“Get out of Iraq!”

It’s the mantra of the left and seems to be picking up steam. I have to confess, it’s down in the depths of my heart too. Let’s get our troops home. I want this war over for several reasons:

I don’t like my soldiers being in harm’s way. I’ve heard the cutesy clichés such as “It’s more dangerous on a US interstate than in Iraq” or “More Americans die per capita by murder in our cities than soldiers die in Iraq” or some other semantically contrived comparison. But bottom line, we don’t intentionally subject our citizens to this harm. The longer our soldiers are in Iraq, the greater a chance of violence being done to Americans.

I don’t like them being away from their families. Kids have to go to bed without a dad or go off to school without a mom and spouses have to carry the load of civilian life…of family life, alone. This is one of the worst consequences of the war. American families are broken up because someone is overseas.

I don’t like my government spending millions and millions of dollars on wartime costs. The costs, whenever I see them from time to time in an obscure report, are mind-boggling.

But there’s something I don’t like that tops of all those. I don’t like my homeland being attacked. I don’t like innocent civilians living within the United States of America in fear. I don’t like 3,000 Americans being obliterated in one day. I don’t like children being vulnerable. And that’s what our President and so many others in America don’t like either. That’s why we took the war to them. Terrorists have declared war on America. We will fight them here or we will fight them where they live. I prefer the latter.

We must support this war. Only united support by Americans can hasten the war’s end. Bringing our troops home is one thing. Finishing the job that must be finished is quite another.

Great News!

After following so many polls over the past year, this is the first one that indicated we (my side opposing stem cell research) are ahead. This one was done by the Joplin Globe.

=================================

Poll Results
Would you vote for a candidate that favors the use of stem cells in medical research?

1. Yes. Stem cell research is needed to cure disease and improve the quality of human life. 36.59%
2. No. Stem cell research is immoral and could lead to human cloning. 51.22%
3. Maybe, it depends on the candidates other positions. 12.20%
4. I don't plan to vote at all. False%

41 votes counted.

This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole.

=================================

Oh rats! The fine print reads “41 votes counted.” Not very scientific or reliable. But what poll is? I’ll take whatever encouragement there is.

We still have our work cut out for us, convincing fellow Missourians that embryonic stem cell research is immoral. Let’s get to it.

Go here for more information.

Coalition gets big bucks

The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures recently passed the $16 million mark in contributions. What most people don’t realize is that 96% of this came from Jim & Virginia Stowers of the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. The Institute will make millions if Amendment 2 is approved.

The Coalition has been spending a ton of money. I can’t help but chuckle when I think of driving my Hyundai to a speaking event, grabbing a Big Mac along the way. And others (on our side) are just like me. No airplane tickets, consultant fees or Panera bread reimbursements.

Ultimately, it isn’t about money, it’s about truth. Amendment 2 will legalize killing human embryos for scientific experimentation. Come on, Missouri, we can do better. Tell your friends to vote NO on Amendment 2.

P.S. Did you know Amendment 2 is almost 2,000 words long, occupying 5 pages of text? It's one of the most sweeping changes in the history of our state constitution. Read the full text here.

Sherwood Baptist Church has gone into the movie making business. Their newest release (and evidently their second film) is called Facing the Giants. From viewing the trailer on the film's website, I'd pay money to see it and encourage others to do so as well.

The really interesting twist in this story is that the Motion Picture Association of America gave the movie a PG rating. Did these Christians slip in a little foul language, trying to make the coach or another character seem more realistic? Nope. Did they show a little cleavage on some cheerleaders, hoping to entice some Junior High boys into buying a ticket? Wrong again. It seems the MPAA gave the film the PG rating instead of a G rating because it is a Christian film.

Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures, told Baptist Press that the MPAA "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions."

So, Jesus talk now ranks with profanity and nudity. Welcome to 21st century, post-modern America.

P.S. Try to see the show.

Missouri and the No Clone Zone

Cellular Engineering Technologies, based at the University of Iowa’s Oakdale Research Park, has given us yet another reason to vote NO on Missouri’s Amendment 2. Last week, researchers publicized their discovery of a method to isolate stem cells from human fat tissue, converting those cells into neurons lost in Parkinson’s disease. And who knew liposuction could be so beneficial?

