The stem cell debate is dead

Dr. Oz, featured on Oprah, declared "the stem cell debate is dead". He said the problem with embryonic stem cells is "they are very hard to control and they can become cancer". Ironically, he said all this with the poster boy for embryonic stem cell research, Michael J. Fox, sitting right beside him.

Instead, adult stem cell research has made ten-years worth advancement in the last year and adult stem cells are now more viable then embryonic stem cells ever were. My heart breaks at the unborn humans lost in the wake of this debate, and more so over the devaluing of all such life that lies behind this debate. I rejoice at the turn of events away from embryonic stem cell research, and regret only that it did not come from a change of heart and point of view about the humanity of the unborn.

Watch the short (1:41) video here.

Comparisons between abortion and slavery?

Below is a thought by Kevin DeYoung on the similarities between the pro-slavery and pro-abortion arguments:

"The connections with the pro-slavery argument and the pro-abortion argument should be obvious. Both argue for choice. Both, at least in their more civilized forms, pretend moral neutrality. And both rely for their inner logic on strikingly similar propositions: blacks are not human persons with unalienable rights; and neither are the unborn. To quote from Lincoln's 1864 speech in Baltimore with only a slight tweak, substituting 'choice' for 'liberty':

---

We all declare for choice; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word choice may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. While with others the same word may mean for some men [and women] to do as they please with others, and with other men's labors. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name--choice. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names--choice and tyranny.

---

clipped from www.desiringgod.org

We should seek to stigmatize abortion by associating it with racism as closely as the truth warrants.

People today don’t oppose the enslavement of blacks merely because they think it's wrong.

It's easy to oppose it because to do so is fashionable.

That’s a good thing. It always helps when the right thing happens to be P.C.

So let’s be wise in showing the way abortion is closer to racism and slavery than people see.

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857 held that black slaves were property without rights as persons, yet today we view that as unthinkable. So the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973) held that the unborn did not have rights as persons, yet we should hope and work that the day may come when that too is viewed as unthinkable.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 black people were lynched in America. Today more black babies are killed by white abortionists every three days than all who were lynched in those years (L.E.A.R.N.).

An evangelical's plea: "Love the sinner"

I was thrilled last week to find a conservative Christian addressing the issue of homosexuality on the Opinion page of the USA Today. Jonathan Merritt dealt with the topic in what I felt was an even-handed and biblical manner. You can read the entire piece here, but I wanted to share some of the high points.

---

Evangelical opposition to anything even remotely concerning "the homosexual agenda" has often been vitriolic and unbalanced by a message of love for our gay neighbors. Thus, it is understandable that people have incredibly negative perceptions of Christians . . . It is time for evangelical Christians to reform our rhetoric. This means doing away with cliches such as the infamous "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

---

I have been continually vocal about how I feel Christianity has mishandled the the issue of homosexuality. It is not that I am simply concerned with how Christians are perceived. Rather, I am specifically concerned when that perception is a far cry from what the Bible calls us to. I am under no delusions that Christians will ever be held in the highest of public opinion. But it grieves me to no end when that image is due to unbiblical attitudes, words, or behavior. Certain outspoken groups and individuals, with their heavy-handed and extrabiblical anti-gay rhetoric, have out-shouted the quiet love of the Christians being the hands and feet of Jesus (at least as far as public opinion reflects). As the author points out, "these groups seemingly fail to realize that our role as Christians is not to delegitimize the existence of those who do not share our beliefs".

While I was impressed with Jonathan Merritt's concessions at our shortfalls, I was even prouder that he was not willing to fudge on the clear lines that the Bible lays out.

---

Our biblical convictions prohibit a redefinition of marriage . . . Though I unashamedly believe that God desires a better path for their lives, I also understand that my obligation to love them is not dependent upon their capitulation to a particular belief system.

---

Love the homosexual and obey the Bible (which includes the mandate to love the homosexual). This is the balancing act that is increasingly placed before the Christian, not only in the eye of the public, but in the political and legal arenas as well. For many, Christians will certainly continue to be close-minded bigots until we are accepting the openly homosexual as leaders in our churches and performing their marriages. To put up any resistance is colored as hate. But the legislation proposed has significant implications on the freedom of our churches and our ability to practice biblical Christianity (see examples 1, 2, and 3).

While I don't claim to have all the answers, I am glad the discussion is taking place. I come to the same conclusion as Merritt:

---

God's model is a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union, but we must balance this message with the scriptural understanding that we are all sinners. Individuals who have decided to follow Christ have not ceased to be sinners; we are simply sinners who have taken advantage of God's gracious gift of salvation.

---

Not just scaremongering

From an article by Maggie Gallagher over at townhall.com: The widely respected UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who favors same-sex marriage, took time out to acknowledge that the religious liberty implications of same-sex marriage are not "scaremongering."

---

"It seems to me plausible that judicial decisions banning opposite-sex-only marriage rules would likewise come to be extended -- by legislatures or by courts -- to go beyond their literal boundaries (a decision about government discrimination) and instead to justify bans on private discrimination," Volokh wrote. "It seems quite likely that they will spill over into diminishing any constitutional (or Religious Freedom Restoration Act-statutory) claims to engage in such discrimination by private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities and other institutions."

---

Thanks to Melinda over at Stand to Reason for the original post.

