REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND WRONGS By Andy Diestelkamp (continued from THINK page 1)
In 1981 our government held hearings on the issue of when life begins. The overwhelming testimony of the doctors and geneticists summoned was that life begins at conception. Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris said, "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at Mayo Clinic said, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception" (Rites of Life, Landrum Shettles, 1983, pp. 113, 114).All we have learned scientifically in the last twenty-five years has further substantiated these
opinions. Nevertheless, abortion has continued unabated. The methods of killing have expanded on both ends of the conception to birth process. From the "morning-after pills" (which are intended to prevent implantation of the newly conceived baby into the womb) to the grisly "partial-birth abortion" (which involves delivering the baby half way and stabbing "it" at the base and back of the head), man has not lacked for invention in disposing of inconvenient lives.
Some have suggested that methods which prevent implantation should not be considered abortive. Indeed, there is currently legislation being proposed in Virginia which states, "Birth control shall not be considered abortion" (Associated Press, 1/19/07). The "right" to birth control has become so ingrained in our culture that even Christians are quite careless and undiscerning about the methods used. The truth is that abortion is a form of birth control.
While there is liberty in whether or not one chooses to conceive, let us not think we can label any method as "birth control" and it, therefore, be moral. Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa), an avowed opponent of abortion, is an example of falling into this trap in his support of the "morning-after pill." Kimberly Hefling (reporting for the Associated Press, 1/23/07) concluded her article about Casey by saying, "He said he supported the morning-after pill because he believed it was contraception, and was one way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies." If it is called contraception, even those who oppose abortion may support it.
Brethren, contraceptive methods which make the womb inhospitable to implantation should not be employed by those who value life from conception. Hefling's article concluded by saying, "The [morning-after] pill is a high dose of the most common ingredient in regular birth-control pills that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the chance of preganancy by up to 89 percent."
The truth is, all hormonal methods of birth control--including the shots, implants, patches, and the regular pill*--depend, in part, upon creating an inhospitable womb in order to have such a high "success rate." Some rationalize that an inhospitable womb as a result of taking the pill is just an unintended side affect (and therefore carries no moral culpability). Perhaps such naive reasoning will salve the consciences of some, but the conscientious lover of life will not take such risks merely for the convenience of "family planning."
*Note: For more information about how the Pill can cause abortion, click here.
ANDY DIESTELKAMP
323 E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, Illinois 61764
Email: adiestel@verizon.net
Return to THINK page 1.
WHEN WILL THESE THINGS BE? By Andy Diestelkamp (continued from THINK page 1)
Jesus was likely seated facing the city in quietness when Peter, James, John, and Andrew approached Him privately (Mk. 13:3). This was the inner circle of Jesus' disciples; they wanted to know more, to understand. "When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" (Mk. 13:4). The answer that Jesus gave them has been the source of much controversy because of a failure to understand the question He was asked. Notice that I said, "question" singular. Yes, it is a two-part question, as Luke also records (Lk. 21:7); but the question is when will this destruction take place.In an attempt to harmonize the three gospel accounts of this question, some have imagined as many as four questions being asked with the additional questions coming from Matthew's record (Matt. 24:3). Thus, it is asserted, that one question is about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, one about the signs preceding the destruction, one about the sign preceding His final coming, and one about the end of the world. Yet it should be apparent that these relatively ignorant men who were struggling to grasp even the idea of Jesus' death and the destruction of Jerusalem did not have enough acumen among the twelve of them to ask anything about a "second coming."
It is more reasonable to understand their question about the sign of His coming (Matt. 24:3) to be identical to the question about the sign of when "these things" (Mk. 13:4; Lk. 21:7) were about to take place. Similarly, the question about the end of the world was not about the end of the planet, but the end of their Jewish world as they knew it. Thus "the end" corresponds to "when all these things are going to be fulfilled" (Mk. 13:4).
Jesus first answers the second part of their question by giving them many signs which would preceed "these things." Conflicts would increase and persecutions would intensify (Mk. 13:5-13). Eventually
Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies (Lk. 21:20). The description of turmoil in the heavens (Matt. 24:29) is like the figures used by the prophets of old to describe the fall of the human powers that were coming under divine judgment (Isa. 13:1,6-10,13,17-19; Joel 2:28-32).
The beginning of these signs were like the contractions of a pregnant woman (Matt. 24:8). The event was not imminent, but would come in a realtively short time. However, when people saw Jerusalem surrounded, they were to flee from Judea to the mountains (Lk. 21:21). It is then that many would comprehend that the One who had chastised the daughters of Jerusalem to not weep for Him but for themselves and their children (Lk. 23:28-31) was coming in judgment (Lk. 21:27). The desolation of Jerusalem was at hand, and the redemption of those who had endured her persecutions was near (cf. Matt. 23:37,38). No remnant of God would be found in that forsaken city; instead the chosen people of God would be gathered from all over the world (Matt. 24:31).
Jesus' parable of the fig tree illustrated what He meant by all these signs. Just as men observe a tree putting forth its leaves and understand that summer time is near, so they --when they saw these signs --would know Jerusalem's desolation was near. As Amos' basket of summer fruit meant Israel of old was ripe for picking (Amos 8:1,2), so it would be for Jerusalem.
To the first part of the disciples' question about specifically when these things would take place, Jesus gave a partial answer because it was all He knew. All three gospel accounts have the identical answer, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Jesus was not speaking about two different events any more than the disciples were asking about two different events.
