# 1320 (8/17) "Nothing Harmless about a Devil Statue [?]..."

"Nothing Harmless about a Devil Statue - PLAYING WITH FIRE" - By: Eric Metaxas| Breakpoint.org: August 14, 2015;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/12/27990?spMailingID=12138008&spUserID=MTMyMjM2ODE5OQS2&spJobID=601001274&spReportId=NjAxMDAxMjc0S0

According to C. S. Lewis, the Devil loves it when we give him attention . . . or disbelieve in him. Some folks in Detroit recently did both. Not a good idea.

In the classic X-Files episode “Die Hand Die Verletzt,” German for “The Harmful Hand,” a group of kids in a small town in New Hampshire mess around with Satanic rituals, and pardon the expression, all hell breaks loose: one by one the members of the cult are brutally murdered. The kids’ arrogance and stupidity prompts FBI agent Mulder to upbraid them by saying, “Did you really think you could call up the Devil and ask him to behave?”

The episode came to mind when Rod Dreher alerted us to the story of what was described as the “largest public satanic ceremony in history.” The “ceremony,” which took place in Detroit, consisted of the unveiling of a nine-foot tall “colossal bronze statue of Baphomet, the goat-headed wraith who, after centuries of various appropriations, is now the totem of contemporary Satanism.” Time magazine called the ceremony, which involved 700 people, “harmlessly festive” and compared it to “a cross between an underground rave and a meticulously planned Halloween party.”

Father James Martin begged to differ. Writing in the Jesuit magazine “America,” he said that the people in Detroit “have no clue what kind of forces they are dealing with.” He told readers that “In my life as a Jesuit priest, and especially as a spiritual director, I have seen people struggling with real-life evil.” He quoted St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, who called this evil the “evil spirit” and “the enemy of human nature.”

Martin is aware that talk of the Devil and the personification of evil is hard for modern westerners to take seriously. As he put it, “some people may laugh or roll their eyes.” But, like his fellow Jesuit Pope Francis, Martin takes evil and Satan quite seriously.

As he put it, “Evil is real. How Satan fits into this, I’m not exactly sure, but I believe that a personified force is somehow behind this. There is a certain ‘intelligence,’ if you will” at work when it comes to evil. He ended by quoting C.S. Lewis, who when asked whether he believed in the Devil, replied, “I’m not particular about the horns and hooves, but yes I believe,” to which Martin added, “Me too.”

Speaking of C.S. Lewis, in “The Screwtape Letters” Lewis wrote that “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” He added that devils “are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”

The people in Detroit managed to commit both errors at the same time. They denied believing in a personal devil, instead regarding Satan as a symbol of the “reconciliation of opposites, emblematic of the willingness to embrace, and even celebrate differences.” Yet at the same time they built a half-ton statue—“idol” is not too strong a word—of what they claim not to believe in and behaved in a way that brings to mind the children of Israel before the golden calf.

This is the cultural moment we’re living in: people either embracing evil and calling it good, or pretending that evil doesn’t exist at all. Oh, but evil does exist, and there is no lack of evidence for that proposition: from the slaughter houses of Planned Parenthood and ISIS, to the erection of a satanic statue in Detroit.

All of this should drive us to pray all the more: for our families, for each other, for our neighbors, and for our country. Because, as Jesus made clear, there is nothing harmless about the force behind all of this.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - As Eric pointed out, our culture often celebrates evil, or denies its existence outright. But as Christians we are called to be counter-cultural: we recognize evil's existence, but we celebrate and encourage what is righteous and good. For more information, click on the resources listed below.
RESOURCES
"Satanic Group Playing with Fire" - James Martin, S.J. | Americamagazine.org | July 27, 2015;http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/satanic-group-playing-fire
"Hundreds Gather for Unveiling of Satanic Statue in Detroit" - Nash Jenkins | Time.com |July 27, 2015;http://time.com/3972713/detroit-satanic-statue-baphomet/
The Screwtape Letters- C. S. Lewis | HarperOne | March 2001

