Are You Willing to Die for 2 + 2 = 4?
At The Baby Conference I heard Flip Benhem quote: “There will come a day when you may be imprisoned, or even die, for ’2+2=4′ .”
It was to preface his rally cry to encourage the body of Christ to commit to following truth even when “our very own wicked hearts condemn us”.
Abortion was the topic and he pointed out how easy even the most pro-life of us can get sidetracked in our thinking. He challenged us to answer: “What would you do if Barack Obama said, ‘I’ll pass a law tomorrow to outlaw abortion in the US; only give me those two children without brain stems–those children who will probably die soon–let me take their lives and you could save millions’.”
And we waffle here. Because it seems so logical. But truth is always truth, even in the extremes. We believe that God created those two little boys without brain stems, for His purposes. He will take them home in His time. He has all authority in Heaven over life and death and we do not. “My ways are not your ways, nor are My thoughts your thoughts.”
Flip pointed to a friend of his in the audience who has 16 children. He told of how this family went to stand in the gap for Terry Schiavo when she was being killed. The father was arrested in front of his children as their eyes filled with tears and fear.
“Watch, children”, he said. We are in a battle for life and truth. It’s a battle you will be called to fight too. And if I die in the battle, you trample over my dead carcass and continue to storm the gates of hell”.
I could only sit and think, “Am I preparing my children to be soldiers with that kind of mettle?”
christian living | Word Warrior | 
July 13, 2010 12:01 am
I love that! “…trample over my dead carcass and continue to storm the gates of hell.”
I hear so often people not wanting to “bring children into this evil world” as a reason for not having any or only a few children. But we need new recruits willing to do just that, storm the gates of hell! I’m raising children for God’s army, not to lead a soft, cushy, easy life.
This message seemed to flow into all the biomedical ethics talks as well. There is only one author of life and authority over death.
Then why are you going to doctors at all? If God wants someone to die, why are you saving him?
Simple. “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life.”
Do you really not understand the difference in seeking to promote life and taking life?
What do we see Jesus doing all through the NT? Healing. Never taking life.
I think Leticia is confused, or thinks you’re a Christian Scientist. Surely she’s not saying having an abortion is like going to the doctor for a cold, is she?
Excellent Kelly! We discussed in class a film once, in which a terrorist threatened to kill 50 hostages if the government didn’t release a bigger terrorist. One member of the gov’t said that 50 was a small price to pay, and my reaction was always NO! You don’t sacrifice the innocent to save the innocent.
I think we always have to be on guard. We must compare what we are standing up for against scripture. “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.” Proverbs 16:2
Powerful message… and convicting. Wish I’d of been able to attend. It’s sounds just as good as I knew it would be. I’ll have to pick up the disks when they come out. I did that with the Sufficiency of Scripture conference from last winter and all I can say is, “Wow!.” That was some life changing material being taught there. Thanks for posting your gleanings. I can’t wait to hear more.
Quinn,
You can order the disks here: http://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=1015&url=933
The conference was GREAT! I was in the session about what the church’s response should be to children with disabilities while Kelly was in the session on abortion. It sounds like both of these were seesions we should all listen to and take to heart.
Blessings,
The Pauper
Pauper,
I am in the middle of that session on responding to children with disabilities and it is SOOO good…can’t wait to hear the rest. Our friend’s attended that one and just came out very moved. It is especially close to our hearts right now as one of our church members is expecting a child with spina bifida and other abnormalities.
Kelly,
The only thing you miss listening to that session on CD is watching Kevin Swanson preach! That man is a barn on fire! I have seen few pastors with the passion Kevin places into his preaching the Word.
Wow! That’s all I have to say.
That is very powerful.I have to admit I am not preparing my children for that battle. I don’t even want them to know about abortion .I feel so torn between protecting them and preparing them.Thank you Kelly as usual you have challenged me to do better.As I read this I realize preparing them is protecting them .WHY DO WE LIVE IN SUCH A EVIL SICK WORLD!!
LucyT – I’m where you are. I don’t see this as my children’s battle, yet (emphasis on “yet”). Maybe I’m too soft, but I believe part of the culture of death’s mission is to steal childhood, to desensitize from the earliest possible age, to obfuscate the joys and blessing of life. I want my children to be shocked and horrified by the notion of abortion and instances like the Shiavo case, but not haunted by imagery or information that may or may not serve, ultimately, if it’s foisted upon them prematurely.
All the more reason to be diligent in the teaching of the Word, I suppose, so that the shield of faith is strong when their time comes, because I suspect this battle will be a long one.
I agree with this completely. Very well put, cottage child.
That’s exactly right, Sarah and CC. Kids don’t need to be put on satin pillows, but they ALSO should not be asked to fight adult fights like abortion and pornography. There are other ways to prepare them: teaching them to respect all life and each other’s bodies (as well as their own) are vital starting points.
We prepare our young children to become warriors by rearing them in an atmosphere where life is truly celebrated. Most little children are very naturally drawn to the weak, the elderly and the very young. We mothers can guard and nurture this as we teach them what God’s word says about “the least of these”. Then, when they are exposed to the evil of the world they will recoil in godly indignation and say, “Why isn’t someone doing something about this?”
Jill F.
As a father I can understand your dilemma on this topic. But as one who has been engaged in the fight for life since I was about 6-8 years old (one of my early memories was the news cameras following my brother and I as we delivered roses to our state capital on Rose Day), I do know that the knowledge we humans are so evil that we would murder babies is heavy but I also know that experience shaped the man I am today. I believe that my parent’s decision to include my brother and me in the culture war from the beginning created a deep-seated love for life and babies in both of us which is unshakable.
I think parents need to walk carefully, prayerfully as we disciple our kids. I also think that progressive revelation of these issues is very wise (that is what God did for mankind in the Bible). Children are not able to deal with complete revelation of such depravity all at once but they can handle incremental exposure coupled with sound biblical teaching through which to view each new bit of information. We fail our children if we do not prepare them to fight as good soldiers of the cross and like every other area of life this is caught more than taught which means they need to be with me as I engage the culture war. This is not easy for us or them but it is necessary (just check out my post in the coming days about my daughter’s interaction with Doug’s report on the Haitian orphans @ The Baby Conference lest I be perceived as one in an ivory tower. It is never easy when children who have been taught to love YHWH and love his Word and love those things which he loves come face to face with the evil which lives in our world.)
Pauper, I do appreciate that genuine experiences bring on the biggest impact in children’s lives. I have a personal line at what I have seen as exploitation of children on both sides of the life argument. The victims of abortion obviously, but also the living children of those who rally/protest/promote/march, etc. I can’t get behind the idea of a child holding (or even viewing, for that matter) a poster of an aborted baby any more than I can get behind a child wearing a pro-choice t-shirt. I realize those things don’t happen at every rally or within every family. That said, I protect my children from age inappropriate imagery regularly, and feel some of these posters/signs are not much more than pornographic, showing the devolved perverted extreme in an attempt to evoke strong emotion. That it does, but I’m not sure it’s the right sort – I have yet to meet one convert to life whose heart was changed by that strategy.