There is no reason to assume that the passing away of "heaven and earth" in Matthew 24:35 is any different than that which is described in Matthew 24:29,30. His point is that "heaven and earth" would pass away before that generation passed away and that His words would never pass away. Jesus knew that the destruction of Jerusalem would take place relatively soon (within the lifetime of at least some of those to whom He was speaking), but He did not know the day or the hour of that event (Matt. 24:36).
Unfortunately, many today (like the first century Jews) believe that the Messiah's kingdom is physical and, therefore, misunderstand Jesus' words in their context. They entirely miss Jesus' answer to His disciples. God is finished with physical Jerusalem. It is no longer part of His plan. Jerusalem has passed away, as has the generation that crucified Jesus. Yet, His words will never pass away, demonstrating that He rules now as King of kings.
ANDY DIESTELKAMP
323 E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, Illinois 61764
Email: adiestel@verizon.net
Return to THINK page 1.
DEFENDING NON-CHURCH COLLECTIVITIES By Al Diestelkamp (continued from THINK page 1)
From the foregoing you can easily see that some of these brethren would include Think in the unauthorized category, and others would not. Some have specifically given an exception to Think because it is a family publication. I appreciate the gracious offer, but in reality this publication would have gone "belly up" long ago had it not been for our long list of "Voluntary Partners" who have financed a work that is beyond our family's ability.I have sometimes wondered if the criteria used to determine which organizations fit into their category of "unauthorized collectivities" and which do not, is based on their attitude toward the people who run the organizations. I've wondered that when reading what they write in one gospel paper, against another gospel paper.
To respond to the argument against such "collectivities" based on 1 Timothy 3:15, please note that the apostle did not refer to the the local church as the "pillar and ground of the truth." The "house of God" is the universal church. Yes, a local church is to support the truth because it is part of the "house of God," as are individual Christians. Thus, Christians must band together in local congregations, and may band together in other ways to support the truth.
The claim is sometimes made that we have no first century examples of Christians forming collectivities other than local churches to spread the gospel. That simply is not so.
We have an example of the church in Jerusalem sending a letter to the Christians in Antioch in which
they convey teaching (Ac. 15:20). This clearly shows that conveying truth in written form is an authorized work of a local church. If we were to embrace the "no-collectivities" doctrine that would mean that it would be unauthorized for individual Christians to band together to write letters to other brethren. However, many of the New Testament epistles were the result of individual Christians pooling their talents and resources.
I would hope that no one would claim that the New Testament epistles were the work of any local congregation, but of individual Christians. Nine of the 21 epistles, while inspired by the Holy Spirit, were the works of more than one individual Christian.
Paul joined forces with Tertius to write to the Romans (Rom.16:22). Paul authored, and Sosthenes penned, the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:1). Paul and Timothy did the same for the second letter to that church (2 Cor. 1:1), as well as to churches in Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and Colosee (Col. 1:1). The same two worked together to produce the letter to Philemon (Phe. 1:1). Three Christians, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, all participated in the two letters to the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), and Silvanus helped Peter pen the first letter to the "dispersion" (1 Pet. 5:12).
I suspect it will be argued that the foregoing examples "don't count" because inspired men were involved in the teaching, but to me the very fact that they were inspired just strengthens the right of individual Christians to join forces in proclaiming the truth in other collectivities, as well as in local churches.
The fact that some of these non-church collectivities have lectureships that are similar to gospel meetings is a particular sore spot with some brethren. Even though care is taken not to schedule lectures at times which would "compete" with nearby local churches, some question the right of any collectivity other than a local congregation to provide opportunity for worship.
Worship, including collective worship, is not restricted to within the auspices of local churches. Preaching, prayer and singing are forms of worship in which individual Christians, and groups of individual Christians, can engage (Ac. 16:25).
Return to THINK page 1. AL DIESTELKAMP
P.O. Box 891, Cortland, Illinois 60112
Email: al@thinkonthesethings.com
DENYING GOD SECRETLY By Rick Liggin (continued from THINK page 1)
1) A person does not have to overtly and openly deny God to be guilty of denying Him. One can deny the Lord secretly in his heart without ever doing anything openly to suggest that he has denied God. When we longingly look at temporal things and begin to secretly think in our hearts that maybe these things can make us happy and give our lives real purpose, we are taking steps in the direction of denying God.2) Even the slightest move in the direction of putting trust in something else or someone else other than God constitutes paganism and a denial of the true God. Now this may not mean a whole lot to us in a society that traditionally does not literally bow down to images and idols. But when we understand that Job, not only speaks of kissing the sun or moon, but also of putting confidence in wealth and in our ability to secure so much for ourselves (31:24-25), we begin to see the point.
We live in an extremely earthly (worldly) society. Oh, we may not literally bow to idols, but we most certainly devote ourselves to the pursuit of material things and material pleasures. And that makes us just as pagan as the man who throws a kiss to the moon or bows before an idolatrous sun god. And what we need to be acutely aware of is that even though we may consider ourselves to be Christians, and even though we may faithfully worship the true God on a regular basis, when we put (even some of) our confidence in physical pleasure or our material things or our ability to secure wealth, we have in essence denied God. And in denying God in this way, we are just as guilty of "an iniquity calling for judgment" (31:28).
Job's words are sobering, but he knew his own heart--that he'd never been guilty of any of these iniquities. Can you honestly say the same for yourself? Before you answer, you'd better examine yourself--your own heart. You'd better recognize that God knows everything you doeven the things you do secretly in your heart.
RICK LIGGIN
315 Almond Drive, Washington, Illinois 61571
Email: rcliggin@gmail.com
Return to THINK page 1.