Jesus is the Way, the Gate, and the Shepherd

Jesus is pretty popular today. I mean, if you were to ask a dozen people how they felt about Jesus, I doubt one of them would have a bad thing to say (to your face, at least). The thing about this popularity is, I don't think it's the real Jesus that's the popular one. I think there's a new postmodern pseudo-Jesus, a quasi-Jesus who's just a good teacher and proponent of ideals that the postmodernist strives for.

Decidedly less popular today is the idea that salvation is exclusive, that it is solely through Christ that we can come to God. This seems to be the climate that Rob Bell is reacting to in Velvet Elvis:

---

As a Christian, I am simply trying to orient myself around living a particular kind of way, the kind of way that Jesus taught is possible. And I think that the way of Jesus is the best possible way to live . . . Jesus at one point claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life". Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality.

---

Ah, how diplomatic. Just a little equivocal. Fortunately—or unfortunately, depending on how you feel about Jesus—he was not this ambiguous. In fact, Jesus concluded his proclamation of being the Way/Truth/Life by saying "no one comes to the Father but through me". It's strange that Jesus says the way is through him, rather than with him, or following behind him. It's almost as if Jesus considered himself as more than just a life-model, more than just an ideal to be pursued.

And because Jesus was so unambiguous, he was clear about what he did consider himself to be. The very same author who recorded Jesus saying he was "the way" also recorded another proclamation Jesus made about himself. In John 10, Jesus says he is the shepherd, and "he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice". Now this certainly sounds more like it! A Jesus we can listen to and follow. This sounds like the life-model/ideal that we're all comfortable with.

Unfortunately, his hearers "did not understand what he was telling them", so he had to expound what he meant—and ruined our paradigm in the process. Jesus said, "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved". There's that word again: through. So Jesus is not simply the model for a Christian life, he is the means into a Christian life. And how is this done? Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep". And in plain language in the following chapter Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies".

So Jesus is the way to be walked, the gate to be passed through, and the shepherd who guards the way and opens the gate. If you're anything like me, this seems really small-minded, really narrow. Which should be a clue that we're on to something: "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".

Stem-Cell Research and Its Slippery Slope

Earlier this week, President Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of stem-cell research using destroyed human embryos. Already science has its eyes on a longer leash. Oxford University stem cell expert Professor Sir Richard Gardner has proposed that destroyed human fetuses from abortions be used for organ transplants, stating that "if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs". An article from Slate online draws out the connection like this:

---

Two arguments have persuaded the United States to fund stem-cell research using destroyed embryos. One is that the research will save lives. The other is that the embryos, left over from fertility treatments, will otherwise be wasted. Both arguments are now being applied to fetuses.

---

We now are seeing a very real supply-and-demand scenario surrounding abortions. Five years ago, this sort of scenario was being called a "slippery slope" argument, an argument that was far-fetched and ridiculous and did not necessarily follow from stem-cell research and the abortion industry in our country. And yet here we are today, staring this horror in the face.

If these fetuses are unwanted and will be wasted anyway, why not use them for scientific research and humanistic purposes? If these are sub-human beings anyway, what is keeping us from using them any way we want to make us healthier and happier and furthering the human race? Are you hearing what I'm saying? Are you making the connection? We have an American holocaust on our hands. We are no longer killing them just because they're unwanted. We are killing them because science can use them for our benefit. God save us.

Judge not . . .

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5

Matthew 7:1 is perhaps one of the best known and oft used (and misused) Bible verses to end a conversation about spiritual things and objective truth (by both Christian and non-Christian alike). It's particularly popular in situations where morality is the topic. However, one of my favorite podcasters, Gregory Koukl, deals with this passage at length in his latest book, Tactics.

---

A closer look at the facts of the context shows that Jesus did not condemn all judgements, only hypocritical ones—arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension . . . In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually encourages a different sort of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with . . . There are two other kinds of judging that are commanded in Scripture. Judgments that are judicial in nature are good when done by the proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That's their job. Church discipline is of this sort . . . Judgments that are assessments—appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational—are also commanded . . . A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance—all are judgments. Only the third is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings and therefore commanded by Scripture.

---

This very topic came up recently in my community group, and on our drive home my wife and I discussed how a Christian should handle such situations surrounding morality. The following is my formula that grew out of that conversation. Note: I am using the word "judgment", but just as Greg did, you could substitute "assessment" or "appraisal" if the j-word makes you uncomfortable. And please reserve your protests and push-back until you read the last step.

Make a judgment on the sin. Is this a blatant sin according to the Bible? Or is this a gray area that you may be wrongly imposing on others? Was it a public sin? Who was affected by it? Who was involved in it?

Make a judgment on the person. Is this person a Christian? This is perhaps the most important question we can ask before we respond in any situation. 1 Corinthians tells us we are not called to judge the world. Are they old enough to understand what they're doing? Are they a member of a church?

Make a judgment on the situation. What is your relationship to this person? Spouse? Parent? Friend? Co-worker? Stranger? Your response must be different given your relationship. Are they a member of your church? If not, what is the climate of their spiritual community (church or other)?

Respond in love. I considered making this final step "Love them." but I think too many people are already inclined to not do anything. I believe love requires action (and more often than not, words) when sin is involved. Most people understand this when it comes to our children; we instruct and correct. However, I believe love would dictate doing or saying something in most relationships when confronted with a damaging sin (and really, is there any other kind?). Granted we do not have the same authority that we do in a parent-child relationship, but if your relationship is close enough, you have "earned" some authority to speak love and correction into their lives.

I know there are other questions I did not think of that may be applicable, and I know some of you may have some push-back. So I would love some responses to this, and this will be a working post.