content, but also keeps the audience engaged. One should never discount the importance of the power of the Spirit working through the weakness of men (1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 12:9). But, as ambassadors of the King (2 Cor. 5:20) who have been charged by our Sovereign to “compel” (persuade) hungry souls to come to His table (Luke 14:23), shouldn’t how we say what we say be important?
It is reported that Abraham Lincoln preferred listening to preachers who looked like they were swatting at a swarm of bees. In a similar vein, I think it was Charles Wesley who said that a preacher should “put some fire in his sermon, or put his sermon in the fire.”
On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) is said to have read his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” with a steady, monotone voice, as the audience screamed in terror at the thought of falling into hell. So, delivery shouldn’t matter?
It would make sense that those entrusted with delivering sermons should do so in a manner befitting the “greatest story ever told,” but does delivery make a difference? After all, some of the greatest public speakers of all time were tyrants (Adolph Hitler).
Should delivery be an issue? Should we simply focus on truth?
What about you?
- What type of preaching style do you prefer?
- Has a particular style of sermon delivery ever caused you to tune out to what was being said?
- What suggestions would you like to offer to one just beginning public ministry?
Now, to be fair, below is a link to our church Facebook page and one of the last sermons I preached. It was Sunday morning, last week, on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.
The preaching starts at around the 11-minute mark.
In your objective opinion, how would you describe my style in this sermon? Did my delivery enhance or distract from the subject of the sermon?
Ultimately, no sermon, no matter how well it’s delivered, can change hearts and minds and lives without the power of the Holy Spirit. Even the worst preacher, filled with God’s power, can be the most effective. In reality, one’s supreme goal should be for God to be heard and the preacher to be forgotten.
Yet, we are human, aren’t we? We should always want to strive to do better. Even Elijah presided over a “prophet’s school” (1 Samuel 19:18-24).*
*Just be careful when you talk about my bald head 😉
The Cancel Culture
I am sure you’ve seen it, everywhere you turn there is someone else getting blackballed. If it’s not a Republican for supporting Trump, a celebrity caught by a hot mic saying something supposedly bigoted, or whole media platforms that offer too much freedom of speech, it’s lowly folk like you and me who somehow gain the attention of the all-seeing eye of Big Tech.
No one is safe from being blocked from Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. No one is safe from being de-humanized. For that’s really the point, isn’t it? To deny a person with whom the uppity-ups disagree the right to exist and prosper in the public square, even though they’ve done nothing illegal? And the “wrong” they’ve done, well, it’s all subjective, correct? It has to be, for objective good and evil is in itself a taboo subject.
Therefore, while I still have a platform, I am going to share what I believe regardless what others may think or whether or not they approve.
Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. – Proverbs 31:8-9 KJV
Sanctity of Human Life Sunday
Today is a somber and serious day to celebrate. Today is Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, a day that started with the proclamation first made by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 on the 11th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Today is also a somber day to remember because it was the first year that Donald Trump did not make a proclamation for this day. Bill Clinton refused for 8 years. Obama refused for 8 years, also. Now I can only assume there will never be another presidential proclamation celebrating the sanctity of human life, for Biden will surely promote the funding of the current national holocaust begun in 1973 with the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and renewed federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
Today was also a day when I used the pulpit I’ve been given to stand of the Truth of God’s Word and hold nothing back in my denunciation of abortion. As I requested, God gave me boldness and courage to say what needed to be said, no punches pulled. If it gets me banned from social media, then so be it. It’s in God’s hands.
I was just the messenger.
“Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD with slackness, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed. – Jeremiah 48:10 ESV
7 Points of Needed Agreement
In this morning’s sermon (which, incidentally, did not last longer than normal) I shared a record 17 points! Actually, the first 10 were not my own, but 10 ways Christians could celebrate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.
But the last 7 points were mine, and I want to share them with you, today. Unfortunately, I am 100% positive not all of you will be in agreement. However, we should be.
Things we should agree on and/or support if we believe Human Life is Precious and we are made in the image of God.
- Life is a right; abortion is a decision.
- Human life is more valuable than any other form life.
- Human life at any age, young, old, or preborn, his intrinsic value and purpose.
- Adoption should be encouraged and prayerfully considered.
- The Death Penalty is not immoral; God demanded it. Genesis 9:6
- To memorialize a life is to acknowledge the value of life.
- Saving a life has eternal ramifications.
Now, I could expound on each one of those points, and maybe I should, but I would encourage you to look up my sermon on our church’s Facebook page. If you have specific questions about any of these points, leave your question in the comment section.