Now, do proponents of Amendment 2 seriously want to put human embryos on the same moral level as fat? I fear some do. And that’s what is so frightening about this measure. It is reflective of a cultural that has so little value for human life.

We don’t need embryonic stem cell research. If the time, attention and money that is being poured into this political movement were being poured into adult stem cell research, we would be much farther down the road of healing than we are. Bravo to medical researchers who are doing this moral and ethical research, yielding results that are both positive and real.

Red Light Cameras and Big Brother

My local metropolis is Columbia, Missouri. Last week, Columbia’s city council voted to pursue using cameras at traffic intersections to ticket cars running through red lights. Columbia became Missouri’s fourth city to do so, following the lead of the St. Louis suburbs of Arnold and Florissiant and the big city of Springfield. Nationally, 110 cities in 20 states have red light camera programs. The plan is designed that once a traffic signal changes to red, any cars entering the intersection will be photographed. The license plate will then be traced and the owner ticketed.

I love this progressive intrusion of government into the lives of private citizens. This move will increase government’s power and its ability to control our lives. Cameras have been installed all over Columbia and most other towns throughout the United States. Presumably, these cameras were to help with traffic flow, not traffic control. They were supposed to alert municipalities of any irregularities, high peak traffic, etc, et al, baloney. The Columbia city council approved cameras at only 5 intersections. Can I make a prophecy? About 6 months after the launch of the “pilot” program, red light cameras will be at every intersection with cameras.

National data isn’t overwhelming. Statistics seem to indicate that right angle crashes do decrease with the program, but that rear end crashes increase. I would assume there are fewer serious injuries from rear end collisions than with t-bone crashes. Traffic statistics from the Columbia Police Department reveal some 10,000 traffic accidents reported since January 2004. Of those, only 404 were a result of traffic signal or sign violations. No one knows how many of those were violations caused by running a red light. So again, without conclusive evidence of the need, government bureaucracy has still voted to extend itself and increase its powers to monitor the lives of its citizens.
The Bible reveals that anti-Christ, the end-time world leader, will have enormous power. With the increase of technology, it isn’t hard to understand how he will accomplish his sway over mankind.

The Federal Highway Administration has had a “Stop on Red Week” for over ten years to raise awareness of the dangers of running red lights.

A 58 question telephone survey done in the summer of 1999 of over 5,000 respondents revealed that the typical red light runner is younger, is driving alone, has no children, and is in a rush to work or school in the morning hours on weekdays. If a parent, they most likely have children less than 20-years-old. They are employed in jobs requiring less education (i.e., blue collar, lower technology), or are unemployed; are more than two miles from home and are more likely to have been ticketed for red light running (although, the rate of receiving tickets is low); and are NOT necessarily frustrated.

Illiteracy of American History

A few short years ago, some of our nation’s most esteemed colleges and universities decided to take a look at how well their students knew American history. The results were alarming.

For instance, only 34% rightly identified George Washington as the leader of America’s revolutionary soldiers at the Battle of Yorktown. Only 22% knew that the phrase “government of the people, by the people and for the people” was from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. And only 23% of those elite students correctly identified James Madison as “the father of the Constitution.”
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni bemoaned: “How did seniors from our nation’s top colleges and universities do? They flunked. Four out of five — 81% — of seniors from the top 55 colleges and universities in the United States received a grade of D or F. They could not identify Valley Forge, or words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.”

And far worse than not recognizing the trivia of our heritage—names, dates, documents, etc., is the failure to recognize the concepts of America. In a survey commissioned by Columbia University’s law school, over two-thirds of those polled believed the maxim “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” was or could have been penned by our founding fathers. Actually, the phrase is from the radical communist, Karl Marx.

The American Council’s report summarized: “Our future leaders are graduating with an alarming ignorance of their heritage – a kind of collective amnesia -- and a profound historical illiteracy which bodes ill for the future of the republic.”

The Bible often calls us to remember. The fourth commandment exhorts us to “remember the Sabbath day” (Exodus 20:8). We partake the Lord’s Supper because Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). The psalmist said “I will remember the works of the LORD: surely I will remember thy wonders of old” (Psalm 77:11).

