Abortion doctor shooting reveals loss of moral compass

By Rev. Paul Viggiano

Posted: 06/04/2009 04:05:11 PM PDT

During the moral and political decay of France in the early 1800s, political economist Frederic Bastiat wrote, "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." The killing of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, while he served as an usher during a church service, is a horrifying example of a citizen losing both.

 

Twenty-first century America, similar to 19th century France, has lost its ethical and legislative moral compass. Laws are ungodly, unenforced or snubbed altogether. Border laws are meaningless; we exterminate our infants by the millions; in 2004 the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage certificates to homosexual couples in defiance of the laws of his own state. We are truly entering into a time of unprincipled civil mayhem, and vigilantism is an insidious temptation that must be resisted.

 

The isolated radical behavior of Scott Roeder, who allegedly killed Dr. Tiller, is patently unbiblical and immoral. It was during a darker political period that the apostle Paul instructed Christians to subject themselves to the governing authorities. Whatever we may think of the current moral corruptions of our judicial, legislative and executive branches, they pale in comparison to Nero. There is a proper method of dealing with a society's ills that doesn't include shooting ushers as they seat people in church.

 

God has graciously given Americans a peaceful means to change laws and displace ungodly leaders. Citizens needn't attempt a coup d' tat and violently rush the White House or Capitol Hill; they merely need to vote. After all, the United States does not have a king who wields sovereign power. Strictly speaking, the closest thing we have to a king is not the president, House, Senate or Supreme Court but the people themselves. The president and legislators are like CEOs and the people like a board of directors who displace them as they see fit. This is the process and it must be respected.

 

From a pastoral perspective my primary concern is not with the Scott Roeders of the world. There is a much more subtle disease festering within the borders of a nation that is losing its sense of self - one that doesn't want to be under God but can't quite define just who it wants to be under. Roeder is merely an exaggerated personification of a nation of people who are beginning to dislike each other.

 

The unity naturally engendered by speaking a similar language, marrying the opposite sex or protecting innocent babies has hit the exits. This ethnic and moral tribalism is tearing our country apart. It is becoming increasingly difficult to love our neighbors when we see our neighbors engaging in behaviors ranging from unhealthy to atrocious while the magistrate plays his fiddle.

 

The great 19th century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge warned that governments that fail to rule their people in a proper and godly manner are tempting their citizens to take the law into their own hands. For years we've been electing leaders who make laws that tempt us to hold our neighbors in derision. Nothing will put my children at each other's throats as much as being a father who refuses to properly administer justice.

 

Nonetheless, ungodly laws never justify ungodly behavior. The pro-life movement is largely a Christian movement. I am not a pacifist and recognize there is a time for war. But the type of warfare in the pro-life movement is a warfare of thoughts and ideas. It is not a wrestling with flesh and blood but against wickedness itself.

 

Christians are called to participate in the political process with zeal and conviction. If, after all, the closest thing we have to a king is the people, it is the responsibility of the people to collectively operate as a king submitting to the king of kings. But as individuals we are still called to love our neighbors - even the ones with whom we vehemently disagree. Christians must overcome the natural antipathy they find welling up in their souls toward their neighbors because their leaders have no sense of true justice.

The only hope for individuals and the nations they form is a humble faithful trust and submission to Christ as the savior of souls. If there is no faith in Christ as savior, there is no hope of Christ being Lord.

We would do well to learn from the image of Jesus given by John in the Revelation while considering how the world is to be redeemed: John is told to "Behold the Lion." We like the power of that image - so successfully used by C. S. Lewis in "The Chronicles of Narnia." But when John turns, he doesn't see a lion but a lamb - a gentle, harmless beast of sacrifice. It is the lamb that redeems - not with bullets, but with his own blood.

 

The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance (e-mail: pastorpaul@integrity.com).

 

To Homeschool Or Not To Homeschool

My son handed me a paper entitled Why I Do Not Homeschool he had downloaded from the internet.  The paper was written by a gentleman named Tim Challies who is identified as a Christian and Reformed Calvinist.  In his paper he explained why he and his wife chose not to homeschool their children.  It was a well-written and gutsy article but, IMO, fell short.  I’d like to explain why.