I’m not suggesting that was your situation. Obviously your parents plan worked in your family’s instance and you’re the better for it, and as children of God we each come to the place where we can take up our swords against the adversary at different ages. I just wanted to offer that I see protecting innocence in our living children is key in protecting the innocents we’re all fighting for.
I also meant to point out that we were given an opportunity to discuss the preliminaries of this issue (the advocacy of life and dignity for all children, that they’re all loved by God) thanks to the 40 Days for Life efforts that have gone on around our community. The messages they presented on their signs were beautiful and encouraging and thought-provoking and conversation sparking. I did not mean to insinuate that all groups participate in protests using graphic images. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Excellent point, CC. It ALWAYS ticked me off to see children marching in pro-life rallies. They don’t know a darn thing about it.
Hey Jennifer – my objection isn’t necessarily to children participating (many of the 40 Days for Life folks included their children), it’s more an objection to inappropriate subject matter and materials, some of which I find objectionable,period, from an efficacy standpoint. In comparison, I feel the Holocaust was an assault on all God-loving people, and eventually my children will learn of the details, but at their ages it only serves to frighten. Operating from a position of fear IS when the enemy finds our weaknesses, if that makes sense.
And make no mistake, the Pro-Choice crowd proudly and grotesquely include their own children in their march for death. Talk about knowing nothing of it.
Either way, I find it inappropriate. Children can’t possibly understand either extreme.
Kelly, you said:
“Abortion was the topic and he pointed out how easy even the most pro-life of us can get sidetracked in our thinking. He challenged us to answer: “What would you do if Barack Obama said, ‘I’ll pass a law tomorrow to outlaw abortion in the US; only give me those two children without brain stems–those children who will probably die soon–let me take their lives and you could save millions’.”
And we waffle here. Because it seems so logical. But truth is always truth, even in the extremes. We believe that God created those two little boys without brain stems, for His purposes. He will take them home in His time. He has all authority in Heaven over life and death and we do not.”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying (I wasn’t at the conference and the context is unclear from your comment), and surely that would not be a SATISFACTORY solution to the situation because all life is sacred. But surely, surely, if there were not another option, we would accept the death of two to save the life of over a million. Otherwise, why fight wars?
The death of the two would still be wrong and sad (although a child born without a brain stem cannot survive outside the womb and death will be a painful experience whether in or outside the womb, you are correct that God has purposes there as with everyone else), but the death of 1.2 million is even more sad. God accepts the sacrifice of the one to save the many. We see it in the Pentateuch, and we see it in the death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It’s not our decision to make, of course, but if it’s “two die, or 1.2 MILLION die,” I can’t see how it’s pro-life to say, “save none; let all of them die.” But if you’re saying that still would be unsatisfactory, I agree with you.
The path back to life must be followed in the same way we traipsed down to death: gradually, in fits and starts, in stepwise fashion, one small victory after another. Just as the culture of death did not emerge overnight, change does not happen overnight. It must be won much in the same way dominionists (I’m not one) see the world in general being won: one child at a time, one family at a time, one life at a time.
Lori,
This is where the question of ethics gets shady. I understand you’re thoughts; this is where he said, “our very own hearts will condemn us for our choice”.
But let me point out several things:
You said: “although a child born without a brain stem cannot survive outside the womb” The example he was giving was a real one, of two little boys without brain stems that have already been born. (Our friends adopted a little boy without a brain stem to “give him a name before he died, being told he would only live about 24 hours. They buried him at the age of 12. He had a profound impact on their family and many others.)
So, there’s the first place we see our human fault. “He probably won’t live anyway”. That’s irrelevant. We don’t have authority to take innocent life. That is the “2+2=4″ that cannot change.
Then you said: “The path back to life must be followed in the same way we traipsed down to death: gradually, in fits and starts, in stepwise fashion, one small victory after another.”
We slip into a death culture because we stopped believing that “2+2=4″. The way back to life is a rejection of compromise. Compromise will always continue to slide further and further to destruction.
“Surely two deaths are better than 1.2 million”…
In our eyes, yes. But that is the slippery slope. At any point we claim authority to “play God” by taking life based on our assessments of who is more deserving or what makes sense to us (and by the way, this is already being practiced–euthanasia is openly practiced in other countries and is making it’s way to us), we open the door to a horrific, tyrannical law.
That’s right, Lori H; you NEVER sacrifice the innocent to save the innocent. And where does it stop? Two children, four children? With this moral relativism, how about allowing a little girl to be raped so hundreds of other people could allegedly be spared horrid death? (Believe it or not, I saw something very similar to this example in a horrific book, one which claimed to be moral). Could you really live with yourself after knowingly giving two children to death?
Tricia, that’s a completely invalid example and poor question anyway: the object of war is grown men fighting each other. If children are killed, it’s accidental and tragic, NOT justified, and the second any adult in war knowingly puts a child in danger, they’ve crossed the line into wickedness.
“Compromise will always continue to slide further and further to destruction.”
Yes. Agreed. That is the battle we must teach our children to fight. No matter the consequence – not to compromise. We teach it best by living it.
Here is what I’m saying, Kelly. If you are faced with a choice of a policy allowing two deaths, and a policy allowing 1.2 million, the two is preferable. If we say no, save these two and kill the 1.2 million, blood is on our hands for the 1.2 million. I’m not at all saying that it’s ACCEPTABLE to kill the two, but what I am saying is that if we have to choose between the two options, of COURSE we should minimize the loss of life.
Here is the problem. This is NOT a hypothetical question. If by choosing to save the two, 1.2 million die, you are MORALLY CULPABLE for the stand you took that resulted in the death of the 1.2 million. In an ideal world, no one would ever kill any babies. But if we have a chance to minimize the loss of life, we must do so. Our hands would be bloody either way…the only question is how bloody. Even failure to act is a choice with moral consequences. (Thank God for grace.)
A decision to outlaw abortion but still to murder two children is obviously preferable to murdering all the children, including the two missing brainstems. I’m not entirely sure what’s difficult to understand about that.
I never said it was okay to kill someone simply because they are going to die anyway. I simply said that a situation where fewer people die is a better situation. Before the hypothetical edict of Obama, 1,200,002 were going to die. After, 2 would die. It’s still not acceptable, but certainly preferable…unless your contention is that abortion can be part of the perfect will of God. As I said, perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point, or you’re misunderstanding mine.
Also, no baby can survive outside the womb with a COMPLETE absence of the brainstem, not even for 24 hours. The brainstem controls all bodily functions, including breathing and heartbeat. Unlike the rest of the brain, the brainstem is absolutely required equipment. I think perhaps you’ve confused it with some other condition, such as absence of the brain itself (which is survivable as long as the brainstem is intact).
That’s completely incorrect Lori, and fallacious: we are NOT responsible for the deeds of others. You’re buying into a very dangerous moral conundrum.