I believe one of the reasons modern Americans are reluctant to study and know American history is because it points us to God. No knowledgeable person can deny our founders had a thoroughly Christian world-view. Talking about the founders of America necessarily requires us to talk about God, and that’s a conversation many, especially in elite academia, avoid like the plague. Also, American history requires a Providential understanding. There are too many “miracles” in our nation’s legacy to deny—to use a term our founders were so fond of—“the hand of Providence.” America’s successes cannot be interpreted as a string of coincidences, but can only be understood from a vantage point of God’s governing hand.

Isaiah 51:1 says “Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, you who seek the LORD: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you were dug.” This Independence Day, let’s take a renewed look at how we have arrived at this point. And let’s give thanks to God for carving out a unique story. We are doubly blessed. We are Christians and we are Americans.

Thomas Jefferson said it well: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Our liberties as Americans will not survive in ignorance. Nor will our liberties as Christians. Let’s be vigilant to remind ourselves of the great spiritual and national legacy we have.

Hank Waters and Stem Cells

Hank Waters is the editor of my local newspaper—the Columbia Daily Tribune. In his editorial of this past Sunday, he wrote about the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures rally in Jefferson City. In it, he made several surprising and troubling statements.

First, Waters wrote “Let us freely admit that the procedure used to produce human stem cells for research is cloning, but not in any way part of a process for creating human babies.” The first part of the sentence was the most surprising because the pro-amendment 2 advocates, including supposedly “un-bias” media persons like Waters, have taken every precaution to give a wide berth between the amendment’s language and cloning. Waters was definitely going off the script. Such honesty isn’t suppose to happen it Missouri’s current climate of propaganda and medical hype.

So, to hear Waters “freely admit that the procedure used to produce human stem cells for research is cloning” is quite a breakthrough. It is what my side has been saying all along and it’s what every thinking person in Missouri knows. So it gives me a wee bit of hope that supporters of Amendment 2 are at least coming back to some degree of honesty and reality. Missouri’s Amendment 2 WILL legalize cloning. Even liberal supporters like Waters are finally agreeing with the truth.

The second part of Waters sentence is confusing. Does he want to draw a dis-connect between human stem cells and human babies? That’s very popular in the propagandistic lying machine of the pro-amendment 2 crowd (which I will now start calling PA2). Their mantra is that this isn’t human. They say it is a glob of cells in a Petri dish that suddenly became human if and only if they are implanted into a woman’s uterus. Is Waters advancing that position? It seems so. That position is ludicrous because of two reasons. First, we would need to know what is cloned. Obviously, it is human, so how could the stem cells be anything but human stem cells. Of course, they are not ‘advanced’ stem cells. That’s why we call them embryonic. It’s a title we use to describe a human being in a certain phase of development.

That brings us to the second reason it would be so ludicrous to argue that “produc[ing] human stem cells for research is cloning, but not in any way part of a process for creating human babies.” PA2 folks are using a descriptive term of humanity to now say the human is not human. Because they are against allowing a human embryo to be given the right environment to develop further, they say the embryo isn’t human. That logic really causes me to think of scrambled eggs. Could you imagine them being consistent? They’d have to say, “Look, a newborn really isn’t human if left outside on the doorstep in the middle of Missouri’s winter.” They’d defend it by saying “the newborn baby needs the right environment of warmth and milk, and because we refuse to give that newborn baby that environment, she is not human.” Most of us would be rescuing the baby from the cold and calling the police at that point. But that is exactly the argument being made by the PA2 crowd.

Let me state it again just so you don’t miss it. Their position is that a cloned human embryo needs an environment beyond a Petri dish to continue its developmental journey into a fully developed human; they will deprive that human embryo of his needed environment; therefore, the human embryo is not human. Wow! Which award do you give out—the brainless logic award or the cold, heartless morality award? Please realize denying humanity to the embryo because it has been deprived of a needed environment can easily be extended to other phases of human development. That is why we must engage our state in this issue.

Secondly, Waters wrote of the rally “critics were there, too, saying the new law would legalize human cloning. They should not be allowed to demonize the word.” There’s another WOW statement. Now I realize Hank Waters may easily rank in Missouri’s Top Ten Liberals. Still, it is a remarkable statement. I knew I’d encounter it, I just didn’t think it would be this soon. Did you get it? Regarding cloning, we “should not be allowed to demonize the word.” The paraphrase: Cloning isn’t all that bad. Danforth and Company know Missourians disagree. That’s why they used some 2000 words to complicate this amendment and redefine standard and widely accepted scientific terms. Robin Carnahan knows cloning is bad. That’s why our Secretary of State has deceptively stated the amendment will “ban human cloning or attempted cloning”. And now here’s a prominent Missourian, a newspaper editor of one of our largest cities arguing that cloning isn’t such a bad thing after all. My! How far we’ve already come in a few short months! Waters statement reveals the slippery slope argument. He is ready for cloning. I wonder how many other prominent Missourians are ready for it as well, just reluctant to be as honest about it as Waters. Amendment 2 will legalize cloning but unlike Hank Waters, I’m not ready for that. Cloning should be a “demonized” word because it is a demonized practice.