# 1319 (8/16) SUNDAY SPECIAL: "The Bible and the Culture War"

"THE BIBLE AND THE CULTURE WAR" - August 1, 2015 by John Rabe; http://www.truthimpact.me/index.php/2015/08/the-bible-and-the-culture-war/#.VcoFkvlVgoI

On one side are those who hold to the traditional view of marriage as a lifetime bond between one man and one woman, which ultimately has its origins in the Bible. On the other are those who see morality as relative, to be changed according to the prevailing winds of cultural consensus.the-bible-and-the-culture-war-picture1

However, there is a growing group of people that appear to fall between these two positions: self-professed evangelical Christians who make the novel claim that the unchanging Word of God offers support for monogamous, same-sex unions.

In the forefront of this movement is Matthew Vines, a 25-year-old homosexual, professing Christian who has written the book God and the Gay Christian. He has received enormous attention in the mainstream media, and leads an organization called The Reformation project, which seeks to train church leaders to “take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.”

Vines’ attempt to make homosexuality compatible with biblical teaching is finding an eager audience among those Christians who regard the cultural pressure to conform to “the new normal” on homosexuality to be overwhelming. His arguments seem to be a balm for those Christians who want to be affirmed by the world, or who are fearful of being unpopular because they might be branded as “hateful” or “intolerant” for holding a more traditional perspective.

In reality, however, while Vines’ arguments initially appear erudite and carefully reasoned, closer inspection shows his approach simply distorts the Bible in an effort to justify what God clearly condemns.

For example, the Bible records a disturbing narrative in which the male citizens of the city of Sodom surround the home of Lot, demanding to have relations with two male guests he is housing. According to Vines, however, the chief sin of Sodom was its inhospitality towards the two visitors. This is a bit like saying John Wilkes Booth’s chief sin was creating a distracting ruckus in the midst of an otherwise enjoyable play.

Another argument, perhaps more compelling (at least at first glance), is Vines’ contention that the same-sex sin the Bible condemns is actually promiscuity rather than monogamous love. But there are two major problems with this.

First, if we are going to seek secret, hidden meanings under the Bible’s actual words, where does it stop? For instance, why does Vines decide that monogamy is privileged? Maybe, underneath it all, God is only concerned with the presence of love—regardless of the sex of the pairings or the number of participants. Vines appears to want to avoid such a conclusion because he knows it will not help him with the audience he seeks to persuade: evangelical Christians. But once he has tossed aside such clear statements as the assertion in Romans 1:26-27 that “dishonorable passions” include “exchang[ing] the natural function for what is against nature,” or the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that “neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals” shall inherit the kingdom, Vines has no grounds in the text for claiming the Bible is truly limiting sexuality in any meaningful way.

Secondly, such a “secret meaning” under the text ignores God’s design in creation. In the Genesis creation account, God first creates Adam. And then, noting that “it is not good that man should be alone,” He creates Eve. As Adam exults in his new wife, the biblical text tells us immediately, “Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, emphasis added). That one-flesh union has a purpose and a design that can only be accomplished through a male-female union: “And God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it…’” (Gen. 1:28). This command is impossible to fulfill within a same-sex union.

The Bible is God’s unchanging revelation of Himself and His will to His creatures. The first act of the serpent in the Garden of Eden was to cast doubt upon God’s Word. When we attempt to twist His Word to justify our own desires, we belittle God and worship a god of our own making. Indeed, this is precisely the sin punished in Romans 1. While we might expect non-Christians to ignore the Word of God, let us not fall prey to the misleading tongue of any serpent who pretends to be a friend.

This entry was posted in Biblical truth, Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage/Family and tagged Biblical Truth, Homosexuality, Marriage, Matthew Vines by John Rabe. Bookmark the permalink.
John Rabe - An ordained Southern Baptist church elder, John Rabe has a B.A. in Christian Ministry from Trinity International University and has studied at Knox Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Wendy, have been married since 1992 and have two children in college.

