Written by Emily Carder

A meme circulating Facebook depicts a disconcerting dystopian scene: A man in a trench he cannot climb out of is warming himself before a fire; he has used the rungs of the ladder he could have used to climb out of the trench to build the fire. So, he has destroyed his own means of freedom for temporary comfort.

Vice President Mike Pence openly prays to His Heavenly Father for guidance before taking action. He is currently being chided for his 2015 response to an AIDS outbreak in Indiana. Does anyone seriously think the time Pence took to pray is actually responsible for more AIDS infection? Yes. Read for yourself:

Pence’s slow response to the quick spread of HIV in Scott County, Indiana in 2015 led to the infection of over 200 people. When the idea of a needle exchange to slow the infection rate of the illness was presented to Pence he responded by saying, “I’m going to go home and pray on it.”[1]

There you have it. The spread of AIDS in Scott County, IN, is Pence’s fault because he took time to pray.

Fast forward to the current “crisis,” the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Pence is now spearheading the government’s response. What is his first course of action? To pray. To which Fox News’s Jessica Tarlov snarks,

“Well, with climate science, he thinks you should pray on it,” Tarlov replied. “If you have HIV, you should go to a doctor. If you have a Coronavirus, you should go to a doctor. And this isn’t about insulting prayer, it’s just saying that that kind of policy and that kind of thinking is outdated and has no place in modern society.”[2]

When was the last time Newsweek or anyone in the MSM spoke against euthanasia? Anything other than glowing approval of abortion up to birth? Giddy joy for no medical care for born-alive aborted infants? I have a question for those, like Tarlov, who warm themselves at the self-conceited bonfires du jour: How many living infants were left to die following abortions; how many infants were dismembered in utero; how many children began transsexual disfigurement, chemical or surgical, in the time it took for her to utter her ill-considered denouncement of Pence and prayer? Though she claims this is not “about insulting prayer,” it is precisely that. Rather, it is about insulting the one to whom prayer is addressed. It is blatant and open anti-Christianity. Pence is unqualified because he is a practicing Christian according to Tarlov.

It’s not as though the Newseek authors and Tarlov don’t have their own religion. They do. When Newsweek suggests Pence’s prayer caused greater suffering, and when Tarlov dismisses prayer as a rightful response in the modern era, it is because they have different gods. When government is looked to as the solution for all needs, it becomes a god. Not too long ago some were suggesting a “Scroogian” resolution to the climate crisis: reduce the surplus population. [3]  It still needed to be decided who the surplus were, and who decided.

Yet, we are well on our way with the likes of Bernie Sanders and the advocates of euthanasia. Still, with the advent of COVID-19, it seemed rather ironic there was so much panic in the face of such a natural population eliminator. In all seriousness, what this demonstrates is that those who celebrate abortion but then panic over COVID-19 actually do hold life to be valuable. It is the Creator of life they reject. When lives are in the trenches, it’s the ladders they don’t mind burning.

In his explanation of the First Commandment Martin Luther wrote, “To have a God properly means to have something in which the heart trusts completely.”^[4] He builds on that thought in both his Morning and Evening Prayers when he borrows from Christ’s own praying of Psalm 22 on the cross, “For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things.”[5] If we return to the image at the beginning of this short piece, a ladder is the answer to a prayer sent into the trench (i.e., a crisis) in which we live. Either we use it as God intends, or we burn it. It all depends on who we believe sent the ladder, on how we treasure Him and His gifts.

If God is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen, then He is the one who also sustains it. And it is He who daily and richly supplies all our needs. We need daily bread, that is, food. His Son taught us to pray for it. Yet it does not magically appear on our tables. God sends farmers. God still sends favorable weather for crops in due season. We pray for bountiful harvests. Likewise, we pray for good government and peace in our nation, that all our economic efforts may be productive.

We need each other’s vocations, neighbors serving neighbors through our various careers and interests. We live in union with each other. In Luke 12:22-28 Jesus teaches us how the Heavenly Father regards the least of His creatures, birds of the air and lilies of the field. If they do not have a care because He feeds and clothes them, why should we, who are His treasured ones, the ones for whom His own Son died? In all ways it is a matter of perspective. If God is the giver of all good gifts, then we are also the stewards of all He gives.

Pence isn’t only praying—as Newsweek’s and Tarlov’s derision suggests. The VP is also working with people of differing vocations. His COVID-19 Task Force consists of members from many disciplines. Among them are,

Ambassador Debbie Brix, White House Corona Virus Response Coordinator; Secretary Alex Azar, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Robert Redfield, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Anne Schuchat, Principal Deputy Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Stephen Hahn, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.[6] (not exhaustive)

When God answers prayers, He sends people of various vocations to be in service to each other through acts of mercy to each other, to be stewards of His gifts to and with each other for the greater good.

So, in the depth of life’s trenches, we pray. (And when aren’t we in the trenches?) He surrounds us by a host of angels. For, He is our refuge and strength (Psalm 46; Psalm 91). Sometimes we might even imagine He sends us a ladder in the form of soap and water to wash our hands, often and much.