Third, I found his statement “Today, thousands of organic elements available for creating stem cells are routinely destroyed. To clone them for research is just as legitimately called God’s work as that of the devil” very troubling. Hank Waters is typically very clear and very pointed. You may not agree with him (I typically don’t) but you usually know what he’s said. Here however, I’m even confused. I think he is referring to human embryos created through the in vitro fertilization process. It appears he has combined “cloning” and “in vitro embryos” and if so, notice these troubling elements.

First, he has extended dehumanizing language from cloned human embryos to fertilized human embryos. Embryos created by sperm and egg union in a laboratory dish are only “organic elements” in Waters vocabulary—not human embryos as recognized by science. Second, you do not “clone” embryos created through in vitro fertilization. Cloning is not the same as extracting stem cells. You can harvest embryonic stem cells from a human embryo created through the in vitro process or you can harvest embryonic stem cells from a human embryo created through the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (cloning) process. Both end the life of the developing human embryo. Third, the idea that “thousands of organic elements…are routinely destroyed” is exaggerated and irrelevant. Most in vitro embryos have not been slated for destruction. Many couples are preserving their embryos and giving them over for adoption to other infertile couples. Also, just because some inmates have been given the death penalty (“slated for destruction”) does not give us the right to use their bodies for medical research. To clone human embryos for the purposes of killing human embryos is horribly immoral.

Let’s help our fellow Missourians to see these things. Currently blinded by promises of cures, our neighbors are friends need help in seeing the total picture. Let’s be faithful to show it.

Gone fishin’ is as much a euphemism for taking a break as it is a statement of reality. Both apply for me. I’m going away for a couple of weeks and intend to do some actual fishing. Fishing will actually play a very limited and miniscule role in my siesta. I hope to start blogging again the week of August 20.

Mel Gibson's Crime

Mel Gibson’s drunken tirade this past weekend drew the ire of many in the media. In no way do I want to be misunderstood as supporting or minimizing racial slurs. Gibson’s admitted anti-semitism should be condemned. However, two things are being missed by the media.

First, Mel Gibson was driving drunk. Sadly, DUI violations are far too common in our society and Gibson’s crime is hardly being mentioned. When he entered his 2006 Lexus LS and started driving home, he truly was a threat to society. The arresting deputy clocked him speeding at 85 mph. Jewish bigotry we can overcome. Drunks behind the wheel of a lethal weapon is truly a threat to society.

Second, Mel Gibson is a family man. Why is he carousing at 2 am in the morning? While several of his seven children are grown, his youngest children (ages 7, 16 and 18) and his wife need his focus and attention. That he is at a bar, stone drunk (his blood/alcohol level test at .12) at 2 am is problematic.

Had Gibson not lashed out with racial slurs, this would be a non-story and I find that a sad commentary on our society.

The Cloning Amendment

The Christian community has publicly launched its counter-offensive in Missouri's cloning wars. Vision America organized a rally at Concord Baptist Church on Monday, July 31, of which the Missouri Baptist Convention was glad to help sponsor. Vision America's plan is to encourage pastors to address this issue within their respective congregations.

The Columbian Missourian carried the Associated Press story on the rally and quoted Donn Rubin, chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. He's quite a master of misinformation. Questioning why we would bring in non-Missourians to speak to this issue (Keyes and Scarborough), he stated, “These are people who don’t work here, they don’t live here, they don’t vote here and they and their families don’t get health care here. It’s not clear why Missourians should care about what they have to say on these issues.”

Humm...a gander over to Mr. Rubin's propagandistic website and one finds a host of non-Missourians. Rubin and company have tried tirelessly to garner the support of every disease fighting and patient advocacy group in the nation. After pouring a ton of money into this recruiting effort, they've only been able to enlist about 60 organizations from America. To be sure, some are big name organizations. But it's really ironic that Rubin blasts non-Missourians while proudly touting them on his organization's website.