# 1318 (8/15 PRO-LIFE SAT: "... STEWARDING THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD REVELATIONS"

"First Shock, then Winning Hearts - STEWARDING THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD REVELATIONS" - By: John Stonestreet|Breakpoint.org: August 13, 2015; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/12/27977?spMailingID=12121798&spUserID=MTMyMjM2ODE5OQS2&spJobID=600861112&spReportId=NjAwODYxMTEyS0 [NOTE: 1) You'll note that on this blog site, I've been asking you to join me in praying that the recent revelations about Planned Parenthood will lead to many people FINALY understanding the horror of abortion and choosing against it. Let's continue to pray for many lives to be saved as the TRUTH of abortion is revealed. And 2)  Almost 20 years ago, I considered joining a pro-life group that the pro-life apologist mentioned below, Scott Klusendorf, had just joined. I'm excited to learn that he is still going strong in equipping college students to stand for life. I only wish I were now able to assist in such efforts. - Stan]

The content of these Planned Parenthood videos is difficult to take in, but they are a great opportunity for advancing the truth. I’ll point you to two people who can help us.

Everyone’s talking about the secret videos exposing the callous brutality of Planned Parenthood. Okay, not everyone—with a few exceptions, there’s been a virtual blackout from many of our primary media outlets. But for the rest of us, the videos represent a watershed moment in the long struggle to defend the dignity of unborn human life. People are beginning to see this hidden evil for what it is. Thank God—and the brave, determined folks at the Center for Medical Progress.

But it’s not just the media’s job to fight this evil. It’s all of ours too. So how can we take advantage of this pivotal cultural moment so that people will not only grasp the horror of abortion, but become our allies in the battle for life?

This past weekend on “BreakPoint This Week,” I spoke with two pro-life stalwarts on that very topic. Come to BreakPoint.org to tune in. My first guest: Mollie Hemingway, blogger and journalist extraordinaire for The Federalist website.Mollie agreed with me that these videos have the potential to move those folks who are in the “mushy middle” on this issue over to the side of life, just as the gruesome murder of Emmett Till did so for the civil rights movement in the 1950s. She also reminded me how the great Frederick Douglass understood the importance of telling stories about the violence, brutality, and dehumanization of slavery in order to change people’s minds—and certainly these videos are telling the all-too true story about the abortion industry, as well.

Mollie also concisely debunked several misleading counter-arguments from Planned Parenthood and their media allies. For example, the videos clearly demonstrate Planned Parenthood is violating federal law by altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs, and is selling fetal body parts, and is making a profit from them, and how they even refer to the aborted babies as “babies”! You simply must follow Mollie’s work, especially on this story.

My other guest on “BreakPoint This Week” was my good friend Scott Klusendorf, founder and president of Life Training Institute. Scott equips everyday believers like you and me how to argue for life without being argumentative. And in the interview, that’s exactly what Scott did. For example, we often hear, even from Christians, that Planned Parenthood does so much good in the realm of “women’s healthcare” that we simply have to accept that abortion comes with the territory. Scott’s reply: “If the KKK started giving free medical care to poor women, we would not think it a benevolent organization. Good deeds do not atone for bad ones, and less than five percent of its client services to pregnant women … don’t involve killing their unborn children.”

But as Scott said, debunking Planned Parenthood’s lies isn’t the ultimate goal. We need to begin changing people’s feelings, thinking, and behavior toward a positive apologetic for life as well, helping them get past their “worldview blockages and personal experiences (that) prevent them from considering the [truth].”

Scott has been testing an approach to get past these “blockages” with college students that involves two simple premises: (1) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; and (2) Abortion kills an innocent human being.

To present that second premise, Scott uses the SLED acronym, which stands for: Size, Level of development, Environment, and degree of Dependency. “If it’s wrong to kill people based on skin color or gender,” he asks, “why is it okay to hurt them based on their size, level of development, or degree of dependency?”