But I do want to leave you with one other thing.
If Not Sanctity, then WHAT?
The word “sanctity” is very appropriate when talking about the value of human life in the context of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc. Consider the various definitions I collected from the web…
- The quality of being very important and deserving respect; the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
- the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY
Consider the synonyms listed:
Yet, when our government leaders, our media, our entertainment, and half our electorate mock, bemoan, belittle, and censure those who believe in the sanctity of human life, specifically the innocent life within a mother’s womb, then what?
What is the antonym of sanctity? . . . “wickedness.”
Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” – 2 Timothy 2:19 NIV
The events of this week led me to change what I was going to speak on Wednesday evening. I hope you will take the time to hear what God put on my heart.
As an added bonus, my sister plays the piano and sings an original piece to start things off.
Who Would Have Guessed
Honestly, who would have thunk that by moving down here to Georgia I would play a part in American history? Well, after tomorrow my vote could determine the direction of this nation.
I mean, you know, just pastoring a church gives one the chance to impact lives for generations to come. But pastoring a church in Georgia right now, right on the cusp of one of the most important elections – EVER – makes me tremble.
But, like I’ve said before, “…for such a time as this.”
Don’t Tell Them
One of the more sensitive issues of ministry is that of politics. As you are surely aware, we pastors are not supposed to tell people how to vote. To do so could potentially result in a church losing its tax-exempt status.
Yet, as you have surely seen over the last few years, more and more pastors and religious leaders are making it clear where what boxes they want you to check. Without question – it’s not even an argument – African-American churches (which overwhelmingly support Democrat candidates) have long been known as being active politically, even to the point of specifically endorsing candidates from the pulpit. It’s even expected that the Democrat candidates make appearances in black churches.
Then, of course, there are the other churches that support more conservative candidates, most always Republican. In lots of cases, the candidates will go to those churches to speak, also. But the Republican church visits are nothing in comparison to the other party’s efforts.
And when it comes to what pastors are allowed to say; when it comes to how far a pastor should go in stating support for a particular candidate or party; when it comes to a pastor talking politics at all . . . the white churches and the Republicans barely hold a candle to rest. It’s not even a contest.
But that’s not how I’m going to roll this time.
Perdue and Loeffler
To be honest, if anyone in my congregation votes for Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock, I’d be terribly surprised. To the best of my knowledge, based on nothing more than objective observation, most of my congregation will vote Republican tomorrow. Yet, I still won’t get up behind the pulpit and say, “Go vote for so-and-so.”
But since this is my blog, I will say exactly what I think. It’s still my right and I’m free to exercise it.
If you live in Georgia, as I do, and you vote for either Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock, then the blood of America will be on your hands.
I will boldly beg of you to vote for either David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler.
The Agenda: Fundamental Change
Folks, if Ossoff and Warnock are elected and placed in the United States Senate, America will never be the same, and that’s their goal.
I don’t have to go through all their promises. All I have to do is to get you to understand that with a Democrat majority in the Senate, the House, and with a Democrat President, they will complete what Barak Obama said he wanted to do: “Fundamentally transform America.”
Stop and think about those three words for just a moment. What does one mean when he says he wants to “fundamentally change” or transform anything? If I were to stand before my congregation and exclaim, “This year we are going to fundamentally change Christianity”? Would it still be Christianity without its fundamentals?
What if you told your wife or husband, “Tonight’s date-night will fundamentally change our marriage”? What would that mean? Would that be a good thing? Maybe.
But when you propose, even promise to bring “fundamental change” to something, what you end up with is NOT what you started with. Consider what Wordhippo.com offered as synonyms to “fundamentally change.”
Then, from a legal standpoint, what is a proper definition? Consider the following from LawInsider.com:
“Fundamental Change means a dissolution or liquidation of the Company, a sale of substantially all of the assets of the Company, a merger or consolidation of the Company with or into any other corporation, regardless of whether the Company is the surviving corporation, or a statutory share exchange involving capital stock of the Company.”
Barak Obama promised it. Biden promised it. Ossoff and Warnock promise it (either directly or by association). And if they get elected to the Senate, then the Democrat party will have little to nothing stopping them from destroying this country.
Just keep in mind, these are the people of the party who now say “amen and a-woman.”
In my last post about the possibility of Biden listening to and acting upon questionable or sinister science, I might have given the wrong impression. I say that based on a comment I received from a friend, Joel Ziegenmier.
