One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked:”If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn’t question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?” I knew the only possible answer without a moment’s thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster.

C. S. Lewis, from God in the Dock:

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are quite reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge; if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the bench and God is in the dock.

The following quoted sections are taken from Frank Beckwith’s book, Politically Correct Death (pages 46-47). Where he is quoting other sources, I’ve made that distinct by putting it in italics and noted the authors. Dilation and Curettage (D&C)

The techniques used most often to end early pregnancies [between 7 and 12 weeks] is called D & C or dilation and curettage. In the procedure, usually before the twelfth or thirteenth week of pregnancy, the uterus is approached through the vagina. The cervix is stretched to permit the insertion of a curette, a tiny hoelike instrument. The surgeon then scrapes the wall of the uterus, cutting the baby’s body to pieces and scarping the placenta from its attachments on the uterine wall. Bleeding is considerable. (C. Everett Coop, M.D., & Francsis Schaeffer in Whatever Happened to the Human Race?)

In order to insure that the aborted woman does not bleed after the abortion procedure or get an infection, the operating nurse reassembles the unborn’s parts to make sure the woman’s uterus has been emptied. (This may also take place after D & E abortions.)

Suction Abortion

A method used as an alternative to D & C during the same period of pregnancy is the suction abortion: The principle is the same as in the D & C. A powerful suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the uterus. This tears apart the body and the placenta, sucking the pieces into a jar. The smaller parts of the body are recognizable as arms, legs, head, and so on. More than two-thirds of all abortions performed in the United States and Canada apparently are done by this method. (Coop & Schaeffer)

Saline Abortion

Saline abortion or “salting out” is a method used in later pregnancy when either suction abortion or D & C might result in too much bleeding for the pregnant woman.

This method s usually carried out after sixteen weeks of pregnancy, when enough amniotic fluid has accumulated in the sac around the body. A long needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen directly into the sac, and a solution of concentrated salt is injected into the amniotic fluid. The salt solution is absorbed both through the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract, producing changes in the osmotic pressure. The outer layer of skin is burned off by the high concentration of salt. It takes about an hour to kill the baby by this slow method. The mother usually goes into labor about a day later and delivers a dead, shriveled baby. (Coop & Schaeffer)

Hysterectomy

If a woman chooses an abortion when it is too late to accomplish it by saline, suction, D & C, or D & E, doctors may employ a technique known as a hysterectomy, though this method is rarely used today because of the increased risk to the patient (though it is a legal procedure).

A hysterectomy is exactly the same as a Cesarian section with one difference—in a Cessarian section the operation is usually performed to save the life of the baby, whereas a hysterectomy is performed to kill the baby. These babies look very much like other babies except that they are small and weigh, for example, about two pounds at the end of a twenty-four week pregnancy. They are truly alive, but they are allowed to die through neglect or sometimes killed by direct act. (Coop & Schaeffer)

Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)

Used between 12 and 24 weeks. Here… the child is cut to pieces by a sharp knife [or a pliers-like instrument], as in D & C, only it is a much larger and far more developed child, weighing as much as a pound, and measuring as much as a foot in length. (Schwartz, The Moral Question of Abortion)

Prostaglandin

Performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy, prostaglandin abortions involve the “uses of chemicals… The hormone-like compounds are injected or otherwise applied to the muscles of the uterus, causing it to contract intensely, thereby pushing out the developing baby. Babies have been decapitated during these abnormal contractions. Many have been born alive.” (Greg Bergel, When You Were Formed in Secret)

(End Beckwith)

Partial Birth Abortion

The last method we’ll see described is partial birth abortion, or D & X. The following is an except from a Stand to Reason article, which you should read in its entirety.

I refer now to a description from Dr. Martin Haskell’s own instruction manual, “Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion.” It was included in presentation materials of the National Abortion Federation (notice this is a powerful, pro-abortion organization), entitled “Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle,” pages 30-31. This material was distributed at the NAF Fall Risk Management Seminar, held September 13-14, 1992, in Dallas, Texas.

The surgeon introduces a large grasping forceps, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus…. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing aversion of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina….