 

The paper was presented in two parts.  In the first part Mr. Challies discussed strong and weak Christians and the various convictions people might have for homeschooling or sending their children to private or public schools.  I am not sure how helpful this first part was.  Suffice it to say, everyone has some conviction which launches motivation and we should all evaluate our strengths, weaknesses and forbearance toward one another.  It wasn’t until part 2 (http://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-do-not-homeschool-part-2) that Mr. Challies offered his reasoning in answer to his title.

 

It is not my purpose here to make an argument for or against homeschooling.  I am simply seeking to point out what I found to be logical and interpretive shortcomings of his thesis.

 

In short, Mr. Challies and his wife want their children in public school “For Missions.”  I certainly applaud his desire to play his part in the Great Commission and prepare his children to do the same.  But his reasoning, I believe, begins to unravel when he seeks to explain how enrolling his children in public school provide the best method to this end.

 

Mr. Challies answers the objection that children “are unready to be evangelists” by observing that children are “filled with the same Holy Spirit as you and I.”  Being filled with the Holy Spirit, in Mr. Challies’ estimation, stands in isolation as the necessary prerequisite for ministry.  He, therefore, draws the conclusion that “They are equipped to reach out…”  With all due respect, being filled with the Holy Spirit does not necessarily equip one for ministry.  This can easily be shown in 1 Timothy 3:6 where Paul warns against a new convert being an elder lest he “become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.”  The new convert most certainly has the Holy Spirit but this does not mean they are equipped for ministry.

 

Mr. Challies explained that he and his wife feel that homeschooling their children would inhibit their ability to “reach out to the neighborhood.”  If they kept their children at home they could not “honor God” they would “lose credibility…lose friendships and lose access to the hearts of both children and their parents.”  He had earlier pointed how grieved he was that none of his neighbors had been to church.  As a Christian with four children between seven and seventeen, who we have homeschooled from day one, I must say that this has not been our experience.  Many of our neighbors have been to our church and we have long and deep relationships with those neighbors—people who send their children to private and public schools.  In homeschooling we have not lost credibility, friends or access to hearts.  I am not entirely sure why we would.  There are numerous other ways to access neighbors than by sending your children to the same school. 

 

Fear of “worldliness,” Challies explains, is not a legitimate concern which would lead one to homeschool.  He explains “we do not avoid worldliness by secluding ourselves from the world.”  At a certain level that may be true.  Forming an agrarian cloister group may be at odds with the call to “come out from among them” (2 Corinthians 6:17).  In other words, separating from the world isn’t necessarily geographical.  But Mr. Challies seems to utterly ignore the Apostle Paul’s admonition: “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Corinthians 15:33).

 

Mr. Challies’ argument that it is “far better to let them see it (what the world has to offer) when their hearts are tender, their confidence is in their parents, and their abilities are limited” is, at the risk of sounding harsh, simply naïve.  “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child” (Proverbs 22:15).  Children are easily deceived.  And for a small, immature (even Christian) child to be in an environment where the lion’s share of their attentive hours is bombarded with something quite contrary to a Christian life and world view seems foolish.  He continues this thought by explaining, with words I found chilling, that he believes “it is easier for children to avoid worldliness when they are exposed to the world.”  Of course there may be a sense where this is true (but I would want to be holding my child’s hand through this experience), but the Apostle Paul counsels otherwise:  “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. ¹² For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Ephesians 5:11, 12).

 

Mr. Challies then makes the argument that if you visit a Christian college, experience will show that you will “not find a difference” between children who were homeschooled or attended public or private school.  I am not sure what kind of scientific study this is, or what he means by “experience.”  One can just as easily say “experience shows there is a great difference.”  But these types of assertions mean little until you show what difference you’re looking for and how many people actually demonstrate the difference and what they would have been like had they gone to a different school, etc.  In short, there is a great difference between a valid argument and a bald assertion.

 

I do appreciate that Mr. Challies made a public argument and he seems willing to participate in irenic dialogue and reconsideration of his points.  I hope my critique has not seemed harsh; it was not my intention.  As I said, merely wanted to point out what I saw to be logical and interpretive shortcomings.