Lori,
Let me challenge you again. I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree. I *feel* like I want to agree, we all do, but we cannot.
Take another example (you’ll see in a minute why these examples are so important, and some are, in fact, real.)
Suppose it’s 2 lives taken to save 1,000. Still seems logical to take the two. (Logic isn’t the issue at all, mind you, but that’s all you have if you aren’t ascribing to a truth base line.)
What about 2 lives for 100? Two lives for 10? Two lives for 5? OK, 2 unhealthy lives for 2 healthy ones?
We already have “selective reduction” in cases of fertility treatment that results in multiple babies. It’s a case of “taking lives to increase the possibility of other life”. It’s playing God.
All because 2+2 has ceased to equal 4. And there’s no stopping once we breach this truth.
It’s a moral dilemma we were never meant to encounter. And Jennifer is right…we are not responsible for other’s deeds, only for doing what is right, even if it seems illogical.
Jennifer, we ARE responsible for the deeds of others, if our INACTION has allowed them to commit those deeds. Your argument that we’re not responsible has the faint scent of “am I my brother’s keeper?” At any rate, if we’re not morally culpable for the killing of the 1.2 million, as you suggest, then we would also not be culpable for the killing of the two if it was done by someone else. I don’t agree with that, but that’s what your argument boils down to.
Kelly, again, I think we are misunderstanding each other. I think the two choices you’re describing are this:
1. all babies aborted as scheduled (the 1.2 million PLUS the 2 mentally handicapped, who their parents were going to abort anyway)
2. only the 2 mentally handicapped are aborted as scheduled
Either way, the 2 mentally handicapped are aborted, so it’s not like ANY life would be saved by choosing option 1.
But maybe you are saying the choices are these:
1. all babies are aborted as scheduled, except the 2 mentally handicapped
2. no babies are aborted, except the 2 mentally handicapped, who their parents wanted to carry to term.
Then you have another situation entirely.
In that case (which was not what I thought you were describing), I see how you can say that option 2 is unacceptable because it is a slippery slope down to a 2-to-2 ratio. But if you make the choice that decides their fate, then yes, their blood is on your hands.
This is a much closer question, and one that would actually inspire me to think for a while before answering because it is far less intuitive.
Would I have killed Hitler to save hundreds of thousands of Jews? Yes, no problem. Maybe that makes me evil. But if the idea is that all human life is sacred, even that of Hitler, I can’t sign on to that. Yet, what’s the true difference between Hitler and an unborn child? If we believe the Bible that there is none righteous, and that we carry the stain of sin on us, what’s the difference? This ethical issue is fraught with conflict.
As for the war analogy, I do think it’s a valid one. Let’s not speak of “innocent life,” though. From a Christian perspective, we can’t. We are all sinners from birth, and there is no such thing as an innocent person. We’re all guilty, though some of us perhaps aren’t yet accountable for that guilt. And when you really think about it, we’re all soldiers for one side or another.
Our country daily sends out soldiers to die for the safety and comfort of the 300 million. If there’s something wrong with it, we need to do everything we can to stop it. Do I think it’s wrong? Not necessarily. By sending soldiers out to die, we are protecting many more at home. I’m not sure how it’s worse to do so to equally depraved pre-born humans, but I’ll think about it and get back to you.
Luckily (or unfortunately?) this will never be an ethical issue we’ll get to, because our President is a strong supporter of abortion…but if the second option is actually what you’re describing, it’s a much closer question than the first option.
Oops…I just thought of an obvious difference between Hitler and two unborn children. Hitler acted with the intention of killing the others, whereas the unborn children only survive as a consequence of the killing of the others, which was not their choice but someone else’s.
Our inaction in this example does NOT cause someone else to kill, and the brother’s keeper thing has no relevance here whatsoever. You’re thinking in pragmatic and false terms.
Lori H
I believe the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you are assigning a different worth to the lives of the 2 babies with birth defects. Would your position change if they were just 2 random healthy babies? You said you would have to think about it if they were wanted babies instead of non-wanted babies. And since you mentioned Hitler, is that not what he and his regime did? They assigned different values to different groups of people. Is that not what happens in China where girls are of less worth than boys? It is indeed a slippery slope if we fail to give all life equal value. And who decides the value or worth of each life? Do we allow our government to decide whose life has value and whose is expendable?
Also, it should make no difference if the children are unborn or already born. Abortion and birth control was championed in the beginning by people who assigned varying worth to different groups of people. Abortion IS the modern genocide and we as Christians should have no part in it.
Lori, hath God really said ” thou shall not murder”? Or did he mean “thou shall not murder, except if they don’t have a brainstem?”
To choose who lives and dies is playing God. This is not comparable to war. War is justice being delivered by man for transgressions against man. The babies are innocent of breaking the law and do not deserve the death penalty by man. It us God’s perogative to take life.
Kelly, this is an excellent addition to the article. I wish you would use it as your next blog post!
Mary Jo,
Do you mind clarifying? Are you referring to the war comment? I’ve been kind of “out of the loop” on this thread so I’m a little uncertain as to your reference.
Lori, you asked, “Otherwise, why fight wars?” Good question. Are most of the wars fought really justified, since they take so many lives of all kinds, including children’s?
Jennifer, with all respect, I was commenting on Lori’s question, and I think if we truly believe it is God Who gives life and Who should decide when to take it (and I do), then we would do well to examine wars in the same light.
I know you were commenting on Lori’s question. The Bible gives various examples of God-ordained war.
That’s true, Jennifer. But it does not mean that all wars are ordained by God.
Yes, that is true.
Lori this is a fallacious argument. firstly any leader evil enough to suggest this ’2 die, 1 million live’ would never keep his end of the deal. Secondly, and more importantly, it is sin to murder innocent children, no matter the “possible” good outcome it would bring. The Bible is clear on these matters. We are to trust God and not try to take matters into our own hands and play God. Satan knows we are susceptible to this type of sin, hence the serpent/Eve temptation. Also Paul specifically addresses this scenario in Romans. He is talking about how God turns evil into good eventually and then poses the question “should we then do evil so that good may come if it? May it never be!” or “God forbid!” It’s a din to murder. It’s a sin to play God with someone’s life. And it’s a sin to choose the ‘lesser evil’ so that something good might come of it.
Well-said, Michael.
Lori H,
I don’t think you can compare Christ willingly laying down his life for us and the murder of 2 innocents as the same. Murder is still murder. The murder of Dr. Tillman was a murder – no matter how many abortions the man performed. We must work to change the hearts and minds of people so that abortion is unacceptable!
Sorry, I meant Dr. Tiller, not Tillman.
Excellent article. Very thought provoking! I think it says much about how dedicated we need to remain true to our beliefs and how dangerous compromise can be.
I read an interesting article by Dr. Laura. She spoke about how to stop the abortion movement and she said we need to stop pushing for the law to be repealed because chances are, it never will. But what CAN stop abortion is reaching out to all women – touching their hearts – and convincing them that it is morally wrong for each of them. Then, with no one utilizing those services the clinics will be forced to close.