With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

The skull lodges at the internal cervical [opening]….The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and ‘hooks’ the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down)….

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

…The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

This post isn’t about Savage. Commentaries about him are readily available. I want to note the reaction against the students that left his talk. Note that this was a journalism conference where he launched into a tirade against all the “bull sh**” in the Bible. Offended students, ones that had no reason to expect such treatment, walked out quietly, quickly, and peacefully. It offends them; they left.

Now, let’s consider a recent talk Douglas Wilson gave at Indiana University. From the description (you should watch all 3 videos in their entirety):

Douglas Wilson, of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, was invited to Indiana University by Clearnote Church to talk about sexuality from a Biblical perspective. Bloomington Indiana is home to the Kinsey Institute, started by Alfred Kinsey who is famous for his experiments in sexuality. The videos below are the full lectures, as well as the very long Q&A that followed. A large crowd of “dissenters” gathered to demonstrate their disapproval of Wilson’s message in word in action.

It wasn’t a secret what Wilson would speak about, though as I’ll note below, what he actually did say is still a mystery to many present. This was a voluntary lecture that had an established topic. What did the mature student body of the university do? They demonstrated all the maturity of my three year old throwing a tempter tantrum.

Calm the entire time, Wilson gave his 2 talks and endured a 2 hour Q&A session full of students screaming, interupting, organizing chants, shouting him down, interuptions, messing with the lights, holding signs, F-You bombing, libeling him as a racist, and all other mature and dignified demonstrations of what Wilson called the tolerance buzzsaw.

Wilson rightly noted that the tolerance lobby has 2 fundamental principles. First, an absolute adherence to the right of free speech (you can see how they use that by reading the previous paragraph), and second, to anyone that disagrees with them—shut up! When offended at the content of a lecture that was known, that they voluntarily attended, these students were not willing to just leave, as the journalism students were. No, they had to make sure no one else could listen, either.

Now, why the difference in reaction? This isn’t isolated. Christians, conservatives (religious or political) are routinely subjected to such tolerant treatment by liberals (religious or liberal), yet the inverse is almost unheard of. Dan Savage isn’t shouted down by Christians. Pro-homosexual advocates (and apostates) like Matthew Vines are permitted a voice, no matter how ridiculous or wrong the message is. Conservatives just don’t behave like this—we don’t chant people down, we don’t throw paint on people, we just don’t. Well, perhaps a few that would consider themselves conservative like the WBC do ridiculous things like this—but we loath their behavior, too.

Why the difference? I would posit that it’s because that the Bible’s diagnosis of the human condition is accurate. Man is a beautiful creation, being capable of such wonderful and grand creations and actions. And yet, something is wrong. We’re capable of the worst and most ugly things as well. We’re fallen and broken. By nature we loathe our creator, and we despise both anyone that might hold and authority over us and, most of all, we hate those that show us own sin. And when God removes his restraining power on us, when he gives us over to be consumed by our sin, ugliness, not beauty results. Consider the description given by Paul in Romans 1:18–32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

And how does one not see this played out, not just broadly in the world, but especially in the pro-homosexual lobby? It’s a lobby that wants not equal rights, but super rights: the right not to be criticized, the right not to be convicted of their own sins. The reaction of the students above to Wilson looks a lot like those in Genesis 19:9, changing him saying, “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”

He was almost always smart, funny, and interesting even when he was wrong.

I think this is just right. He was all those things and, in contrast to the other atheist horsenmen, likable. Unfortunately, his showmanship, bravado, English-accent, and astute observations in some areas of life gave his works and writings on all things metaphysical and religious, an undeserved reputation as an authority figure. Frankly, he really had no standing on which to argue as he did. As Feser continues:

[On religion, Hitchens] was a complete bore and an insufferable hack… Religion is the last subject about which to have a tin ear or a closed mind, and Hitchens had both.

Because people have already said so much and so well, I think I’ll be better served to just allow the others that have already said anything I might. I will say this however: Hitchens’s death was not a tragedy. The same thing said back when Michael Jackson died is applicable here, too: His life was the tragedy.