Some of the better known groups Rubin lists on his website include the American Diabetes Association based in Alexandria, Virginia; the Lance Armstrong Foundation based in Austin, Texas; the Christopher Reeve Foundation based in Short Hills, New Jersey. You get the picture.

It's just another example of how proponents such as Rubin will fully embrace hypocrisy and deception to achieve their goal of reducing human embryos to objects of science and research profit.

May God deliver us from their vision for Missouri. To learn more go here.

Mt. Soledad Cross in Judicial Crosshairs

Evidently the only way to save the concrete cross at Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego is through Congressional legislation. The cross, was has been present at Mt. Soledad for almost 100 years, was slated for destruction by activist judge Gordon Thompson in May. Judge Thompson has been trying for 15 years to get rid of the historical cross.

Mount Soledad is a prominent landmark in San Diego. According to Wikipedia, the 822-foot-tall hill lies between Interstate 5 to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It is mostly within the community of La Jolla where the northern and eastern slopes form a sharp escarpment along the Rose Canyon Fault. The community of Pacific Beach is on the gentler southern slope. Commercial aircraft approaching San Diego from the direction of Los Angeles often use Mt. Soledad as their point to start the downwind leg of their approach to San Diego International Airport.

Just east of the summit of Mt. Soledad is the questionable 29-foot-tall cross (43 feet tall, including the base) which was erected in 1954. A cross has been on the site since 1913. Architect Donald Campbell designed the present latin cross in recessed concrete with a twelve-foot arm spread in 1954. In 1998, after the sale of the cross and the land it stands on to the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, the cross was transformed into being the centerpiece of a newly erected Korean War Memorial.

Three different shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on city government property at the apex of the Mt. Soledad Natural Park in the Village of La Jolla.

The original cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens of La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923 and later in the year of 1923 the wooden cross was affixed back in the ground on Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.

The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952.

The third and current 29-feet tall cross on top of a 14-feet tall stepped platform, and was installed in 1954. It still stands today. A windstorm damaged one of the flimsy constructed cross members in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.

Evidently, 75% of San Diego’s residents support the cross remaining on their city property, but that hasn’t stopped judges from laying siege to “government of the people.”


According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the U.S. District Judge, Gordon Thompson Jr., declared that "It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property.” Such a statement shows the arrogance of the judiciary in many respects. Not only can they invent laws from thin air, but according to Judge Thompson, the judiciary also now has the constitutional power to enforce injunction. I always thought that power belonged to the Executive Branch. Will the courts soon be commanding armies?


This case has been as much about the judiciary’s war on the people’s right to rule themselves as it has been about religious bigotry and discrimination. San Diego’s residents have tried numerous ways to retain the cross, while complying with judicial edicts. Yet, nothing short of obliteration of the cross seems to satiate these robed magistrates.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has asked President Bush to exercise the federal government’s right of eminent domain. Yet, the President seems reluctant, so several Representatives introduced federal legislation to protect the citizens of San Diego from judicial tyranny. Wednesday, the House of Representatives intervened, and by an overwhelming and bi-partisan vote of 379-74, they approved a bill that would transfer Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial to the federal government.

The judiciary has a recent, unsatiable appetite for contravening the will of Americans to govern themselves. Their abuses seem to me to be far more grievous than those committed by King George III of England. To paraphrase Judge Thompson’s words, “It is now time, and perhaps long overdue for Americans to enforce their constitutional right to govern themselves, forbidding the presence of unconstitutional rulings from meddling and usurping judges.”

P.S. There are many books on the judiciary’s insane usurpation of their role in American government worth reading. Here’s one by a great Missourian, John Stormer.

President Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Funding

Kudos to our President for exercising his constitutional power of veto on the embryonic stem cell bill. President Bush has saved America from a moral freefall. In an era of confused politicians, it is refreshing to see our President acting from a clear moral conviction.

Two of the goofiest comments this week were from Senators Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch.

Snarlin’ Arlen, no friend to pro-lifers, continued to maintain his pro-death convictions. Back in 1996, during his presidential run, he stated “I want to take abortion out of politics. I want to keep the Republican Party focused on the vital economic and foreign policy issues -- and leave moral issues such as abortion to the conscience of the individual. I believe abortion is an issue to be decided by women -- not by big government.”