WOW!! This is amazing!! Thanks Kelly”)
While I agree with you on almost everything you write, why would you say “What if OBAMA said X.” There is nothing educational about ascribing impossible hypotheticals to politicians because their current policies are horrible. Doing so fans the flames of paranoia.
Remember that if we’d voted in McCain, we’d have a President with an outspoken daughter and wife who both support gay marriage and abortion. We should be distrustful of politicians, whatever their party.
Sarah,
I think you missed the fact that Kelly was quoting Flip Benhem, one of the speakers at The Baby Conference. Also I would point out that the reason Obama was chosen for the example is he is the current President, the one with the potential at this time to make such an offer. The point of this discussion is not the one making the offer, but the offer itself and the temptation to compromise it would present to believers who are not ready to live out their faith regardless of the consequences.
Besides Sarah, there’s no comparison between McCain’s beliefs and Obama’s. Obama is the one who knowingly upholds and votes for partial birth.
I apologize for ascribing it to Kelly – but I still say the comment is incendiary.
Obama’s policies are not Christian. No way, no how. But using impossible hypotheticals is propaganda, not truth, and the facts/truth is what will garner pro-lifers the support of the people.
This ‘pact with the Devil’ example A) Fosters an us-and-them attitude between ‘pro-life Conservatives’ and ‘pro-death Liberals’ B) Increases paranoia about what Obama is capable of, and C) Makes Obama supporters defensive – even if they may be pro-life and are ignorant to his policies.
I have met many Christians who do not know or understand what Obama has supported in the past. We should be reaching out to these people with the TRUTH.
Sarah,
Though John said it well, I’ll restate: Obama is irrelevant to the comment. It was a situational ethics question, not just a random hypothetical. It is a very important question and even more importantly is our answer to it.
Children are being taught situational ethics in school. Even 25 years ago in my high school Sociology class we were given a hypothetical/SE question: “If the world was being destroyed and there was an underground room where 8 people could be saved to repopulate the earth, which 8 people should be chosen?” Then we were given a list of people: a 25 year-old doctor, an 87 year-old grandmother…..
But you see the danger and the reason we must know the answer to the important question Benhem asked. We are faced with hypotheticals all the time, especially in the abortion debate–I debate them on this blog constantly and most often people waffle when the logic feels right to them. (“What if a woman is raped AND the baby is severely deformed AND the mother is only 12…then is it OK to kill the baby?”)
Will they have cd’s of the conference available?
Melaine,
Look under reply number 7. The Pauper stated the link to Vision Forum where you can purchase the cds for The Baby Conference.
~Mrs. Lady Sofia~
If we raise our children from birth to value all human life then that will lay the foundation for them being able to “take on this fight” when they are adults. It all begins with a family that teaches their children that God is the author or life and death and that all humans have equal value in his eyes. A family that treats all humans as “created in the image of God” and who have an eternal soul lays the foundation for the children to reject society’s definition of abortion. If we, as parents, live and speak this way then our children will learn the worldview that values life.
I hope when my “sheltered” children do learn what abortion is their foundation will be so strong they will immediately see abortion for the horror that it is. Their innocent eyes do not need to be exposed to the ugliness of the world too soon to be prepared to stand against this when they are older. Yes, we are preparing them to take on this fight, but we are not stealing their innocence in the process.
Me, too, Katie Grace!
Thank you, both of you cottage child and katie grace.This is the way I feel as well.
Kelly, I love your response about situational ethics. All of these what ifs, but there is one Truth. Rape, incest, health of mother, and birth defects account for only a small amount of abortions; if I am not mistaken I believe it is only 1%.
In regard to teaching children about abortion, I have found that just by telling them what it is (NOT details) – simply that it is killing a baby in the mommy’s womb before it is born; children will naturally respond with disgust and IMO it is better they hear it from you than from someone (or the media) who may put a twist of relativism into it. I do not believe at all in showing pictures etc; I for one do not want to see them myself. But at a young age children can help collect old toys and clothing, make care packages of diapers and wipes, etc “to help mommies have what they need to care for their babies.”
I have not brought my children to a rally but we pray for an end to abortion and collect for our church. I would say my children learned about the term abortion when they were each about 5 years old. I should add that in my church praying for an end to abortion is in our weekly petitions; so if the kids are paying attention, they will hear the word. We need to explain it to them before they hear it from someone who spins it. Just my 2 cents. Ever parent should decide what is best for their child.
YES – abortion is uniformly disgusting to children because they have not yet heard the equivocating ethical arguments of the adults around them. Children know the truth without the lie to cover it: the killing of an unborn child is truly disgusting, repulsive, and unacceptable.
I had an abortion. Not only do I not regret it, but I’m sick to death of all of you telling me what I feel, what I should feel, and how EVERYONE SHOULD FEEL / WORSHIP/ CARE.
I’m sorry, I had to speak out. You are all so very very very wrong!
Now I’m going and I won’t be back. Good luck to all of you on Judgment Day. I think your unkindnesses will come back to haunt you then. My God is a God of love. I pity you all.
Leticia, my God is a God of love too. He loved your unborn child, whom He created, whom you killed. God is love, but He is also a just God. He declares good and evil, not us.
I agree with Michael. Your statement that you killed your baby and you don’t regret it indicates a hard and unrepentant heart. I hope that your eyes will be opened soon, and you will come to repentance and a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is true love, who is unselfishness, who gave Himself for the sins of many.
I’m not sure what unkindnesses you’re speaking of, but if proclaiming the truth of the Bible is seen as “unkindness” by the world, then please, count me unkind. I wish the best to you, but I will say without any doubt in my heart that “the best” is a relationship with the Lord.
Maybe that’s judgmental, but truth is judgmental. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well? “Go, and sin no more.” The Jesus who “doesn’t judge” is totally foreign to the Jesus of the Bible.
According to your own words, Lori H, you’d kill a baby too if it allegedly meant saving two others.
Correction: TWO babies, if a lying man said it would save millions.
Leticia, you had an abortion, have not repented, and you say good luck to us on judgement day? I pray that God works to change your hardened heart very soon and that you find a ggod pastor to counsel you through the pain in your heart.
Michael, we’re all entitled to our views of abortion. However, we don’t know the circumstances, the causes, or the time in which Letitia’s abortion took place. It’s not an easy thing for any woman to do and we’re not in any place to judge her, especially not if we could never have idea what it’s like.
Michael’s comment wasn’t one of personal judgment. We ARE to “judge”, i.e., hold truth as truth. “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;” Isaiah 5:20
We are confused about how even Jesus himself handled sin. Based on His example from Scripture, we can be assured that what He would say to Leticia is, “I have come that you may have life. Repent, therefore, and be saved.”