If Joel was correct, then I do apologize for the confusion or spurious impression. Please allow me to clarify my stance on science and faith.
I believe that science and faith are completely compatible and non-exclusionary. Both can exist side-by-side without conflict. Why do I believe that?
First of all, we must understand what faith and science are. Once we do that, everything will become a little more clear.
Science, unlike what it’s made out to be in the news media, is a process of acquiring knowledge. It is not dogma, doctrine, philosophy, or religion. All it is – or what it is supposed to be – is a process through which knowledge and understanding can be acquired through theorizing, testing, observing, repeating and replicating, and so on. The scientific method is not a Truth in itself, but a process by which we discover and make application.
Faith is trusting in something. Blind faith is putting one’s trust in something without any evidence that the thing is trustworthy. On the contrary, orthodox Christianity is not a religion or set of beliefs based on a blind faith, but on tangible, historical, and verifiable evidence and Truth claims.
Science and faith are not opposites, but complimentary. Where faith can be tested, it should welcome it. Where science yields information, faith is placed in the interpretation of the evidence obtained.
Certain things, however, are beyond the realm of the scientific method. Those things that are supernatural (outside of the realm of what is considered naturally possible) cannot be observed, tested, and repeated, especially if the supernatural event is beyond natural capability.
Science, too, is limited in its ability. A prime example is the question of the origin of the universe. Although observable and repeatable theories can be applied to current natural processes, science in and of itself cannot observe and test the origin of the universe, nor account for where natural law may have been broken. Ironically, it takes faith for both the Christian and the naturalist or atheist to make dogmatic claims about the origin of all that is.
But for the Christian, science is not an enemy; it is only a tool. Thanks to a quick Google search, I was easily able to find a list of famous scientist whose works contributed to the way we live today, and each one was a Christian. They include the likes of Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Arthur Compton, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, George Washington Carver, Francis Collins, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine John Eccles.
So therefore, it’s not a matter of whether or not Joe Biden listens to the scientists, for that’s a fine and noble thing to do. The problem is which scientists he’s listening to. Every scientist has presuppositions and assumptions. Every scientist has a personal worldview. Are the scientists that Biden trusts knowledge seekers or agenda pushers? Are they rabid naturalists who deny their own presuppositions and assumptions, or simply honest men and women who simply go where the facts lead them?
I’m not trying to be hyperbolic, but just keep in mind that it was the “scientists” of the 1930s and 1940s who concluded that a perfect and superior race was achievable through the elimination of all who were sick, retarded, deformed, homosexual, and Jewish.
It’s when “science” determines that faith is a detriment to society, a scourge on humanity, or a drug from which society must be weened for its own sake, that we have a problem.
It’s happened before. It’s been observed. It can be repeated.
Welcome to “Controversial Tuesday“!
I have decided to devote Tuesdays each week to something controversial. If you remember, a couple of weeks ago I asked what you would like for me to write about.
From your responses I will craft my posts.
“I Don’t Know How a Christian…”
The title for today is a statement I have heard for the last 4 years in some form or another. And now that an election is just months away, it’s a statement or question that’s being repeated time and time again.
As a Christian minister, my conscience will not allow me to vote for Joe Biden, or any Democrat (because of their support of abortion). But then you may ask, “Do you mean to tell us that you think Donald Trump is more of a Christian than Biden?” No, I don’t think that. All I can do is judge them by their actions and take them at their word.
Then, in a raised, indignant voice you might come back with, “Do you mean to tell me, as a Christian, a Baptist pastor, you would actually condone voting for a man who groped women’s privates, owned strip clubs, and has made millions off of questionable construction deals?”
I would say that’s a fair question, to which I would continue, “Do you mean to tell me it would be MORE Christian to vote for a man who constantly sniffs young girls and touches women, was known to walk around naked in the VP mansion, and helped his son make millions from Russian oil companies?”
You know what, I’m going to YouTube and I’m going to record a video. There’s more to say and I don’t want to type it.
On a final note, and something that I wish I had addressed in the video, is the claim that America is being destroyed by Trump, or the claim that Trump brought in an era of violence, meanness, hatred, etc. How can one suggest such things?
Was it Trump who marched in the streets the day after the election carrying signs reading “Not my president!”? Was it Trump who was attacking people wearing MAGA hats? Was it Trump who was forcing the race card into every conversation? Was it Trump who was falsely accusing anyone of colluding with the Russians to steal an election? Was it Trump who nothing, not one thing, not even a syllable spoken was positive?