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pences-pray-it-plan-combat-indiana-hiv-outbreak-resurfaces-after-trump-taps-vp-lead-1489344

[2] https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/fox-news-pundit-slams-mike-pence-for-pushing-prayer-over-science-he-shouldnt-be-anywhere-near-coronavirus/

[3] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/; https://www.inverse.com/article/48236-population-control-can-help-climate-change; https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/population-climate-change-1.5331133

^[4] Tappert, T. G. (Ed.). (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 366). Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press.

[5] Rydecki, Paul A. (Tr.). (2018) Luther’s Small Catechism; An Introduction to the Catholic Faith. (p. 39). Paul A. Rydecki.

[6] https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/03/06/vp-mike-pence-provides-coronavirus-task-force-update-grand-princess-cruise-ship-has-21-testing-positive/

~Correction/Update: Although Neuqua Valley High School still lists Hemant Mehta on its Math Department faculty webpage, he no longer works there. Linked screenshot below* was taken today, Dec. 19, 2014.~

A new Chicago-area billboard campaign from the aggressively offensive Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) exposes again this organization’s hostility to and childish misunderstanding of Christian faith.

The FFRF has announced that eleven billboards are going up with these special holiday messages:

• “Kindness comes from altruism, not from seeking divine reward.”
• “We are here to challenge you to think for yourself.”
• “I believe in reason and logic!”
• “Equality for all shouldn’t be constrained by any religion.”
• “Free of faith, fear and superstition”
• “I put my faith in science.”
• And this featuring Neuqua Valley High School math teacher* Hemant Mehta (aka the “Friendly Atheist”): “I’d rather put my faith in me.” (It’s curious that the billboard doesn’t identify Mehta as a public high school teacher. To learn more about Mehta, click here, here, and here.)

A few brief responses to the FFRF’s shallow slogans:

1. Kind acts are “friendly, generous, warmhearted, charitable, generous, humane, and/or considerate acts.” Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Kind acts may be motivated by ignoble, selfish sentiments—perhaps even a wrong theological belief that one earns salvation through one’s actions. But kind acts can also be motivated by altruism that derives from faith in Christ.

Kindness can be the result of the regeneration that God performs in the hearts of believers, which deracinates selfishness and naturally results in desires more in line with God’s nature. Kindness can result from an overflowing of thankfulness for God’s great gift of salvation, which makes followers of Christ love and give more unselfishly, often even sacrificially.  They act kindly and altruistically not to gain reward but to thank God and to express his love to others.

2. Finding the Old and New Testament writers to be persuasive no more constitutes a failure to “think for yourself” than does finding the ideas of Bertrand Russell, John Rawls, Richard Rorty, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins persuasive. And believing that reality is not exclusively material does not constitute a failure to think logically.

Are the members of the FFRF actually arguing that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, G.K. Chesterton, Karl Barth,C.S. Lewis, G.E.M. Anscombe, Pope Benedict XVI, John Finnis, Hadley Arkes, Alvin Plantinga, D.A. Carson, Eleonore Stump, N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Francesca Aran Murphy, Doug Wilson, Robert George, Francis Beckwith, David Bentley Hart, and Alex Pruss did or do not think for themselves and/or that they reject reason and logic?

3. Equality—properly understood—is advanced by Christian faith. Equality demands treating like things alike, and increasingly both those who embrace an atheistic scientific materialism and people who embrace heterodoxy are incapable of recognizing fundamental truths—including even facts—about human nature. Therefore, they are incapable of identifying which phenomena are in reality alike.

4. First, one can make an argument that those who most fear, for example, death are those who have an unproven faith in the non-existence of an afterlife.  Second, a superstition is “a belief held in spite of evidence to the contrary.” As such, the Christian faith does not constitute a superstition, because there is ample evidence for the existence of God and his human incarnation, Jesus Christ. Atheists reject the evidence based on their a priori assumptions about what constitutes evidence.

5. Christians too put their faith in science. Christians, including Christian scientists, trust and have confidence that science proves what it can prove. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an immaterial reality. And science cannot prove whether altruistic acts are objectively morally good acts or merely acts that humans have evolved to believe are objectively good because such a belief serves to enhance survival.

6. Faith in self alone reflects the kind of hubris that leads more often to intellectual and moral error than it does to altruism.

“The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father’s will Jesus Christ became poor, and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross.” ~J.I.Packer

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $80,000 by the end of the month – Donate today!

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

You can also send a gift by mail to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188

Despite the fact that I am neither a theologian nor a pastor, I’m going to make what I hope are not presumptuous observations about the way some individuals, church leaders, and non-profit organizations attempt to build bridges with the homosexual community. Many Christian “bridge-builders” are pursuing this noble effort by either concealing from their GLBTQ friends the true nature of their orthodox theological positions, or conversely by concealing from their orthodox Christian friends their non-traditional theological positions.