Repentance is THE basic message of the gospel. Because only repentance can bring life! The loving God Leticia speaks of doesn’t exist. God IS love incarnate, yes. But we don’t have a God who is able to love those who reject Him, which is what we do if we reject our need for forgiveness. If we deny that we are in need of forgiveness, we “trample on the Son of God” and his work on the cross. That is what the wrath of God is about on judgment day.
I pray heartily this morning, that Leticia will indeed see for the Savior. He gives beauty for ashes!
Anything we say short of that is the cruelest of expressions.
“But we don’t have a God who is able to love those who reject Him, which is what we do if we reject our need for forgiveness.”
I have to disagree here. God does love the whole world and all in in. It is His Holiness and righteousness that bars unrepentant sinners into heaven, not His inability to love those who reject Him and Christ.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Kelly,
As a student of biblical languages I feel I need to point out that the English translation of these verses can be deceiving and lead to false understandings of the nature and work of Christ.
In John 3:16 the word translated “the world” is better translated “The nations” which is consistent with the vision of the kingdom found in Rev 7. By clearly understanding this word we begin to see that what is communicated is that God is a God who loves people from all nations not just those born of Abraham (which is the default position that would be held by a Pharisee like Nicodemus). This is a fulfillment of the promise to Abraham to bless the whole world through his seed (Gen 12). This does not mean that God “loves” every person in the same way (else what will you do with Rom 9:13 where the text says unequivocally that God has HATED Esau?).
As to your point about Romans 5, you need to remember that in biblical exegesis (drawing out of the text the meaning) that “context is king” – meaning that a passage’s context guides and guards its meaning. A passage cannot mean today what it never meant then. This means in context Romans 5 is a passage written to believers, not unbelievers. This means that while 1 John is correct that the very nature of God is agape love (not a touchy-feely emotional love but a love of decided affection that has as its end the good of the object of that affection), Romans 5 only addresses the issue of God loving believers. You would need to go to another passage to argue for God loving “everyone” (remember Esau).
Understanding that this was written to believers, as was almost, if not all, of the new testament, is your take that up until we became believers He died for us despite the fact that He did not love us, but as soon as we came over to His side He loved us? Romans 5:8 is telling us how God loved us before we were His children.
My interlinear Greek NT has “the world.”
Also, hate and love are not two mutually exclusive emotions/choices.
In addition, I would submit that even though the NT was (mostly) written to believers (as the OT was written as a testimony of what was being said to the Jews among other reasons) that the truth of God is the truth of God. He is not double minded. And, at one time, all of us believers were non-believers and the Bible applied to us and was relevant to every aspect of our being whether or not we believed it.
And, while I agree that the knowledge and understanding of the original word can be important,I doubt that God in His wisdom would make His living and breathing Word only understandable to those who have time to study linguistics. His Holy Spirit was sent to convict and comfort and guide. Understanding of what God meant when He wrote it could be easily found just by asking Him to tell you. He knows better than anyone.
I forgot to mention on another note, it is our own sin, unrepented of, that condemns us and separates us from spending an eternity with God. But as He is Just and Holy, sin is condemned as well as the one who committed it unless the person repents to his/her savior and receives the forgiveness Christ Jesus afforded. God is love and His love is righteous, holy, perfect and comes with discipline.
Hebrews 12:6 reads “For whom the Lord loves he chastens, and whips every son whom he receives.”
Actually, I believe that the scripture bears out the Reformed theological position which would hold that God chose his elect (whom Romans 5 says he loves) before the foundation of the world and that it was for those elect alone for whom Jesus died. I reject the position that the precious blood of the Lamb of God can be rendered ineffective by the will of a created being (i.e. that salvation is dependent on my choosing Christ – as a dead enemy of Christ which is born in rebellion to him I will NEVER choose him. He must choose us.). I believe that the work of regeneration, sanctification and glorification is a work of God alone of which I am powerless to contribute one iota of effort (Eph 2:8-9).
As for the rendering of your Greek interlinear, they are not all created equal and as readers of a translation we must realize that all “translation is interpretation”; meaning if you read a translation you are reading the interpretation of fallible men. As such, their rendering is ALWAYS subject to revision. This is one reason everyone should read the preface and introduction to your bible. This chapter will tell you the translational philosophy of the translator(s) and will give you some indication of the interpretational bias of the same. Also you need to specify what English translation is used in your interlinear (if it is NIV or other dynamic equivalence version then you are not getting a word for word translation, you are getting the thought for thought interpretations of the translation team.)This is not to say that I believe that translations are unreliable, I believe they are. They simply need to be understood as what they are: the work of fallible men, which must be compared to the original languages to judge their fidelity.
Back to your point about God loving the world, even if we allow that “world” is the best translation of that word (Kosmos in Greek) we must also recognize that the usage of “world” in the scriptures is varied: some places it refers exclusively to the created order, some places it refers to the gentiles, some places it refers to all of mankind, and in some places it refers to all who are not of the “called out ones” also known as the church. This means that we must carefully discern what is meant in THIS passage by “world” and “loved”.
Reformed, huh? That explains a whole lot. It amazes me that Reformed people can draw in any outsiders whatsoever.
“which would hold that God chose his elect (whom Romans 5 says he loves) before the foundation of the world and that it was for those elect alone for whom Jesus died”
Such horrific and senseless theology. It says we’re all the same and can’t choose grace, so free will’s non-existant and there’s no POINT in God saving us and yet He does anyway, though only the ones He chooses, who are also the only ones He loves. Though He only loves them because they’re the ones He chooses, but WHY would He only love them, since they’re no different from any others in the fact that they can’t choose to be saved?? And therefore have no inherent worthiness? Pah.
The funny thing is, most Reformed people are complimentarians and it’s complimentarians who always tell me the Bible may not be revised or interpreted differently. Yet you say the opposite. And, considering your own interpretation, it’s a great comfort to me that I may see it differently according to your own words.
Jennifer,
I AM a complementarian and I do reject the notion that you can RE-interpret the bible to suit your sinful whims. That is why I AM stating that you need to be able to use Greek and Hebrew tools so you can evaluate if the scriptures have been translated into your native tongue correctly. Because as 1 Peter 2:20 no scripture comes by ones private interpretation.
What I am stating is the evident truth that all translation involves interpreting how to move from one language to another. There is no such thing as one to one correlation between languages so choices are made and each translator should stand in fear and trembling knowing that they are unworthy vessels who are fallible and in need of God’s grace, holding their translation in their quaking hands praying that they have been as faithful as possible to the inspired, inerrant Word of God. To do otherwise is to exalt oneself over the text and place yourself as an idol submitting the text to you instead of you to the text.
Hi Pauper,
Jennifer and I don’t agree on many of the finer points, but I’m with her on this, philosophically if not in tone
…I see the reformist misinterpretation used much as Roman Catholicism doctrine is used – to limit, exclude, preclude, based on incorrect theology, based on denominational belonging. If salvation isn’t open to all who proclaim the living and risen Christ as Lord and King, than His sovereignty is being usurped by men/mans egotistical understanding, and the Bible isn’t much more than a complicated fairy tale. We MUST choose Him – otherwise, the Blood was spilled for dramatic emphasis and nothing more. The Blood was in fact G-d choosing us. The way is narrow, but not all that complicated.