This was a man with such a mind, such gifts of communication and oratory, such a position to influence and affect so many people, yet used his gifts to slander, shock, belittle, and mock good people—a man that used all his talents to ultimately stand with a clenched fist at the God that gave him such things (a God whom he both disbelieved in and yet still hated)—was not a man whom one would hope to emulate, and certainly was not a man we should praise. His was a life poorly lived, and on his death, we should lament his lifelong rejection of the only hope one has in this life or the next: Jesus Christ.

Also read the thoughts by:
Doug Wilson
Peter Hitchens

That I have a conviction about my faith isn’t evidence that it’s true, and that I may or not behave better because of my faith is not either. At best, this argues for pluralism, for any of us that’s talked with their local LDS missionaries knows, each one has a testimony, and often quite sincere and heartfelt. What’s more, the LDS missionaries seem much more committed to their faith, at least in the willingness to evangelize and make personal sacrifices than a lot of evangelical Christendom. If we’re going to compare personal right-living, a lot of us are going to lose that fight.

But this isn’t the worst of it. The worst of it is that our testimony to unbelievers is often this:

I used to live like garbage. I used to ____, _____, _____, and especially _______. Now I do not. Sure, Im not perfect, but I am better and happier than I was back then. And you can have this, too!

But again, lots of religions offer this changed life. Even worse though, is that this is not what someone should become a Christian. Happiness, contentment, etcetera, are not reasons to convert to Christianity. Despite what the 700 club might had you believe, genuine conviction often (not always, but often) makes one’s life harder, it makes it worse, it makes it less happy.

You do realize we have a whole book dedicated to lamenting, right? This whole, “Hey, it’s worked for me, it can work for you too!” is nothing better than the pop-wanna-be “Your best smile now” Christianity. Frankly, it’s a lie. It won’t work for some people.

The only reason to become a Christian is because it’s true, because Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind him an empty tomb, taking on himself the punishment due others that they might have life. It’s not about us.

Before the family was to set sail, urgent business arose and Horatio had to delay his departure, but instead sent his family on and he would meet them when he could. So Anna, his wife, and his four daughters set out on their voyage across the Atlantic.

Nine days later, Horatio received a telegram from Anna who had arrived in Wales. It read, “Saved alone.” On November second, their ship had colided with another, sinking in a mere 12 minutes. Anna stood on the deck with her daughters at her side, where one by one they were ripped from her side by the rushing water. She alone was saved as a floating plank propped up her unconscious body.

On hearing the news, Horatio boarded the next ship bound for England. While sailing, the captain alerted Horatio, noting to him as they passed the place where his four daughters were drowned. He returned to his cabin and wrote the following hymn,1

It Is Well With my Soul When peace, like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul! It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul. And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul. It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Certainly, Horatio’s soul wasn’t leaping with joy. Following years is hardship, the remainder of his living children were taken from him, and he wrote this hymn at the very spot where there bodies layed. But this hymn is not about his feelings or his emotions. More on this in a bit.

In October 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Thanksgiving.2 Note that the civil war did not end until 1865. 1863 was square in the middle of one of the ugliest wars America had ever known. 1863 was not a happy time. I urge you to read it in its entirety, but to save your eyes, note this excerpt, especially in light of the history we noted,

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict… They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens….

This is qute in keeping with Thanksgiving and the statements issued by the office of the presidency. In 1789, George Washington made a similar proclamation, though after a war had ravaged the new America for over a decade. Washington said,3 (also, consider reading the whole thing)

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Two presidents, one in the middle of a war and one coming out of one paused to give thanks (and also called the nation to repent of their trangressions) to the God whom made all things possible, and even in light of suffering, to be thankful for that which they had. I find that attitude remarkable.

I’m encouraged by the example set by Horation above. He penned his famous words, “it is well with my soul,” during the darkest time in his life. How could he say such a thing? I said above that, obviously, he was not speaking of his feelings. Draw your attention to the second verse after the chorus. He says that, though trials should come, to consider the assurance that comes to even one such as he in his sad state: that Christ has shed His own blood for his soul. The state of Horatio’s soul was well, not because it was filled with joy, but because by the objective saving work of God, it was secure. His hope was in the Gospel.