 

Pastor Paul Viggiano

Branch of Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church

pastorpaul@integrity.com 

 

 

Not Fit For Public Consumption

After five years and 70 columns, the Daily Breeze (our local paper) has found numerous reasons not to publish my opinion any longer (not officially of course).  Guess that's what blogs are for.  The latest for your consideration:

A Godless Constitution?

By Paul Viggiano

 

          July 4, 2013 the Los Angeles Times ran a full page ad (though nowhere on the page indicates it to be an ad) encouraging the people of the United States to “Celebrate Our Godless Constitution.”  The ad frames six founding fathers accompanied by dubious, out of context, quotations designed to enlighten the reader to the general disdain these fathers had when it came to God’s unwanted intrusion into the political affairs of men.  The ad was sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

          This splash of tabloid revisionist history would be humorous if it didn’t seem to be effectively dismantling the fabric of American culture.  Whatever one thinks this country is, or should be, the notion that the founders and their predecessors did not view America as a Christian enterprise requires a tower of suspended disbelief. 

An immense volume of photos, along with an exhaustive textual record of the holocaust was secured to the end that people would not doubt that the event occurred (though in one generation there are many who do just that), we have even greater assurance and evidence that our founders understood the disastrous consequences of a nation that appealed to anyone less than the “Supreme Judge of the world” to justify their political transactions, to wit, our founding documents and the very buildings where our political leaders engage in their deliberations.

E.g. Moses, holding the Ten Commandments, is the central figure atop the building where the U.S. Supreme Court meets; The Ten Commandments are also found in the Supreme Court courtroom; Bible verses are etched in stone in virtually every federal building and Monument in our nation’s capital.  James Madison stated that “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” 

Patrick Henry said “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”  Since 1777, every session of congress has opened with prayer by a preacher subsidized with tax dollars.  52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members in good standing of orthodox Christian churches.

The Mayflower Compact opens with the words “In the name of God, Amen” followed by “Having undertaken, for the glorie of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith and honour of our king & country, a voyage to plan the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia.” 

The introductory paragraph of The Declaration of Independence appeals to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  Jefferson found it fitting, and within the boundaries of his views of politics to indicate that “men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  He justified his intentions by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world.”

It is certainly true that the establishment clauses of the First Amendment indicate that “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  And to this I say ‘Amen,’ for no clear thinking person would desire a state run church.  But the separation of church and state, at least according to the founders, was quite different than the separation of God and state.

It was clear to Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address that “this nation [was] under God,” as well as in his Emancipation Proclamation where he appeals to “the gracious favor of Almighty God.”  I am halted now merely by space and not further content of the founders recognition of a country’s need for the ultimate and transcendent authority found in the God of the Holy Scriptures. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation boasts in their appeal to reason as they seek to beguile us toward the notion of a godless constitution and the liberty thereof.  Perhaps we would do well to ponder the godless political systems of the 20^th century under Sung, Minh, Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al.  The only liberty the tens of millions of innocent found under these godless systems was liberation from their own lives.  That doesn’t sound reasonable to me.

 

Tranquility in the Political

The election is over and we can, at long last, beat our political posters into plowshares.  Are you content with the results?  Coping with the elusive equanimity of spirit we hoped would accompany things going our way is a challenge we all must face.  

Battles have their place, but the peace twixt battles must be handled harmoniously and with a serenity which fosters civility—even among those who severely disagree.  The hangings in effigy, midnight beatings among neighbors, vandalism and artful digital gesticulations against pedestrian billboards must cease.

Soon (too soon for my taste) the next election will beckon us to once again participate in the process and we will all re-arm—hopefully with only thoughts and arguments, but for now we must resign to our destinies.  The election is over and the people have spoken—but from a deeper perspective, God has spoken. 

In a primary and ultimate sense it is God who makes kings and laws.  Those kings and laws can be a blessing or they can be a curse but mere man finds the acme of contentment in knowing there is a Supreme Governor of events who declares the beginning from the end— whose counsel shall stand.  To curse the results of the election is to curse the providence of God. 

Is this an encouragement to call good evil or evil good?  Far from it!  Does it mean those who believe in a sovereign God should be passive in the affairs of this world?  Certainly not!  We should pursue our convictions—be they ecclesiastical, familial or political with zeal and vigor.  But we are to be reassured that the world is not left to slapdash, uncertain promiscuities—as Einstein said, “God would not play dice with the universe.”  God has given us just what we need—or just what we deserve.