I do believe that God knows, preordained, beyond our understanding of the concept, even ,who will and will not choose life everlasting – but I do not believe that man knows that beyond his direct instruction from the Bible. Which as you point out, while authored by God, is interpreted by fallible men and their fallible human lens.
It occurs to me one comment too late that this is a worthwhile conversation, but not one necessarily for this discussion. Sorry, all, to get off topic.
Pauper, your definition of God’s love is limited and disgusting to me. I’m greatly relieved I don’t have to spread such horrifically narrow favoritism to those who don’t know Him. You really need to research the Esau issue more.
Jennifer,
I am sorry that my definition of love disgusts you. This is such a deep and multifaceted topic of which I have not really scratched the surface making it difficult for you to truly understand what I believe. I entered into this discussion to point out that the popular ideas of God’s “love” are not based in the scriptures nor are they consistent with the doctrine of the church universal for the first 1500 years of its existence.
Please notice I said never said that God did not love the world, I said that God does not love everyone or everything the same. God loves the created world yet he has consigned it to a fiery end. God shows his love to the just and the unjust through his common grace of rain but that does not mean that he loves them both the same. God created all men but the unregenerate will be sentenced by the Just Judge to eternity in the lake of fire for their rebellion (Matt 25:41) while the regenerate are welcomed into eternal bliss through the sacrifice of Christ alone for his elect.
To put it another way, God does not love dirt, a rock, a building, a dog, or a human created in His image the same way. Nor does he love a regenerate man for whom he died the same as the unregenerate rebel whom God has left alone in his sin (for why else would He die for one and not the other [a doctrine called "Particular Redemption"] or if you believe that He DID die for both why would God allow himself to be so impotent as to be UNABLE to regenerate both men?).
No indeed CC, you made some excellent points. Thank you.
Pauper, I’m sure you’re a good man; I’m sorry if I sold you short. But as a matter of fact, I’ve had the depths of Reformed theology explained to me and it’s still the same to me: incomprehensible mentally, theologically and morally. It’s only gotten worse as more people have tried to justify/explain it.
Jennifer, we are not entitled to our own view when Scripture speaks clearly on the issue. We are entitled to God’s view, all other views are siinful and will be judged by God accordingly. I have compassion for Leticia, but no healing can take place until she first repents. To say “I do not regret it” means she has not repented. We don’t need to understand it or know what circumstances caused to to call it a sin. We are not to “judge” in the sense to say she is going to hell…that is God’s job, not ours, after by God’s grace she may repent and follow Christ. But we are to call sin sin (as Kelly said above) and tell sinners to repent and be born again. To call abortion (and fornication, homosexuality, etc.) a sin is simply stating the truth, not playing God.
I guess we have differing views then on whether something is always a sin. I don’t think that God would condemn Leticia regardless of what her circumstances may have been.
Kelly L, I agree completely. Thanks for your relieving words.
Jennifer, you don’t think God always condemns sin? If so you disagree with the Bible and not just me. Sin is ANY transgression against the revealed will (the Bible) of God. God has clearly revealed that His will is “you shall not commit murder.” If we transgess this commandment we sin. The Bible teaches that we are all condemned to Hell because of our sons unless we have Christ’s imputed righteousness and He takes away our sin. Their is no postmodern grey area for believers when it comes to God’s directly stated commandment.
I don’t equate the earliest embryo in the Bible with a human, and I’m not discussing this ad nauseum again.
In the womb, that is.
So when David says You knit me together in my mother’s womb, means what? Is the embryo alive? Yes it is alive, therefore it has life. Gen 9:4 says the life is in the blood. Does an embryo have blood? First you say it’s not sin, then when I show it is sin (that was my comment as Autumn above, my wife who was still logged in on my iPhone), you change your argument to say the baby is not a human. Jennifer, I’m assuming you’re a Christian. Do you have any Scriptures to back up your position? Because there are plenty that are against it?
It means the time of the pregnancy in which God starts knitting is not given.
My heart certainly weeps for Leticia.
After reading this post and comments, the quote by Dr. Bob Jones Sr. comes to mind : “It is never right to do wrong, in order to get a chance to do right.”
[...] Kelly at http://generationcedar.com quoting a message by Flip Benham from The Baby [...]
Wow, what an amazing thing to think about. Thank you for posting!
I am a little scared to post this because abortion is something I have struggled with personally. I do not even know if this is relevant here. But I did decide to limit my family, I want to be open about my choices before I say what I say. And though my children are healthy by God’s grace and I can hand on heart say I would have not have aborted any child. I come from a country where girls it is more common than you would think because they are considered a liability and killed after birth or during inutero. I do not think that is right morally or legally and have stood up for it. My conflict though comes because of an experience I had growing up as child in my native country and it has to do with another woman’s choice to have an abortion.
Growing up, we had domestic help in our house. We are not a rich family but there are so many poor people in my birth country that middle class people have domestic help. This lady was the mother of 5 or 6 children, I do not remember. Lived in a house (if you can call it that) with mud walls and thatch roof. Entire family sharing one room only. No running water, no electricity, open and raw sewage running nearby where her kids played. The one hot meal her family ate a day was what she took home from our house. My parents paid for her children’s books, school uniform (where I come from everyone wears a uniform) and my mom helped with their homework, since their house had no electricity they would come home to study with us. But my brother and I went to private school and had an English education. They went to government school. We would give them a new set of clothes for their birthday and christmas. Of course used clothes. In short, our family did everything we could to help them. or so we thought.
The lady began missing days at a time of work and it was not predictable. In the beginning we did not think much of it. We just thought she had fever or something and urged her to go to a doctor and that we would pay for it. But one day we found out she was almost dying. Turns out she was using abortion as a means of birth control. My culture apparently has ways of doing this without a hospital. But she became infected and almost died. When asked why she did it she said, ‘I have so many children who I cannot afford to feed and I rely on your family for basics and more, my husband drinks, my children have education. I do not want them to depend on anyone else except themselves and God for anything. I decided to take care of the ones I have instead of bringing more into this world’.
My heart tore at that. I was so upset. But I was not living her life. I had choices which she did not. Because of extreme poverty. And nothing I said or did or my family did made us worthy of living the life we had. It could have been us instead of her family. That thought has haunted me since then. Why did I receive God’s grace to come to America while her family and many like her did not even have food on the table. How can I tell her not to abort a child ? I can say that to someone with money or choices. Not to someone struggling to make ends meet and living in extreme poverty. People may say the value of the life of a child is the same and I agree. But we all do not live the same kind of life outside the womb do we ? So it is not so black and white for me.
That in many ways influenced my decision to limit my own family. But my husband and I try to sponsor as many children as we can in my native country and give them an education and food so that they can stay with their families. You may say, well you can adopt them. How many can I adopt ? This way I think I am contributing more.