The goals of building bridges, cultivating community, and fostering relationships between the orthodox Christian community and the LGBTQ community, and spreading the Good News of Christ’s work of redemption within that community are not only noble but critical goals. And certainly different people are called to approach these goals in different ways. But the methods or strategies employed must never sacrifice, obscure, or compromise truth.

Some of these bridge builders justify their obfuscation by claiming that it is not the role of the Christian community to “convict or judge.” They argue, rightly in my view, that it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart of man, and God who judges. But the way they are using this correct theology muddies the waters by implying that if we state clearly that God defines homosexual behavior as sin, we are guilty of convicting and judging others. That is false. To answer direct questions with direct, clear answers on God’s view of homosexuality does not constitute either convicting or judging. And it can lead to the very redemption bridge-builders profess to desire for the LGBTQ community.

There are several important clarifications that need to be made. First, conviction is a work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. Second, our plain, unequivocal, unambiguous statements about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality are not the convicting work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. And third, speaking plain truths often plays a part in the Holy Spirit’s work of convicting us of sin. We can and should respond to direct questions with direct responses with no fear that we have engaged in a presumptuous acts of convicting.

The idea of “judgment” is similarly misused. We as fallen humans cannot presume to judge who is saved and who is not, but we are obligated to teach and preach about what God’s Word teaches about sin. Articulating clearly what the Bible teaches on homosexuality does not constitute unbiblical, illegitimate judging. God manifestly does not prohibit believers from sharing what he reveals in his Word as right or wrong conduct. What kind of a world would we live in if every Christian ceased articulating moral principles derived from Scripture?

If asked directly, orthodox believers should answer winsomely and lovingly but plainly and truthfully. If we strain to find ways to avoid speaking the truth that God proscribes homosexual practices, we do a disservice both to those experiencing same-sex attractions and to our relationship with Christ. Our equivocations, evasions, or ambiguity will either appear as untruthful and manipulative, or they will deceive people into thinking we believe something we do not. We should instead do as we are commanded and speak the truth in love.

Of course, sharing biblical truths about sin may make people uncomfortable and even angry, but sharing what the Word of God teaches about homosexuality, if done in a spirit of humility and in a gracious manner, does not and indeed cannot, inhibit the work of the Holy Spirit. To imply that because speaking biblical truth hurts or angers those who self-identify as homosexual, it undermines the capacity of the Holy Spirit to bring them to salvation is unbiblical.

Those who self-identify as homosexual are no different from those who are selfish, greedy, envious, prideful, fornicators, gossips, or gluttons. All of us come to the cross as sinners, and none will be fully sanctified until Christ’s return, but retreat from or obfuscation of what the Bible teaches about selfishness, greed, envy, pride, fornication, gossip, gluttony, homosexuality, or any other of the myriad manifestations of sin is simply not scriptural–and therefore not good.

If a fornicator comes to us and asks if God approves of fornication, we must with love, humility, and empathy, tell him no, God does not approve of fornication. Similarly, if someone asks us directly how God views homosexuality, we must answer that God disapproves of it. We do not reject him or her because of their questions, their feelings, or their actions. And we ought to take this opportunity to share the Gospel message of hope and redemption. But we must answer truthfully. His or her anger does not mean we have done something wrong, and it tells us precisely nothing about the ultimate effect of our words. If we speak God’s truth in a gracious, humble manner, we glorify God. The ultimate consequence is in God’s hands. All our strategizing about what will work best to draw people into the Kingdom reveals our lack of understanding of God’s sovereignty.

Long-(mis) attributed to Martin Luther are these words:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

Similarly Martin Luther’s namesake, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote this about the church’s resistance to confronting boldly, directly, and unambiguously the sin of racism:

I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. … too many … have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. … I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? …

I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, non-biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

In deep disappointment, I have wept over the laxity of the church. … I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide, and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

“Building bridges,” cultivating community, and fostering relationships must always be subordinate to teaching the entirety of Scripture. That is not to say that Scripture passages on homosexuality are the totality of the message. They’re not. But it does mean that Scripture has something explicit to say about homosexuality, and if we are asked what the Bible says, we are obligated, if we love Christ and love our neighbors as ourselves, to share that hard truth. That we must address this issue so often arises not from any obsession on the part of Christians but rather from the relentless, pervasive cultural assault on biblical truth.

John Wesley articulates eloquently the reasons and necessity for a clear exposition of God’s universal, eternal, and immutable precepts for human conduct:

 . . . [T]he First use of [the law] without question is, to convince the world of sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it with out any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him. . . . But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is . . . quick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper than any two edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and “divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;” yea, as it were, the very “joints and marrow.” By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God.”

To slay the sinner is, then, the First use of the law; to destroy the life and strength wherein he trusts, and convince him that he is dead while he liveth; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead unto God, void of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The Second use of it is, to bring him unto life, unto Christ, that he may live. It is true, in performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe school-master. It drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed whereon to trust, and so constrains the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depth of his heart,

“I give up every plea beside, — Lord, I am damn’d; but Thou hast died.”