These words may only speak to those who believe in an omnipotent Triune God—who believe God’s hand is not too short to determine election results.  If that’s the case, more than half the readers will find some peace, though perhaps hoping for different results in the election.  If that half finds some peace, they’ll be better neighbors and everyone benefits.  

Peace of mind begins when we realize God is capable of utilizing ungodly people making ungodly decisions (I’m not saying who falls into this category) in His own incomprehensibly divine, just and glorious manner. 

For example, I never would have voted for Pilate for governor.  Let’s do the ciphering:  If not for Pilate there would have been no conviction of Jesus—If there were no conviction of Jesus there would have been no cross—If there were no cross there would be no redemption.  God had Pilate right where He wanted him.  And through a negligent politician, man was emancipated from sin.  I would never have voted for Pilate.  But when God revealed His secret plan, I am grateful that His will and not my will was done. 

It was this knowledge of God’s mighty hand that gave Joseph (the one with the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat) solace when his brothers threw him in a ditch, sold him into slavery resulting in his imprisonment in Egypt.  Their purpose for the treachery was evil but God meant it for good. 

In the first century the followers of Jesus were about to face deadly and torturous religious and political persecution.  In that hostile context Jesus said “peace be with you.”  When the faithful are invited by God to peace, it’s not a ‘grin and bear it’ peace.  It’s a peace recognizing the invisible hand of a good God behind all of men’s decisions—even the evil decisions.

          The Apostle Peter calls his readers to honor the king.  The king was Nero, the psychopathic Caesar.  Peter wrote this knowing there was a King of kings, a ruler of the kings of the earth.  Solomon taught that the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it where He wishes.”

          We all wish things were better.  But true, unwavering peace comes through a yielding of our souls to a primary decision-maker who will not apologize for one moment of the history he’s ordained.  Nothing settles the heart better than knowing there is an able Captain at the helm—a Captain who is not only capable of sailing the ship, but governing the storm.  I’m hoping I can be that content person—for my neighbor’s sake.

I Radical

This is very cool!  I’m a radical again!  It’s been so long.  I miss the days, back in the sixties and early seventies, when I saturated myself in defiant nobility—“Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice,” “Woodstock,” “Mad Dogs and Englishmen” six nights in a row at the Redondo Fox, Nehru shirts, bell-bottoms and long hair (hair period).  Then I got a job, got married, got kids, got responsible and fell into the mainstream of normalcy—but not anymore.  I just received a political mailer informing me that I’m extreme again.  Move over Jerry Rubin—sit down Abbie Hoffman—I’m about to blow out the Anthem on my Fender Strat.

I usually grow weary of election propaganda.  But the mailer forming the genesis of my neo-epiphany has rejuvenated my otherwise sedentary political bloodstream.  Of course I’m not running for office, so the mailer, strictly speaking, wasn’t about me.  It was about Craig Huey and some of his (what I thought to be) old time blah-blah American convictions.  But, apparently, Craig and I are edgy—bad boys if you will.  From whence does this edgy-ness arise you ask? 

For one, it comes from those with whom Craig and I associate—our bro-hams.  “He communicates” the flyer exposes “with the knowledge, understanding and language of the Evangelical community.”  Busted!!!  The man, the heat, the fuzz, the cops—they’re always judging me cause of my hair!  My old man told me to quit hanging out with those evangelicals.  “They’re just gonna get you in trouble Paulie!”  It just made me want to hang out with them all the more—same with Craig I guess.  Craig communicates with religious people—extreme—I like it.  But there’s more.

Huey punches his recalcitrant Tommie Smith toward the clouds in mutinous defiance of Roe v Wade.  He thinks the judges were “out of order.”  Tastes like fodder for a sit-in.  Did Huey really say “We cannot ignore the unborn” as the flyer suggests?  Dude!  Crazy, how it all comes back in style.  For hundreds of years Huey’s take on politics was main-stream.  He was normal.  Put one of those white fluffy wigs on him and he could have been a signer.  But now he takes rank with those truculent youths smoking cigarettes behind the library.  But there’s more.

