Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…”

Debt, Decline, and Dictatorship – what they have in common can be seen from a page of antiquity. Concerning Rome, “Real problems began when the limits of imperial expansion were reached in the second century. With no new territories to loot, the Roman treasury became seriously overstretched, and the emperors resorted to a policy of debauching the currency to fill the gap between falling revenues and rising expenditures. By A.D. 210, the silver content of the previously pure Roman denarius was only 50% of what it had originally been; 60 years later, it was a mere 5%. The inevitable inflation that followed raised the price of a bushel of wheat from ten denarii in A.D. 200 to two million denarii in A.D. 344. As the official Roman currency became increasingly worthless, soldiers refused to be paid in it, and tax collectors refused to accept it in payment of taxes.

This collapse of the financial system led to the adoption of totalitarian solutions by a succession of Roman emperors during the third and fourth centuries.”¹

1. For a detailed analysis of this, see Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, 2^nd ed. (New York: Madison, 2001), 111-128. For a more wide-ranging analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Roman Empire, but reaching similar conclusions, see Paul Johnson, “Cancers of the Ancient World,” in Enemies of Society (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 10-27. Accessed from Kairos 2-25-10 [↩]

One may be led by God to adopt even when becoming pregnant is an option. However, when one contemplates whether to use egg or sperm donors, adoption is always the better choice.

While in vitro fertilization is fine when the sperm and/or egg of the married couple are used, it is morally wrong to use a donor’s egg or sperm. It contributes to a consumerist mentality regarding children with full marketing exploits emphasizing the pedigree of donors. Advertisements for egg donors often list the desirable traits to look for when shopping for an acceptable donor of the best egg or sperm.

Additionally, the child may very well suffer psychologically when he realizes that he only shares the genes of one parent and cannot ever know the other biological parent. It influences young women to see the ability to produce eggs as a marketable talent rather than a sacred ability to contribute equally to the conception of her husband’s and her child in marriage, whom they are to love for life.

Most of all, it introduces a third party into the sacred procreative relationship that God designed and intended to be only between a man and woman who are married to each other.

Adoption does not involve any of these issues since the child is already born, is not biologically related to either adoptive parent, and may know his biological parents. Moreover, adoptions are rescue operations rather than child shopping excursions.

There is much debate about whether we should use torture at times, but I for one do not support the use of torture; however, I do disagree with some regarding what torture IS. Torture cannot mean just the infliction of pain or even pain that would be rightly considered inhumane in other situations. Some interrogative techniques may be considered excessive or torture if employed during peace times to gain quotidian information, or if utilized for minor infractions, or for revenge; however, those same techniques may in fact be the most compassionate techniques to apply during wartimes or anytime when countless innocent lives may be saved by doing so.

When evaluating what constitutes torture, one must consider the following: How can a person who could shoot a terrorist that is running toward a crowded building strapped with a bomb not use waterboarding to get information that can stop a terrorist from doing such? How is it compassionate to refrain from waterboarding if there is a probability of saving innocent lives? To me that is a misdirected compassion.

We are told that practices such as waterboarding do not always result in usable information, but that is simply the fallacy of the tyranny of the perfect; a technique does not have to work perfectly to be a viable option.

I for one want the interrogators to use every method available that is not truly inhumane in order to save innocent people from wanton destruction. Too often our compassion is misdirected toward the prisoner and not the victim, or toward the terrorist but not the terrorist’s target.

Additionally, shouldn’t Christians consider possible spiritual realities? For example, the terrorist should be given a chance to repent, but shouldn’t we also seek to grant that same opportunity to his intended victims?

Enhanced interrogation such as waterboarding helped get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi that aided in finding and killing bin Laden.

Here is a suggested definition: Enhanced interrogation is the measured use of intense techniques that do not violate the following limits, but do allow for the possibility of death in a non-torturous way—this is war.

Here are some suggested guidelines:

1. TORTURE PRINCIPLES
   1. Avoid intentional excessive physical harm
   2. Consider offering repentance opportunities to the terrorist and the terrorized
   3. Avoid intentional permanent physical damage
   4. Use a scale to measure appropriate intensity based upon potential harm and value of information
   5. Use temporary trauma, e.g. waterboarding
   6. Use threat particular to the person without lying. Disinformation is not torture

In the quest to seem with it in our present scientistic milieu, preachers and Christians often pursue fluency regarding the latest polls, statistics and studies more than they do with Scripture and linear thinking. This quest is often characterized by indiscriminate reliance upon and usage of these tools, which actually leads people further from the truth both in their thinking processes and in their conclusions. Although these tools are useful at times, they should be used judiciously and sparingly lest one unwittingly becomes a scientistic myrmidon and by his example lead others to do likewise. The following are some inherent liabilities of such tools:

1. There are always conflicting conclusions between different studies and polls; thus, cherry picking is common.
2. Statistics can be used to demonstrate almost anything by inclusion or omission of certain variables related to the study or poll.
3. One rarely understands how the study or poll was actually done, which can dramatically transform both the study’s certainty and conclusions being presented.
4. Often a conclusion drawn is presented as THE conclusion while it may in fact be only one of the derivable conclusions, or may actually be misleading when other variables are considered.
5. Often these tools are used to demonstrate proof when, even at their best, they can actually only demonstrate varying degrees of probability.
6. The wording of the questions, order of the questions, tone of the questioner, time of the questioning and the pool of the questioned greatly influences the statistical data and conclusions.
7. Double blind studies are rarely used.
8. Fraud, personal agendas, shoddy work, biases and misrepresentation of the data are found repeatedly, and without being privy to the entire process, etc., one cannot detect this.
9. Decisions about what to do and not to do with regard to people, morals, etc., with these tools revamps the way modern man thinks, which is consistent with sole reliance upon science or scientism, but is actually contrary to linear, logical or biblical thinking because all one needs to know is what does the most recent study—experiment—say.
10. Although used to determine what ought to be and what ought not to be, these tools can only tell one what is or is not and can never tell one what should be.

For example, statistics may be used to show how many people are without health insurance, and the truth is that is all the statistics regarding how many have or do not have insurance tells us. Therefore, when politicians start drawing conclusions from such, they may very well be misreading the data or, perish the thought, misrepresenting the truth for their own agenda.

Say that thirty percent do not have insurance. This, in and of itself, does not tell us: how many have chosen not to have insurance, how many have chosen to spend their insurance money on other things, how many are covered through the generosity of hospitals, how many of those would rather be without government intrusion than to have insurance, how many are in transition between insurances, how many have strategically chosen to invest that money elsewhere for the potential future payoff and do not want Obama Care, who have made personal decisions—even religious ones—which led them to be without insurance and do not think others should have to pay, how many have the intention but have not made the choice to spend their money on insurance or are waiting on someone else, how many have made a conscious decision to eliminate their insurance for what they deem to be a worthwhile alternative, ad infinitum!

It is the truth that makes one free, but the present undue reliance of preachers on these fragmentary tools in order to bolster their preaching conclusions may bear short-term fruit, but in the long run may undermine the very truth they passionately desire to communicate because it trains a whole generation to rely upon polls, statistics, and studies with credulous trust. Moreover, there is very little incentive to develop a godly mind through devoted study and digging deeply into the Word of God.

One of the most interesting aspects of England is that one can visit her and vividly relive the past while concomitantly witnessing America’s future if liberal politicians persist in their socialistic quest and our federalized schools persevere in their ahistorical indoctrination of our citizenry, two endeavors that are inextricably connected. Common sense would note that socialism has greatly contributed to the decline of the British Empire and will have the same effect upon America. Yet, despite the evidence, liberals are unrelenting. They are simply undeterred in their demagogical attacks upon anyone who argues that the present path of increased governmental redistribution of wealth is tyrannically immoral. The following are two cogent quotes from Margret Thatcher.

“[P]opular capitalism is on the march . . . Of course, there will always be people who, in the name of morality, sneer at this and call it “materialism.” But isn’t it moral that people should want to improve the material standard of living of their families, by their own effort? Isn’t it moral that families should work for the means to look after their old folk? Isn’t it moral that people should save, so as to be responsible for themselves? . . . And it is for Government to work with that grain in human nature to strengthen the strand of responsibility and independence—it benefits the family—it benefits the children—it is the essence of freedom.”¹

“The socialists have been able to persuade themselves and many others that a free economy based on profit embodies and encourages self-interest, which they see as selfish and bad, whereas they claim socialism is based on and nurtures altruism and selflessness. This is baseless nonsense in theory and in practice.

“There is not and cannot possibly be any hard and fast antithesis between self-interest and care for others, for man is a social creature, born into family, clan, community, nation, brought up in mutual dependence. The founders of our religion made this a cornerstone of morality. The admonition: love thy neighbour as thyself, and do as you would be done by, expresses this. You will note that it does not denigrate self, or elevate love of others above it. On the contrary, it sees concern for self and responsibility for self as something to be expected, and asks only that this be extended to others. This embodies the great truth that self-regard is the root of regard for one’s fellows . . .”²

1. Margaret Thatcher, “Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference” (City Hall, Perth, May 15, 1987), Margaret Thatcher Website, http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106814 (accessed October 26, 2005). [↩]
2. Margaret Thatcher, “Speech to Greater London Young Conservatives” (Caxton Hall, London, July 4, 1977). [↩]

Here is a paper by Toby Harmon presented in the Ethics Round Table. I thought it might be helpful.