This is the man who gives no thought to the pain and suffering of babies in wombs who die violent, painful deaths. So, it wasn’t surprising that Specter wanted to force Americans who oppose using human embryos for scientific research to fund it.

What was surprising was that Senator Specter became Scientist Specter, butchering basic biological facts in the process. CNN carried a story of his sparring with Senator Sam Brownback on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday program. When pressed by Brownback about when life begins, Specter snorted “"It certainly doesn't start in a laboratory dish. This potential for life on these embryonic stem cells cannot begin to occur unless it's implanted back in a woman. We know for sure, life does not start in a laboratory dish."

There you have it. Life cannot begin in a laboratory dish. During the process of in vitro fertilization, scientists extract eggs from a female donor and fertilize them with male sperm. When that happens, the newly fertilized egg begins cell duplication. All of this happens “in a laboratory dish” (hence the Latin term “in vitro” … “in glass”). But Specter doesn’t think its life. Even with the cloning process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, once the egg’s 23 chromosome cell nucleus is removed and replaced with the 46 chromosome human cell nucleus and electrically stimulated, the new embryo begins cell division just like the in vitro method. Scientists cannot differentiate the embryos. They both look alike and they both are human.

And Specter further violates basic biology by saying human embryos are merely “potential for life” even when implanted into a woman’s uterus. What was it my grandma use to say? “Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” Specter is right at home devaluing human life. His abortion views have conditioned him never to consider human life as human life unless the baby is fully born. Someone who supports babies having their skulls crushed and arms ripped off through abortion will certainly have no trouble supporting the destruction of tiny humans at the earliest stage of development.

The real surprise came from Orrin Hatch. Of course, he had already jumped overboard from the pro-life ship quite some time ago. But his quote to US News & World Report was very striking. First, he continues the political trick of trying to divide pro-life leaders from pro-life grassroots. Then he says, “But with rank and file people, countless have come up to me and said, 'I support you ... your position is very pro-life because you want to help the living as well as the unborn." Yeah right, keeping telling that to yourself Orrin, and you might actually believe it. There may be a few “pro-life” folks who would say such a thing. But thoroughly pro-life people understand this issue very clearly. Of course we want to help the living too. That’s why many are fighting so hard for adult stem cell research. With its miraculously breakthroughs in treating 72 significant diseases and illnesses, we know well this is hardly the time to distract attention and divert funding from a proven method of cures.

True pro-lifers know, on the issue of embryonic stem cell research, the issue is helping the living AT THE EXPENSE OF the unborn. This we will not allow. Any research for cures that destroys one human for the benefit of another is immoral. Senator Hatch wants to prevent he is helping both unborn and living. However, embryonic stem cell research requires the death of the developing human embryo. That is not remotely pro-life.

There is but one choice for Christians who will remain committed to Scripture. If we will defend God’s law of the sanctity of human life, we must oppose embryonic stem cell research.

[For information on Missouri's upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment regarding embryonic stem cell research, go here.]

Seeing the Real Jesus

In praying through a prayer guide for our youth and their sponsors who are in St. Louis this week, partnering with area metro churches in teaching VBS, I came across this wonderful reminder from 1 John 3:2 “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known.” Yep, heaven keeps some secrets. God hasn’t told us everything. He’s revealed only a portion of His plan for us. I know quite a bit of my future in heaven, but God has chosen ‘no comment’ about many other things.

The next verse gives us a small glimpse of our future. “We know that when He appears we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” I can’t wait for that day. I try hard to understand Jesus as He is; I struggle to see Him through the lens of scripture. But I often wonder if I’m seeing Him rightly. I understand well the limitations of personal experiences and the hazards of personal biases. I’m a Missourian, a thorough mid-westerner, Anglo-male, conservative, theologically trained, always-been-in-church, Republican leaning, country-boy-at-heart, etc, etc. At the end of every day and every Bible study and every sermon, there’s a nagging thought at the back of my mind. Have I seen Jesus rightly? Did I tell the truth about God?

I wonder this because I know my handicap. My sin reminds me of my propensity to declare Jesus as I want Him to be, or as I think He is. One day, I won’t have to hope that I’ve seen the real Jesus, I’ll know it! I’ll see my Savior, not as I think He is, but in reality, “as He is.” What a day…glorious day, that will be! How sweet the truth of scripture!