The “deep-throat” like flyer reveals that Huey also “communicates…with the ‘Institute for Creation Research’ which promotes teaching Creationism in public schools.”  Has he no boundaries?  Was he raised by wolves?  The last thing on earth this country needs is someone with the irresponsible conviction that there is an actual Creator—scandalous, sinister—there should be a movie—I’m there—six nights in a row.  Maybe a cameo by Thomas Jefferson explaining what he meant by “Nature’s God” and being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  Guess he was a radical too.

I’m stoked!  After all this time I’m a radical again.  Gotta split now; see if I can find my eight-track of “Easy Rider” and my old lady (she left, lookin’ a little nervous). 

 

Texas Cheerleader Madness

School officials at an East Texas high school give ample evidence of Joseph Goebbels maxim that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will believe it. The evidence in question is their attempt to bar high school cheerleaders from displaying banners with Bible verses—District Judge Steve Thomas granted an injunction allowing the Scriptures verses to remain until the lawsuit is settled. In the meantime the cheerleaders hold our nation hostage with their reckless use of ancient literature.

It makes you wonder what other portions of Harvard’s Five Foot Shelf are to be banned from government funded education. No doubt The Confessions by Augustine are out and these cheerleaders will be chomping on detention slips if they dare quote The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a’ Kempes. Charles William Eliot should have been more selective. What fine prose would find its way into 21st century five foot shelf?

Would these girls find resistance quoting Vince Lombardi, Woody Hayes or Bobby Knight? Perhaps a more palatable bibliography would include Noam Chomsky, Whoopi Goldberg or Bill Maher. Just how benign must the verbiage be to make the menu of the public school? A menu with pictures always whets the appetite. Is there a clear thinking person with the remotest grasp of American history who actually believes that stifling cheerleaders from writing Bible verses is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind with the establishment clauses? If so, why do they open congress with prayer, why are there numerous allusions to a Creator in our government’s documentation and why are Bible verses carved in granite all over our nation’s capital? Were the fathers double-minded men?

Are we aware of what we are doing when we chastise young people for choosing inscriptions from the finest volumes in human history? Listening to the running media commentary on this issue was maddening. Otherwise clear thinking journalists—journalists who would, no doubt, fight tooth and nail for literary liberties have transitioned into a covey of match-wielding Terry Jones wannabees. They speak as if the public school is sacred ground—a pristine environment that these girls are seeking to stain with the pollution of apostolic indecency.

What is the lie everyone is believing? For one, it’s the notion that the establishment clause pertaining to religion was designed to protect the state from the influence of the immaterial convictions of private individuals—regardless of where those convictions might surface. No, the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was designed to protect the individual from government tyranny and a government run church—a government who tells teenager girls what classic literature is verboten. To quote Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Plain and simple, the Bible is out because it has something of impact to say. It is a life changing, culture transforming document which is the last thing on earth a monstrous government wants to deal with. A steady diet of The View will yield a much more malleable culture of young people than those who would deign to embark upon a trek through the Epistle to the Hebrews. But strong societies are not made of oatmeal. We should desire our young people set their face like flint to wisdom. Suing them for quoting Scripture will not yield that desired end.

Are People Born That Way?

Hello sir, I had a couple questions regarding your sermon on Sunday. Listening to it, I became a bit confused as to your view of homosexuality. So, what precisely is your view of homosexuality? It goes without saying that way of living is wrong, but I wondered, do you think people can be born homosexual? Good Question, Humanity is a fallen, sin-laden race and we are born with various desires and/or we may acquire various desires as we grow. "Yet man is born into trouble, as the sparks fly upward" (Job 5:7) Some of these desires may be attached to our biological make-up, some may be psychological. My point was: ethics must transcend human desire. In short, whether or not someone is born with strong homosexual desires is moot. For example, if I am born with a strong (even overwhelming) desire to do violence, that desire must be overcome or somehow restrained. We certainly shouldn't redefine our ethics to accommodate our strong passions; that man "comes forth from the womb speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3) does not justify lying. None of this means we should be insensitive to the difficulties and struggles people have with their desires. More to the point is that we don't establish ethics via human passions.