These videos that show the horrors of Planned Parenthood and abortion are an opportunity for Christians to help stop a grave evil and promote the good of intrinsic human value. In this regard, we all have work to do. So please come to BreakPoint.org and listen to my “BreakPoint This Week” interview with Scott Klusendorf and Mollie Hemingway.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION - Listen to John's interview with Mollie Hemingway and Scott Klusendorf on BreakPoint This Week - http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27959 Take advantage of the opportunity these videos provide to change hearts and minds on this issue.
RESOURCES
"BreakPoint This Week: No Hiding from the Truth" - John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | August 7, 2015;http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/27959
    "...This devastating undercover video series has brought Planned Parenthood and the question of abortion’s morality back to the forefront of Americans’ minds. And we'll need such real and human stories if we hope to trandform the heart of our culture...But even now, some Christians may prefer to preach the good news and convert souls, rather than write yet another chapter in the long and harrowing culture wars. To them, Klusendorf says this isn’t about politics or pushing our moral agenda on others. It’s about obeying Jesus. In the Great Commission, in the same breath with which he commands us to preach the Gospel, Christ told Christians to teach all nations to “obey everything I have commanded.” That’s why the shedding of innocent blood in America must stop. And more than any moment in decades, this moment promises progress. We must not squander it. 

"The 7 Most Important Takeaways From The 5th Planned Parenthood Exposé" - 
Mollie Hemingway | The Federalist | August 5, 2015;http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/05/the-7-most-important-takeaways-from-the-5th-planned-parenthood-expose/
Life Training Institute - http://prolifetraining.com/
"Human Capital - Episode 2: Inside the Planned Parenthood Supply Site" - The Center for Medical Progress | YouTube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzFZM73o8M
Center for Medical Progress - http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/

# 1317 (8/14) "The Questions John Kerry Should Demand Cuba Answer"

"THE QUESTIONS KERRY SHOULD DEMAND
 CUBA ANSWER" - Frank Calzon / @FrankCalzon2014 / August 13, 2015 / http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/13/the-questions-john-kerry-should-demand-cuba-answer/ [AS I SEE IT: Don't hold your breath that when any of the major mainstream media sources report on today's flag raising ceremony, ypu'll hear a word about what  is reported in this article nor anything else critical of our new "neighbor" to the south? You have to ask, as with Iran, why is the Obama administration so set on making "friends' with 2 countries - Iran and Cuba - that former President Bush famously described as terrorist states? Has either one been proved to be anything but?- Stan]

There is a strong likelihood that when Secretary John Kerry raises the

American flag in Havana this Friday [today], he will meet with General 
Raul Castro or other Cuban government officials who continue to support
the FARC, a Colombian terrorist group. Neither Kerry nor President Obama 
want to ask embarrassing questions.

The Washington Post recently called attention to Obama’s efforts not to raise 
significant issues that could derail the legacy he seeks by his approach to Raul
 Castro’s regime: “Tricky negotiations in the wake of the Cuba thaw”. The Post
 said “As the Obama administration has pursued normalization with Cuba, it 
has been drawn into lower-profile but thorny dialogues with two of 
Havana’s long-standing clients: the Venezuelan government of Nicolás
Maduro and Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC).”

The infamous relationship between the FARC and Raul Castro’s regime is 
nothing new and we’re not talking about ancient history. At a Congressional 
hearing on June 24th, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked 
Special Envoy Bernard Aronson who had just returned from Cuba about a Cuba
-bound Chinese ship loaded with weapons that was intercepted by the 
Colombian navy. The ship was scheduled to dock in two Colombian ports: 
Cartagena and Baranquilla, and the weapons manufactured in China were of 
the same type used by the Colombian terrorists.The weapons were purchased 
by Raul Castro, but in a telling detail they were shipped under tons of cereal.