Sylvia, not one single one of us is without sin. Not one single one of us is in a position to condemn that woman nor any other person for sin in their life. I do not condemn. I do, however; speak what God’s truth says about sin. However none of us in the position to “throw the first stone”. Shame on us if we do. It is God’s place to convict of us sin and He can do it w/o any help.
All that being said. God’s truth is very clear about sin and it is all punishable by hell fire. Fortunately we live under grace. Confession of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour and repentance towards our sin will save us from that punishment.
I think we all need to stop and consider what Paul spoke of in Romans. That w/o the law he didn’t understand what sin was, that it was because of the law that he understood what coveting was. When he understood then he coveted. (Romans 7) We must as Christian people speak the truth of God’s word. We must share the Gospel with other people and we must speak the truth that all have sinned. We also must be clear as to what sin is – with love, truth, gently but we must speak it.
We, as Christians, must stop trying to make excuses for sin and just call it what it is – Hateful to our Father. We also must be able to accept it when we are corrected from Scripture (not someone’s moralistic ideas ). We should not be so easily offended.
It’s great that you help children from your native country but do you give them the Truth? Do you tell them what sin is and that they are deserving of punishment but Jesus Christ redeemed them? Do you explain the path of salvation to them? How many precious children could you meet in heaven on judgment day simply by sharing the gospel with them?
Sin is sin and we all suffer from it but PRAISE BE TO GOD we have salvation through the SON OF GOD, Jesus Christ.
You asked
“It’s great that you help children from your native country but do you give them the Truth? Do you tell them what sin is and that they are deserving of punishment but Jesus Christ redeemed them? Do you explain the path of salvation to them? How many precious children could you meet in heaven on judgment day simply by sharing the gospel with them?”
Are you talking about simply sharing the gospel or conversion. Because there is a difference to me.
I come from a country that has no social welfare system, no health care and poor people, children especially die because they do not have access to clean water, lack of education, malnutrition, diseases that can be cured etc.
Charity we do as a family is irrespective of the religion of the person. In the above scenario I will never, ever allow or use helping them with food or education as a tool for converting them as many western missionaries seem to more and more do so. It is not a barter to me. Food and education for christianity. Because I have seen people go back to their religions when they grow up.
Instead I pray for them. Each and every day. And write letters and in that insert stories. The Gospel of the Lord should not be spread as a barter to me. My ancestors were given the word of God by British missionaries. They never bartered it for food or education. My ancestors had to give up property when they converted. They became poor. But they became missionaries. I am a fourth/fifth generation christian in a non-christian country. The faith of my ancestors is the reason I was born into a christian family in a non-christian country.
The grace of God is why I am saved.
Abortion is very much linked to poverty and lack of education from where I come from. I cannot and will not condemn anyone who does not have the same choices as me. It is very confusing for me. But it is not black and white to me.
Sylvia, I am sure you have a different perspective than most and I respect that. But I think you are wrong in assuming that Christians who do humanitarian work are doing so just to convert people. Christ did say to “offer a cup of water” in His Name. We as Christians should do humanitarian work that takes care of the physical needs but we should also focus on the spiritual needs of these people as well. There should never be a “barter” system – conversion equals healthcare and education. It should be through relationship. They should see our love and want to know why we do what we do. Weather or not they are converted to Christianity should have no bearing on if we provide for their physical needs or not. To do this is cruel and unbiblical.
Also, my heart breaks for women who feel as if abortion is their only choice. It hurts my heart to think they have to choose between their children and their unborn children and risk their own health and lives to do so. But if something is wrong, it is always wrong. But God is a God of grace and mercy. He alone knows the hearts of those faced with hard choices. It is He alone who judges. We as Christians should pray and serve and have compassion and offer the hope of Christ to those facing impossible situations.
“Sylvia, I am sure you have a different perspective than most and I respect that. But I think you are wrong in assuming that Christians who do humanitarian work are doing so just to convert people. Christ did say to “offer a cup of water” in His Name. We as Christians should do humanitarian work that takes care of the physical needs but we should also focus on the spiritual needs of these people as well. There should never be a “barter” system – conversion equals healthcare and education. It should be through relationship. They should see our love and want to know why we do what we do. Weather or not they are converted to Christianity should have no bearing on if we provide for their physical needs or not. To do this is cruel and unbiblical.”
Katie, I do apologize for not being clear. Not everyone is like that. British missionaries who lived among my ancestors (this was when my birth country was colonized by them) opened schools, administered to the sick and spread the gospel. God’s grace and their actions made my ancestors christians. They were ostracised because of that. But my family is still christian after so many generaations have passed. And we as a family have the privilege of knowing the Lord in a country where christians are less than 10%.
But more and more I am seeing people who do aid work counting the number of souls they have converted in return for education and food. For them becoming christian means baptism. Preferably public and renouncing their religion. Especially among children or women. In some places it is just not possible to do that as in renounce their religion. It may mean life or death. Yes, they could die for the Lord, but in reality not many of them are willing to do that.
They just have to pretend to go through the rituals of their religions which may include idol worship. And secretly worship Christ. I am not in that situation. I was born into a christian family, I never had to make the choice of having to hide worshipping God. Should we stop spreading the gospel because of that ? I do not know the answers. But I know prayer works wonders.
I forgot to add it has become a huge issue that now majority religion based political parties want a ban on conversions in my native country. It will certainly affect how the gospel is spread if that happens.
That is why even if I am from there and certainly resemble them whatever charity we do is always in the form of food, education. And irrespective of the religion the person belongs to. We spread the gospel through stories for children and in any way we can. Never talk conversion. And pray, pray, pray. And it has worked to a certain extent. But we think our job is just to spread the gospel, it is the Lord who turns hearts.
Yes, salvation is the work of the Lord, but how will they hear unless someone tells them and shows them the Love of God.
This is my experience. And my family’s. We did it in two ways. We spread the gospel by mixing with non-christians, irrespective of religion. We always had friends who were non christian. Very close friends. These were of our economic level. It is easier to spread the gospel to them when they know us and are friends. We shared our faith not just by sharing bible stories, but of the miracles God wrought in our lives. We did it by praying with them during the times they requested prayer, praying for them. When they wanted to read the bible, we shared it with them. Testified. Many of these people know the Lord today. Some of these people are secret christians. Some married christians and converted. But not everyone is like that.
When we were spreading the gospel who were of a lower economic strata we always made it a point to help them with something. And talk with them while doing that. Form a relationship first with them. Our youth ministry used to go to villages. We taught older people who were uneducated how to read and write in our native tongue irrespective of religion, count money. This way we help them, but the stories we used to illustrate were bible stories. We taught them sanitation and the importance of bathing and washing up because they were susceptible to so many diseases, gave them little things like soap, toothpaste, tooth brush (many of them use a kind of tree branch to brush their teeth), first aid kits. We used to collect clothes, toys, books, slippers (they were so poor they walked barefoot) and hand it out. Used spectacles were always useful. Sometimes doctors used to accompany us on these trips. Things like free BP check ups, spectacles for those who needed them. Basically we formed relationships with them over a long time. And just talked with them. They did not initially trust us or open to us. But when they saw we did not have an agenda of conversion and just wanted to help them and did not differentiate between christian and non-christian they slowly thawed. It meant sacrificing weekends and many times as a child I was not thrilled about it. But my parents always insisted I go. And many did come to the Lord. Many could not convert because it would mean being thrown out of their families. But conversion was not the point here. Spreading the gospel was. And when some came to Lord of their own free will, it is an amazing feeling.