(more…)

While debt is not essentially evil, unmanageable debt is, and it makes the borrower a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). Our nation is drowning in unmanageable debt and so are many Americans. The major cause is not merely spending too much or not making enough, all asseverations that it is notwithstanding. Rather the genesis of both national and personal financial meltdowns is spiritual. It is easy to see that it is not merely a problem of numbers, since everyone can add and subtract, and even when spending is cut or income increases, most often this is followed by other financial meltdowns because the core of the problem is spiritual and that has not been addressed.

Consequently, until the spiritual derivation of financial bondage is recognized and acted upon, debt will be America’s taskmaster. The following lays out the spiritual basis of the problem and each requires repentance to start the process of true financial recovery and stability. God loves to forgive sin when true repentance is present. “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)

Your sin may be one of the following, which the Lord will make clear if you will listen.

Are there temptations to overextend, and what may be prompting the temptation?

Greed — wanting more than God has provided you. “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; for this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”  (Ephesians 5:3, 5)

Impatience — believing that God is not providing fast enough. “I wait for the Lord, my soul does wait, And in His word do I hope.” (Psalm 130:5)

Pride — believing you deserve more than God has provided. “When pride comes, then comes dishonor. But with the humble is wisdom.”  “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Proverbs 11:2, 16:8)

Lack of trust — believing God does not really love you or care about you. “Casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.^” (1 Peter 5:7; John 3:16)

Presuming on the grace of God — lack of planning. “The ants are not a strong people, But they prepare their food in the summer.” (Proverbs 30:25)  There are exceptions such as loss of a job, catastrophic health problems or other events, or a long-term uncontrollable drain on resources.

Discontent—tying your happiness to things rather than God. “Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, ‘I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”’ (Hebrews 13:5)

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24)

My new book is now available. If you’re local, stop by the church to pick up a copy.  If not, you can purchase a softcover, hard cover, or electronic edition at many online retailers such as Amazon, Crossbooks, and Barnes & Noble.

The content of this book was first presented in its present form at The Oxford Round Table, Religion and Science Shaping the Modern World, in 2010 at Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, Oxford England.

Science, or its handmaiden “separation of church and state”, is absolutely incapable of establishing or sustaining the liberties spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. Therefore, I present a replacement model for governing Church and State. I call this model the Proportional Accommodation and Appreciation (PAA) model.

This model is constitutionally, morally, and intellectually preferable because it is consistent with most religions, historically demonstrable in the U.S., inherent in the First Amendment, and equally encourages the free expression and participation of religious and non-religious citizens in every facet of society without government mandate or coercion, which engenders a public square characterized by a robust scientific enterprise and unfettered religious expression.

This is in contradistinction to the present Separation model, which expands science beyond its legitimate domanial authority, thereby conflating science and naturalism, which creates a Scientific Liberal Culture (SLC). By restricting public debate, education, and policies to scientific arguments, the Separation model actually suppresses religious expression and participation, diminishes human dignity and rights, and inescapably and unjustifiably elevates science to supreme arbiter of the public domain.

The United States was founded upon the astonishing declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Then the Constitution was drafted in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

(more…)

Dr. Anthony Levatino says, “The toughest part of a D&E [dilation and evacuation] abortion is extracting the baby’s head,” Levatino said. “If you have a really bad day, like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.”¹

He goes on to say, “On June 23, 1984, my son was trying to cross the street, and my daughter, who was always the little mother, was running after him to tell him not to do that, and she was struck and killed by a car. If you haven’t gone through that kind of tragedy, you don’t have a clue. You may think you can imagine it, but trust me: You have no idea what it’s like to lose a child, in any way.”

He then asks, “What do you do after a tragedy? You mourn for a while and you try to get back into your routine. I don’t know how long after her death I had to do my first D&E abortion. I remember reaching in and literally ripping out an arm or a leg and looking at it in the clamp and I got sick. When you start an abortion you can’t stop. If you leave anything behind, you [can] bet your patient is going to come back infected, bleeding or worse….I soldiered on and I finished that abortion.”

Only this time, Levatino said, something had changed. “For the first time in my life I really looked at that pile of goo at the side of the table, and all of a sudden I didn’t see her wonderful right to choose, and I didn’t see the $600 wad of cash that I made in 15 minutes, and I couldn’t think about what a great doctor I was because I took care of her problem. All I could see was somebody’s son or daughter.”

The Hippocratic oath, taken by those about to enter the practice of medicien, swears, “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”

1. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36213 & http://www.kairosjournal.org/news.aspx?QuadrantID=1&L=1  [↩]

The problem of shallow preaching in the pulpit is not the problem. The problem is in the study. The pulpit is a mere reflection of either the depth or lack thereof of what happens in the pastor’s study; for if a man is shallow in his study, he will most assuredly be shallow in his preaching because no man can preach deeper than he has studied. Conversely, if a man studies deeply, it will necessarily be obvious in his preaching for he cannot desire to know and walk deeply with God and desire any less for his flock.