1 John 4:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

A man had a question. “What does it mean that the Lord wishes that none should perish, but that all should be saved?” If God wants all people to be saved, won’t they be? Is not God sovereign. Does God not get what God wants?

What does “all” mean? To answer this question, the preacher looked to the his Bible. But the question came from reading the Bible. What to do? Maybe if he read it in Greek? Well he doesn’t know Greek. He does, however, know Pig Latin! Latin and Pig Latin must have a similar language structure, so it’s almost like knowing Latin, and since Catholics do something or other in Latin, this must be useful. And anyway, Latin and Greek must be pretty similar. So the man looked at his Pig Latin translation.

Ethay Ordlay isway otnay owslay otay ulfillfay ishay omisepray asway omesay ountcay ownessslay, utbay isway atientpay owardtay ouyay, otnay ishingway atthay anyway ouldshay erishpay, utbay atthay allway ouldshay eachray epentanceray.

Hmmm. “Allway.” That doesn’t ring a bell. The man thought you moved the last syllable to the front and added an “a” at the end, right? Shouldn’t it be “Lla-a?” To make it shorter, drop the dupliate letters and it becomes “la.” Now he’s getting somewhere. “La!” Besides, nothing starts with “lla” but llama, and he never saw llamas in the New Testament so the context tells him that consolidation was the right move. Besides, didn’t they drop vowels in Hebrew, too?

La. A note to follow so. Julie Andrews… who was in New Year’s Eve with Robert DeNiro who was in Sleepers with Kevin Bacon. #winning

Okay, that got out of hand. No really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePxbFQ-qfw

But the point I want to make is this, theology is dangerous, especially in small doses. Bible study is dangerous is small doses. What we don’t want to do is start by picking up some words or themes from the text, from scholars, from theologians, get a base definition of what this or that doctrine is and then run with it in any direction we choose, thinking we know what we’re talking about. But hear me, I don’t mean theology isn’t for everybody, or that study isn’t for everyone; it is.

The Christian creeds, the doctrines of the faith have a lot of work and though and labor put into refining them to specific understandings, and though reading scholars, in studying the creeds, etc., can lead us to a much fuller understanding of Scriptures by uniting themes and concepts and truths we might have misses, or misunderstood.

For example, trinity is not in the Bible, at least the word is not. But the concept is there. So when someone uses the word trinity to describe God, they are not using a “Bible word,” but they are using a biblical idea. But trinity means something specific. If left at face value, we get people, often well meaning, that come up with various analogies that attempt to explain it to others that oftendo a much better job of describing rejected Christian heresies and not orthodox Christian doctrine. (e.g. an egg: shell, yolk, and white; a man: husband ,father, and son, etc.) As a consequence we end up teaching falsely about God.

We ought not learn the spelling of a few big words and then think we’re capable of teaching difficult concepts. I’ll give an example of this in an upcoming post.

If for no other reason, Tolkien’s close proximity to other intriguing figures and groups is enough to give a Horne’s book a read, though not the only reason. Tolkein lived in a very interesting time, WWI through WWII periods, and influenced and was influenced by some very fascinating people (C. S. Lewis, etc.). Horne goes into more detail in the relationship with Lewis than he does in the like of Tolkien’s wife Edith. My favorite quote from Horne notes an early meeting between the pair where he says,

Lewis wasn’t too impressed at the time. He said later that he had been taught by his Protestant family and then his English literature professors never to trust a papist or a philologist. Tolkien was doubly suspect to him.

I’ve not read anything else about the life of Tolkien, but only heard tales of parts of his life anecdotally (and I suppose some elements in the lengthy LotR preface that describes the laborious process of publishing the book(s)), and on even that note, Horne does a wonderful job elaborating on just how coplex that process actually was, both form Tolkien’s obsession with perfection and with the difficult task of publishing such a lengthy novel in general.

*Note: I recieved a “reviewer’s copy of this from BookSneeze.com (my first review book ever!). All the thoughts are my own and given under no obligation for favorable reviews. I’d consider checking them out for yourself!