The issue of the smuggling operation is a matter of no interest to Obama, 
because if, as it is likely, the weapons were meant to increase terrorist violence 
in Colombia, the administration’s decision to remove Cuba from the list of 
countries supporters of terrorism would have been impossible to defend. 
Thus the unwillingness of the administration to ask questions can only be 
explained as an effort to maintain deniability. The president, the administration,
 Kerry, and the Central Intelligence Agency simply did not know and do not 
wish to know. We are not talking about a few pistols and hand grenades. The 
amount of deadly cargo included the following: “100 tons of gunpowder, 
2.6 million detonators for bullets, 99 “projectiles” (rocket-propelled grenades,
to venture a guess) and 3,000 artillery shells.”

At the hearing, Ros-Lehtinen addressed Special Envoy Aronson as follows:
“In your trips to Cuba, did you ask the Cuban authorities if the large weapons 
shipment bought by Havana was intended for the FARC? Did you ask the 
Cuban authorities the reason for hiding the shipment under tons of grain?”

Aronson could not have been more disingenuous. He said: “I don’t engage 
with the Cuban authorities on a bilateral issue.I only talked to them once while
 I was down there on the progress of the peace talks.” To this day, the 
administration has shown a vexing disinterest and the Chinese ship and 
Havana’s smuggling of weapons.

Isn’t it troublesome for Castro to be bringing into Cuba or Colombia such 
huge amount of war materiel, at a time when the president was and remains
very much accommodating to the Castro dynasty? If the Obama administration 
asked the Colombian government to permit American officials to interview the 
crew of the Da Dan Xia, the American people nor the Congress has been told.

The episode is not the first time that the Cuban regime is caught red-handed 
smuggling weapons. In July 2013, again while the administration was extending
a hand of friendship to Havana, Panama intercepted a North Korean ship 
coming from Cuba attempting to cross the Panama Canal loaded with war 
planes, missiles, and other weapons in violation of United Nations sanctions.
The administration, when asked, said that the shipment “did not rise to a 
sufficient level” to be of significant concern.

Kerry will be in Havana on Friday to raise the American flag. There are rumors 
that the Secretary is considering visiting Fidel Castro to congratulate the Cuban 
leader on his birthday. But the Secretary of State does deal with bilateral issues, 
if he wants to.

Will Kerry ask General Raul Castro one or two simple questions: Were those 
weapons intended for the FARC in Colombia? And if not, since Cuba has a l
egitimate right to purchase weapons, why were they being smuggled?

The American people and the U.S. Congress deserve an answer.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Frank Calzon is Executive Director at the Center for a Free Cuba in 
  Washington, D.C.

# 1316 (8/13) "Evidence: Planned Parenthood Lying About Financial Incentives, Patient Consent"

"EVIDENCE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD LYING About Financial Incentives, Patient Consent" - Guy Benson | Aug 12, 2015;
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/08/12/new-planned-parenthood-video-exposes-abortion-giants-consent-lie-n2038024

     As Planned Parenthood has undertaken its damage-mitigation campaign in the wake of stomach-turning practices revealed in an ongoing series of undercover videos, the abortion giant's officials have offered a string of questionable and false assertions.  Here is a "fact" Planned Parenthood tweeted in mid-July:

"These programs" refer to Planned Parenthood's systematic harvesting and selling of human organs from aborted fetuses -- including late-term fetuses.  The organization claims that its practices comply with all "ethics and laws," which is not true.  It is against the law to alter abortion procedures for the purpose of enhancing the quality and quantity of the resulting sellable "tissue samples."  Several senior Planned Parenthood officials admit to doing precisely that, on tape.  One discusses strategically "crushing" certain parts of the fetus to protect lucrative organs such as livers, while another explicitly discusses "alter[ing] our process" in order to obtain "intact fetal cadavers."  This is illegal and medically unethical.  The tweet also states that patients "consent fully" to the sale of their aborted children's body parts. The latest video, featuring a whistle-blower, directly challenges this claim:

The series follows the personal narrative of Holly O’Donnell, a former Blood and TIssue Procurement Technician for StemExpress, a start-up biotech company from northern California that partners with Planned Parenthood clinics to purchase their aborted fetus parts and resell them for scientific experimentation. As a procurement tech, O’Donnell’s job was to identify pregnant patients matching the specifications of StemExpress customers and to harvest the fetal body parts from their abortions. “It’s not an option, it’s a demand,” StemExpress supervisors instructed O’Donnell about approaching pregnant women at Planned Parenthood for fetal tissue “donations.” O’Donnell says the StemExpress techs working in Planned Parenthood clinics sometimes harvested fetal parts without obtaining consent from the patients: “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.” Federal laws on the procurement and use of human fetal tissue require that patients consent to the tissue donation subsequent to consenting to the abortion procedure (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Finally, there's the "nobody benefits financially" piece, which is patently ridiculous and easily disproven. One Planned Parenthood doctor caught on video talks about using fetal organ harvesting to help clinics "do a little better than break even."  This is known as "profit." Another talks about "bump[ing] up" the agreed-upon price for body parts, joking that she wants to buy "a Lamborghini."  Yet another employee boasts that the organ-harvesting side business plays an important role in the "diversification of [Planned Parenthood's] revenue stream," referring to fetal organs as "line items" that can be split up among "different shipments" to maximize revenues.  "Nobody benefits financially," the home office claims, because profiting from the sale of human remains is illegal.  Which brings us to sworn testimony in Madison, Wisconsin, where lawmakers are considering legislation that would crack down on fetal harvesting practices.  From a local reporter who attended the hearings:

Jessica Arp
‏@news3jessica
Former @PPact dir, says quota was 75 abortions/day, says employees were offered $ incentives to get women to consent to research of tissue
9:01 AM - 11 Aug 2015
Jessica Arp ✔@news3jessica
Former @PPact clinic director from Houston says her clinic was selling fetal body parts, made $1.4M a year 
10:28 AM - 11 Aug 2015
Jessica Arp
‏@news3jessica
Kleefisch: what would happen to your research if women stopped having abortions? Golden: it would have a substantial negative impact...
9:27 AM - 11 Aug 2015

Perverse incentives galore, in direct contradiction of Planned Parenthood's official line. Congressional Republicans and a handful of Democrats are seeking to strip the organization of federal funding.  New York Times columnist Ross Douthat supports this initiative, swatting away apologists' attempts to paint Planned Parenthood as somehow pro-life.  His forceful conclusion: 

Tell me anything but this, liberals: Tell me that you aren’t just pro-choice but pro-abortion, tell me that abortion is morally necessary and praiseworthy, tell me that it’s as morally neutral as snuffing out a rabbit, tell me that a fetus is just a clump of cells and that pro-lifers are all unhinged zealots. Those arguments, as much as I disagree with them, have a real consistency, a moral logic that actually makes sense and actually justifies the continued funding of Planned Parenthood. But to concede that pro-lifers might be somewhat right to be troubled by abortion, to shudder along with us just a little bit at the crushing of the unborn human body, and then turn around and still demand the funding of an institution that actually does the quease-inducing killing on the grounds that what’s being funded will help stop that organization from having to crush quite so often, kill quite so prolifically – no, spare me. Spare me. Tell the allegedly “pro-life” institution you support to set down the forceps, put away the vacuum, and then we’ll talk about what kind of family planning programs deserve funding. But don’t bring your worldview’s bloody hands to me and demand my dollars to pay for soap enough to maybe wash a few flecks off.

Enough. Planned Parenthood is callously butchering unborn, late-term fetuses, violating the law, and lying about it. 

[bold and italics emphasis mine]

Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson. He is co-authors with Mary Katharine Ham for their new book End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).

# 1315 (8/12) "China vs. the Cross - STANDING WITH OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS"

"CHINA VS THE CROSS - STANDING WITH OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org: August 12, 2015; http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/12/27970?spMailingID=12114376&spUserID=MTMyMjM2ODE5OQS2&spJobID=600799997&spReportId=NjAwNzk5OTk3S0

Communist authorities are attempting to remove the cross from China. But Chinese Christians are responding in dramatic ways.