Sylvia, we all come to the Lord by our own free will.
Christians will be martyred until the Lord returns there is nothing we can do about that. But it is certainly a privilege to live in the one country, in the world, where we’re (currently ) free to worship as we choose.
I’m glad you are here and I’m glad you are able to do whatever you can do to assist in the cause of Christ. I myself have led the easy Christian life that most American’s have led. However, I am well read and I do know that there are none of us without sin. Condemnation is not necessary but we must give lost people the one thing that offers HOPE – Jesus Christ. Keep spreading the Gospel and let the Lord do the rest.
God bless.
Silvia, you are a brave and honest person. I’m so sorry for that poor lady and pray that God heals her in every way and that He blesses you for your courage and integrity.
I beg pardon if this is too blunt, but are there no condoms in your country? They’re far less expensive than an abortion.
If her children’s education is costing money, perhaps that shouldn’t be paid for for a while. There are other ways to educate, and a child’s life is far more important. Her husband really needs to get his heart and his foolish head in the right place.
Jennifer this happened when I was growing up. There are condoms in my birth country and birth control pills. But again lack and education and poverty plays a big role in the choices people make and the things they have access to. It is much better now.
This lady did not know how to read or write, she was desperate her children have an education. We are not talking college education here or even English education. My first language is not English. I come from a middle class family and my parents sent me to private school where the subjects were taught in English and the fees was expensive.One more reason they limited their family. It is what most middle class families do in my native country do. We do not have a public school system. Only government school where this lady’s children went. Needless to say the standard of education is not the same in private and government schools. After all I came to America for a post graduate degree. Her children just learned reading, writing, counting etc. And obviously they and I are not living the same kind of life now.
If you are asking about home schooling, I did not even know something like that exists until I came to America. I myself have taught people, older people, poor people how to read and write in my native language, count money etc. Sadly, many people in my native country go through life without basic reading/writing skills, counting money and are cheated a lot, they cannot even sign their name. They use thumb prints as signatures which is a valid way of signing documents in native country.
Sylvia, you speak VOLUMES in each comment you offer, as much about perspective as about subject matter.
I can’t practically address the issue of the woman in your country you write of – I personally see it as a mission issue and one that Christianity has seemingly abandoned, in part because of the “competition” for lack of a better word, from WHO and other “health” organizations who default to birth control and abortion as some sort of miracle cure for the developing world. The dollars that once went to fund family based improvements are now divided between multiple secular charities with (frankly) death-minded agendas.
One thing I would like to encourage you to consider is this – because ultimately YOU are the person you can affect change in immediately – a people’s best resource is it’s people. You are a shining example of that. I certainly would not presume to counsel you on matters that were between you and your husband, but would invite you to consider that more women like you, who would raise more children like you, are key in improving the situation you speak of. Limiting family size does not create nor make available more resources to others, even in the poorest of circumstances. That is a lie of the socialist/secular/subsistence-minded “charity” agenda.
As for the baby girls who are considered valueless – again, so many missed opportunities by Christian missions that abandoned the cause to the slick marketing of “we’re the government, and we’re here to help”….I don’t know if you know that phrase, but it’s famous for it’s foreboding message. And it leads me back to our prior conversation about the feminist agenda. It’s beyond sad.
I would love to hear from you, feel free to email if you would like to continue the conversation. Be well!
Thank you CottageChild for your kind comments. I wrestled with not getting married at all and do something like work with these people as a child. In my culture marriage is a rite of passage. Almost everyone gets married. Parents arrange it as in introduce us and if we like each other we decide to get married. Mine was also arranged. I could not ask for a better husband. But I never thought I would live in America. Certainly not something I sought growing up. But we as a family always prayed as a family for God’s will. And the story of how I ended up here is clearly God’s will according to me anyway because many avenues I sought closed up.
But I feel strongly about helping impoverished children. If you see them you feel like adopting everyone. I certainly do. As of right now this seems the best option. But I am always praying.
such an amazing post! Can’t wait to hear more of what you gleaned from that amazing conference! The cd’s are on my wish list!
I am looking forward to trying to read all the comments. I often find it hard to know exactly how to prepare them for the battle we are in. It is so amazing how clearly children see things sometimes. when my oldest first learned about what abortion was(a much sanitized version) he was of course horrified! His first question was, “so the police they arrest the awful people who murder babies right?” Very convicting. makes for great but very uncomfortable conversation as we try to explain why people that murder babies before they are born aren’t in jail. Really strikes home in so many areas. Are my children prepared to share their faith? Do they know how to vote biblically? How we should be caring for the homeless, the widows and orphans? do they understand why they are not in public school and yet be able to be gracious to those in their extended family who are? It is so important to equip our children with the answers to why we do what we do scripturally but then it becomes real interesting trying to get them to say what is true in love and exercise prudence. Whew! Thank God we have HIm to equip us for every good deed. My knees get to shaking if I forget that we are not on our own! blessings, jen in al
Whew! now that i read all the comments i have a thought in regards to those that were advocating the 2 dying to save millions. What about the parable of the lost sheep? roll with me here a minute…:) Jesus talked about the shepherd who left his flock of sheep to find the one lost. Anything could have happened while he was gone. Sheep are not real bright.:) They could have run themselves into danger, been attacked by wolves. I am NOT saying that He was not concerned for the flock or that the flock perishing would be acceptable. NOT AT ALL. I am just pointing out that Jesus would seem to indicate in this passage that the one was very important. It is a slippery slope indeed. Are we to negotiate truth? Are we to “negotiate” life? blessings, jen in al
Two and half years ago my husband and I knew we had made a terrible mistake by having a Vascetomy. The Lord provided a way for us to get reversed and we are waiting for GOd to open my womb again to have His children.. IT is so hard to wait on the Lord and trust that He knows what is best. Please pray for me I did not think it would take this long after words.. This has been hard on me I am learning alot about trust and God is drawing me closier to him. I know all things work together for the GOod of those who love the Lord and are called according to him purpose. Just keep praying for me and my husband Phillip to bless us with more babies.. THanks you so much. My heart aches and my womb cries out to be filled again. I have 2 children 12 and 8 they are boys. I am blessed to have the 2 but are hearts are heavy for more of Gods tiny blessing. Thank you Anne
Iphone pas cher…
Keep up the fantastic work , I read few content on this web site and I believe that your website is real interesting and has got circles of great information….