Founding Pastors Weren’t Silent

Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated our nation’s independence.

John Adams was one of the most prominent of our nation’s founders…a passionate patriot and well recognized by historians both contemporary and from antiquity as being one of the most significant leaders of American independence. In fact, one popular modern historian, David McCullough, has written an entire book on John Adams, who served two terms as our nation’s first vice-president and then one term as our second president.

But John Adams himself declared that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were two of the individuals "most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential" in the "awakening and revival of American principles and feelings" that led to American independence.

The legendary Minutemen were led by the Rev. Jonas Clark and many of those Minutemen were deacons in his church.

The Rev. James Caldwell was a key leader of military forces in New Jersey.

And the Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg led 300 men from his church against the British as one of Washington's most trusted generals.

Pastor Lemuel Haynes, an African-American pastor, was involved in several major Revolutionary battles and became an ardent admirer of George Washington, regularly preaching sermons on Washington's birthday.

John Witherspoon, the Presbyterian divine from New Jersey, signed the Declaration of Independence.

Jacob Duche, John Mills, William Graham, Azel Roe, John Steele and hundreds of other pastors, did their part to lead their congregation into a righteous war.

Pastors have always been the key instruments in cultural issues. As a lesson from the Revolution, pastors must search the scriptures regarding Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment on embryonic stem cell research. I have no doubt that pastors faithful to the sanctity of human life will reach the same conclusions I have regarding the evil of this practice. We must exhort our congregations to engage in this battle. We must do all we can to see an enemy stopped and life protected.

Cloned Embryos Are Human

In a letter to the editor (July 10) of the St. Joseph News-Press entitled “The Debate Continues”, a self-proclaimed member of the mis-named Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures reminded me of the mantra of the pro-death crowd.

He tried to warn “attempts to associate it [the proposed constitutional amendment legalizing cloning] with abortion are misguided…” But then he completed his sentence with “…since abortion is the termination of a pregnancy…”

Oh yeah, that tired, old devilish mantra raised its head again. People holding a pro-death philosophy can’t help themselves. For them, abortion is “termination of a pregnancy”. They never want to focus on the human life—the innocent, beautiful developing baby within the womb. There is only one way a pregnancy can be “terminated” and that is for the baby to be destroyed by some grotesquely violent abortion procedure. But this fellow has learned the mantra well—never talk about the baby.

That’s why I thought it ironic that he used that same logic to make his case for embryonic research being different from abortion. He called developing human embryos “…blastocysts (a microscopic clump of approximately 150 cells)…” Boy, isn’t that familiar? The baby is only a “fetus” or “mass of tissue” and now the embryo is a “blastocyst” or “microscopic clump of cells”. Pro-death advocates always use name-calling and re-labelling. African-Americans, Jews, babies have all been re-labelled to permit the most evil abuses mankind has ever known.

Fundamentally, we are dealing with a HUMAN embryo in the constitutional amendment. Advocates insist the embryo must be killed and not implanted into a mother’s womb and pride themselves thinking that is the moral high ground.

The writer displayed his stark and empty logic. Cloning “with the intention of creating a human being” is immoral. Cloning to kill an embryo is moral. No thank you sir. Intention does not determine morality. Few, if any drunks ever intended to kill someone when they drove their cars into their bodies. Intention isn’t the issue. Facts are. And factually, scientifically, somatic cell nuclear transfer creates a human life.

Has It Come to This?

OK. Blogging has become hard work. I don't know if my passion has waned or if my creative, thoughtful juices have dried up, or if I'm over-whelmed with other things. But in an effort to keep this blog semi-active and not spend time developing my own thoughts, I offer this joke I came across:

=====================

A Highway Patrolman pulled a car over and told the driver that because he had been wearing his seat belt, he had just won $5,000 in the statewide safety competition.

"What are you going to do with the money?" asked the policeman.

"Well, I guess I'm going to get a driver's license," he answered.

"Oh, don't listen to him," yelled a woman in the passenger seat. "He's a real smart-mouth when he's been drinking."

This woke up the guy in the back seat who took one look at the cop and moaned, "I knew we wouldn't get far in a stolen car."

At that moment, there was a knock from the trunk and a voice said, in a thick Spanish accent, "Are we over the border yet?"