No one cared about Trump until he shockingly got elected and defeated Hillary Clinton. So many serious left-wing voters were crushed when Hillary lost, and there was no way they could forgive the Orange Man.
Maybe next Tuesday I will talk about the Police. Any suggestions to the otherwise?
The following is in honor of Sanctity of Life Sunday.
It’s now been 6 years ago that the former president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, was suggesting gifts for Valentine’s Day, and I feel the story is worth repeating.
I really appreciated it, too, because, as a guy who wants to impress his girl, every little suggestion for something new can help.
So, what did Ms. Richards suggest? What did she share on her Twitter account that we men needed to know? What, pray tell, are we supposed to go out and purchase this year?
Roses? Candy? Diamonds? A new car? Tickets to the opera? A new dress? A year’s supply of lipstick? Dinner at Tavern on the Green? A Ruth’s Chris gift certificate? A singing candy gram? A day at the most expensive beauty salon? An exotic vacation to Hawaii?
Interesting…don’t you think? I wonder how that would work? Maybe it would go like this…
“Sweetie, you’ll never guess what I got you this year for Valentines Day!”
“OH! I’m so excited! What is it my dearest?”
“Are you sitting down? I bought you an abortion! Isn’t it great?!”
“AAAHHH! You are SOOO sweet! You knew that little parasite that started growing inside of me after we had pre-marital, un-protected, lust-driven sex was going to hamper my hedonistic desire for consequence-free pleasure, didn’t you? I knew you cared.”
“Hey! Don’t mention it! There’s a lot more where that came from. So, once you survive having that blob of non-human cells ripped out of your uterus, let’s forget all about all that free contraception we’re being offered, and just go for it! What do you say?”
“You really know how to treat a woman, don’t you?”
God help us! Have mercy on us!
Lord in heaven, open Cecile Richards’ eyes to the murderous lunacy that is her idiotic suggestion!
Wouldn’t a box of chocolates and a dozen roses be a much better idea?
Right now I am sitting in the office of the Ringgold Wedding Chapel, just hanging out, so to speak.
I’m here, today, to officiate 3 weddings, but in one wedding that is about to take place the family brought their own minister.
I don’t feel like going and watching a wedding just for the fun of it, and I don’t want to sneak over and steal any food from the reception hall while the bride and groom are otherwise distracted. So, like I said, I’m just hanging out for a little while.
What a perfect time to stir up a theological stink, right?
We should be thanking God for the surging tide of pro-life sentiment sweeping much of our nation right now! I firmly believe that the killing of infants in the womb is murder, for I believe that each and every fetus is an actual human being, regardless whether or not they vote for Republicans or Democrats.
But all this talk about abortion, the right to life, and millions of babies has brought back to mind a conversation I read years ago on a Calvinistic website (Monergism.com). It was just one of several “conversations” that eventually pushed me from Calvinism and helped define my theological stance as that of “provisionist”
The conversation was between two pastors and the subject was the funeral for an infant.
The first pastor discussed how challenging it had been to preach the funeral for a child, just a baby of less than a year old. He went on to say that the only thing he could do to help the grieving parents cope with the loss was to reassure them that one day, some day, they would be reunited with their child in heaven (since both parents were believers).
The second pastor, however, brutally chastised the first pastor for giving the parents of the dead child a false hope! Yes, he rebuked the first pastor for telling the parents they would one day see their child again because – now get this – he had no way of knowing if the deceased baby was “one of the elect.”
The second pastor said a better thing to have told the parents would have been the truth…that if the baby had been one of the “elect” they would see him again, but there’s no way to know till we get to heaven.
I still remember the burning indignation that welled up within me as I read that. With my face flush, I hammered out on the keyboard something akin to the following: “If I had been one of those parents, and you had told me that about my child, I would have given you the opportunity to go see where my baby went.”
Where Do They Go?
But, let’s be honest, what else is the reasonable conclusion to the Calvinist position on this subject? Are all babies who die too early to have accepted Christ (including those murdered in the womb) members of the “elect,” or is there the possibility that some were predestined to salvation and others were predestined to damnation? Even though some of you Calvinist friends of mine might not believe in “double predestination,” what is your answer to this?
Are we going to accept the proposition that God, the one who said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” is the same God who would, for His own pleasure, doom any number of consciousless infants to an eternity in hell? Is that EVEN a possibility within your theological systematic?
You may use the comment section to calmly and kindly discuss.