The cross is, of course, the universal symbol of Christianity, and it speaks powerfully to God’s justice, mercy, power, and love. The late John Stott once said, “I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross.  The only God I believe in,” he said, “is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as ‘God on the cross.’ In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it?”
How indeed?

The cross has undeniable power to draw us to the Savior. In China, by some estimates, more than 130 million people have embraced the cross and become Christians. Journalist David Aikman, in his book “Jesus in Beijing,” predicts that as many as one-third of China’s population may become Christian within the next 30 years.

Perhaps that’s why the cross is under attack in eastern China right now. For the last two years, the government in the province of Zhejiang has torn down or otherwise destroyed at least 1,200 giant red crosses from church buildings. The city of Wenzhou is at the epicenter of the action. Wenzhou is known as “China’s Jerusalem” and it’s no exaggeration. The city is home to a million Protestants and more than 300,000 Catholics. And so the visibility of the city’s nearly ubiquitous crosses, no doubt, has been a huge embarrassment to Communist Party rulers.

So it’s no surprise that they’re attempting to remove them. According to The Guardian, “Towering red church crosses—visible for miles around—once dotted the city’s skyline but many of the most prominent [have] been forcibly removed since the campaign began. In some cases, entire churches have been reduced to rubble.” One anonymous church leader told the British newspaper that authorities were attempting to transform Christianity “into a tool that serves the [Communist] Party,” adding, “What they are doing feels like something from the Cultural Revolution era.”

But Christians in China aren’t taking it lying down. Many are writing letters of protest; some have begun engaging in civil disobedience. Christianity Today reports that members of one church where the cross was removed staged a sit-in, holding banners with the words “lift up the cross” and “protect religious freedom.” Last month, 20 priests protested outside government offices, unfurling a banner that said, “Maintaining religious dignity and opposing the forced removal of crosses.” Others are noticing, too.

Mervyn Thomas of Christian Solidarity Worldwide said, “The ongoing campaign to forcibly remove crosses and demolish churches in Zhejiang has had a profoundly negative effect on Catholic and Protestant churches in the province . . . Many church leaders,” he continues, “have patiently and repeatedly tried to negotiate and enter into dialogue with the local authorities; the protests and petitions … are a sign that their concerns have not been addressed.”

That’s not all. Christianity Today also reports: “Now Chinese Protestants and Catholics are joining together to put red crosses—albeit much smaller ones—back in the public eye. … In an online campaign, church leaders in … Zhejiang have called on Christians to craft hundreds of small wooden crosses, paint them red, and display them at home or on their cars.” One church leader told The Guardian, “Each time they take a cross down, we will put more up. We are even considering making flags and clothes with cross patterns. We will make the cross flourish throughout China.”

But doing this is risky. Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports that more than 100 people were detained or arrested in connection with cross removals last year, and another 38 were beaten or injured during protests. When Chinese Christians say they’re going to take up their crosses, they really mean it.

So what about us? The Bible tells us that when one member of Christ’s body suffers, we all do. We can stand with our brave brothers and sisters in China by praying, and urging our elected leaders to make an issue of religious freedom in all of their dealings with China. Chinese Christians are willing to take a stand for the cross. The question is, are we?

Pray for Christians in China. As John mentioned, protesting the removal of the cross is not a safe action there. And pray that Christians here in America would also be willing to take a stand for the cross and the Christ it represents.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

RESOURCES
"China's Christians protest 'evil' Communist campaign to tear down crosses" - Tom Phillips | The Guardian | July 27, 2015; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/chinas-christians-protest-evil-communist-campaign-to-tear-down-crosses
"China Sees Red: Christian Protest Puts Hundreds of Crosses Back in Public" - Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra | Christianity Today | August 3, 2015; http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/august/china-sees-red-christian-protest-hundreds-crosses-wenzhou.html
Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China And Changing the Global Balance of Power - David Aikman | Regnery Publishing | November 2006
"Beijing's Theology of Repression" - David Aikman | Wall Street Journal | July 11, 2011;http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304760604576428260216373754
Christian Solidarity Worldwide - website - http://cswusa.org/