=======================

I do not intend for this to become some cheesy joke shop. Of course, some of you think my postings are both cheesy and a joke.

Oh well.

“We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations, and will raise up friends for us. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave . . . Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

That famous quote is from Patrick Henry's "War Inevitable, 1775" speech. It’s great to be an American. May God fight with us as we continue to face enemies.

Presbyterians Rival Episcopalians for Heresy

The liberal Presbyterian Church USA had a difficult time recently, staying orthodox to clear scriptural teaching. Like the Episcopal Church, this denomination is in virtual full-speed retreat from scripture’s mandates.

The Presbyterians voted this past week to “receive” a policy paper laden with gender inclusive idolatry to change the language of the Trinity. This will allow individual churches to alter their worship liturgy away from Biblical language of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Presbyterians can now refer to the Trinity as "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer, Friend". Other options include "Lover, Beloved, Love", "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier" and "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."

The paper was nearly referred back to the committee who proposed it for further study, a parliamentary technique for defeating a proposal. But liberals prevailed with a vote of 282-212, with committee members arguing that Presbyterians should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."

It's another example that helps put our recent Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting in perspective.

SBC Debate Tame Compared to Others

I am a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. It’s the nation’s largest Protestant denomination and it’s not without its problems. Last week, some 11,000 messengers gathered in Greensboro to discuss and debate issues relating to our denomination’s future.

First and foremost, we disagreed as to who should be our President. In the past, a small group of influential and esteemed pastors would confer and forward a nomination to the convention. No one knows exactly how many of them confer or who they all are. It is widely perceived they are our denomination’s mega-church pastors of the South. At the forefront would be Dr. Jerry Vines, newly retired pastor of First Baptist, Jacksonville, Florida. The proposed candidate has usually been introduced or announced at his annual Bible conference. We could also surmise the group includes Jack Graham, Steve Gaines, Paige Patterson, Johnny Hunt and a few others. In any event, the group presumed upon the graces of Southern Baptist footsoldiers and nominated Ronnie Floyd, pastor of First Baptist, Springdale, Arkansas. Some hawkish eyes noticed that the church gives only 0.27% to the Cooperative Program and a war was on. An informal coalition of the non-establishment sect and the CP loyalists and the younger leaders launched a counter nomination of Frank Page, pastor of First Baptist, Taylors, South Carolina. Some of those sects, however, became suspicious of innuendos regarding Page’s affiliations with some moderates during the theological battle of the 1980s and launched a third nomination of Jerry Sutton, pastor of Twin Rivers Baptist, Nashville, Tennessee. When the smoke cleared, Page had been surprisingly elected on the first ballot, receiving more votes than the other two candidates combined—a clear majority.

Messengers debated a reinsertion of “10%” as a goal into the Cooperative Program Task Force’s report; we differed on a resolution on alcohol consumption; we had a slight tiff over whether to refer a motion by embattled IMB trustee Wade Burleson to the IMB; and I could list a few others.

However, we did not debate the issue of homosexuality as did the Episcopal Church or the doctrine of the Trinity as did the Presbyterian Church. In spite of our differences, we Southern Baptists share a commitment to the clear truths of God’s Word.

The Episcopal Church (America) is a part of the world-wide Anglican Communion and is (rightly so) in hot water for their unbiblical stance regarding homosexuality. In August of 2003, they ordained Gene Robinson as bishop, an open homosexual who abandoned his family for his lover. The broader and more Biblically insightful Anglican church reprimanded the American branch through the Windsor Report.

This past weekend, Episcopalians were embroiled in whether to honor the broader Anglican call to conform to a more scriptural understanding of homosexuality. They refused to honor that request and elected Katharine Jefferts Schori, a bishop from Nevada, to their denomination’s top spot of presiding bishop. She responded to a question in an interview with CNN whether it was a sin to be homosexual:

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each of us comes into the world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us. "Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people, and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of their own gender."

Upon her election, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, Rowan Williams, sent his greetings and wrote: “We are continuing to pray for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as it confronts a series of exceptionally difficult choices.” But how “exceptionally difficult” is it to embrace the clear Biblical teaching regarding the sin of homosexuality?

What happened in Greensboro among Southern Baptists was a struggle. But the struggle was over methodology, not heresy. I too pray for the Episcopal Church, but not as Archbishop Williams does. I pray for their repentance and return to Biblical fidelity.