# 1314 (8/11) "A Debatable 'Debate' "

"A DEBATABLE 'DEBATE' " - Thomas Sowell | Aug 11, 2015; http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/08/11/a-debatable-debate-n2037005/page/full [AS I SEE IT: I believe the author of this article makes a great point about how best it would be that a President have the executive experience of having been a governor, though many of those without such experience have demonstrated great leadership qualities and proven that their convictions are more than sound bites. Also, there are cases of governors who have not demonstrated standing on their convictions. Finally, I agree with the author how the "debate' formats invite questions that seem designed to create media buzzx than stimulate real discussion about substantive issues. There just must be a better way to create REAL debate. - Stan]

The so-called "debates," among too many Republicans to have a debate, are yet another painful sign of how much words and ideas have degenerated in our times.

No one expects these televised sound bites and "gotcha" questions to be anything like the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates on the momentous national issue of slavery.But the mob scene of candidates on stage that began with the 2012 campaign, and is now being repeated, is a big step down from the modern one-on-one debates between presidential candidates that began with John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon in 1960.

We still have momentous national issues. In fact, the threat of a nuclear Iran with intercontinental missiles is a threat to the survival of America and of Western civilization. The issue could not be bigger. But this issue did not get even half the attention as was lavished on Donald Trump. Even in the earlier "debate" among the second-tier candidates, where Trump was not present, the first question asked was about Donald Trump.

Nothing could more plainly, or more painfully, show what is wrong with the priorities of the media.

A poll taken after the "debates" showed that, of the 17 participants, the top 5 were all people who had never run a state government or a federal agency. In other words, those who came out on top in this battle of sound bites were people whose great strength was in rhetoric. After more than six years of Barack Obama in the White House, have we learned nothing about the dangers of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of sound bites, with no track record to check against his rhetoric?

Remember his promise of creating "the most transparent administration" in history? Remember his talk about "investing in the industries of the future" -- and how that led to the bankruptcy of Solyndra? Remember "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"? These were all great exercises in rhetoric. But before there was a track record to check against that rhetoric, voting to put Obama in the White House was like flying a plane through mountains at night. If we manage to get through the next year and a half without crashing, should we try that gamble again?

It so happens that there are some governors with outstanding track records among the 17 Republican candidates. But not one of them made the top 5 in the first poll after the "debates." This is not to say that no one who has never been a governor should be considered. But to pick the top 5 exclusively from people with no governing experience shows how little we have learned about such gambles with the destiny of this nation.

Part of this is due to the format of these media "debates" among numerous candidates, which reduces their statements to little sound bites -- and sound bites are seldom very sound.Part of this is due to the kinds of questions asked by the media moderators. These first two "debates" were run by people from the Fox News Channel and, by media criteria, they were even praised by their competitors at CNN. But that just shows what is wrong with media criteria.

In the 2012 "debates," moderator John King asked Newt Gingrich about his marital problems -- and Gingrich drew a standing ovation from the audience when he pointed out that the millions of people who were watching on television had not tuned in to find out about his personal life. But then as well, others in the media sprang to John King's defense, saying that any other media journalist would have asked that same question.

They might well be right. But that just shows what is wrong with the media. This year's Fox News Channel moderators included people who are fine in their own programs. But cast in this new role as moderators, their reliance on the usual media practices was a great disservice to the country at a time when there are very serious -- and potentially catastrophic -- issues in the balance.

Is this country's fate not as important as Donald Trump's antics? Then why would the first of these "debates" open with a question about Donald Trump, who was not even present? There is plenty of blame to go around, and neither the media, the candidates, nor the public should be exempted from their share.

[bold and italics emphasis mine]
 
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
Creators Syndicate