tct main 2010
 
 Web  TheCypressTimes  
 
FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY

“It’s the economy, stupid!” Remember those words? They became, more or less, a campaign slogan for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign when he was running against incumbent George H.W. Bush. Bush’s approval rating in March, 1991 was 90%. His re-election as President seemed to be a “done deal”. But the success Bush had in foreign affairs was not matched by his domestic economic policies. The country had gone into a recession in 1991 and Clinton’s campaign strategist, James Carville, seized upon this crack in Bush’s armor by coining the phrase, “It’s the economy, Stupid!” The constant reminder that the economy, and thus the standard of living for every American, was in danger of declining if Bush were re-elected for four more years, proved a winning formula for Clinton. Bush’s approval rating dropped to 64% by August, 1992 and Clinton set up housekeeping in the White House shortly thereafter.

But how could a man who was openly pro-abortion and in favor of legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle, moral values that stood in stark opposition to the Judeo-Christian values America was founded upon, win the Presidency when a survey in 1990 found that 86% of Americans identified themselves as Christians? Because calling oneself a Christian and actually being a Christian are two different things. 

True Christianity is not revealed in words alone. Talk is cheap. True Christianity is revealed when one comes face to face with decisions that require him to die to self, to willingly suffer the loss of material blessings and physical comfort if keeping them requires a compromise between right and wrong, good and evil, truth or lies. What the 1992 Presidency election revealed was that the majority of the 86% of Americans who identified themselves as Christians had an idol set upon the throne of their hearts. That idol was Money.

This truth was repeated more forcefully in 2008 when Barack Obama, a man much more radical in his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual views than Clinton, was elected President with the promise of reassuring Americans their standards of living would improve under his leadership. It was the “It’s the economy, Stupid!” syndrome all over again. As with Clinton he could not have been elected President without the votes of self-identified Christians. (The percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Christian in 2008 had dropped to 76%, a significant decline from 1990, but still a large majority).

The election of Clinton and Obama prove that many people, including some who call themselves Christian, place a premium value on the possession of money and the physical comforts it promises. When the economy, and by extension, their lifestyle is in danger of declining, they will vote for the person they believe is best capable of ensuring their standard of living will increase, even if that means voting for a person whose values in other areas are not consistent with their own. How people vote in a democratic society reveals the spiritual health of that society because votes reveal the god(s) in whom the citizens truly believe. Their vote is in essence their sacrifice to their god offered at the ballot box and more and more often that god is Money. Money is America’s idol and nothing proves that more clearly than our willingness to offer human sacrifices to this god.

That may seem like hysterical hyperbole to some, but consider these words of Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert in a recent New York Post column about Obama’s proposed national health care bill: “One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

In other words seniors will be compelled to come before a government approved board and justify their use of increasingly scarce health care dollars to sustain their lives when younger, more productive citizens are in need of those same dollars.

Such a scenario is not farfetched or in the distance future. It is happening now in the United Kingdom which already has nationalized health care. Listen to the words of Baroness Mary Warnock, 84, a woman described by the Daily Telegraph as Britain’s leading moral philosopher during an interview in the Church of Scotland’s magazine, Life and Work, in September, 2008: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service. I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there is a wider argument that if someone absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die” (emphasis added).

Perhaps these words shock you. They should. But when Money becomes god within an individual heart or a nation, materialism can quickly desensitize then deaden the conscience.

Such thinking results from a non-Biblical worldview. In such a worldview human beings are valued for what they can produce and materially contribute to society. In contrast a Biblical worldview teaches that human beings in all stages of life, from conception to natural death, are of infinite value because they are created in the image of God. A person’s worth from a Biblical worldview is not dependent upon what he does, but upon what who he is. Unfortunately, a Biblical worldview is increasingly rare in America, even among those who identify themselves as “born-again” Christians. That lack of understanding puts everyone that drains the economic resources of a nation at risk of being put to death, even against their will.

Three states have legalized physician-assisted suicide: Oregon and Washington by the vote of the people and Montana by judicial fiat when Judge Dorothy McCarter, in her wisdom, unilaterally decided Montanans’ have the right to kill themselves.

But Oregonians have since found out that physician-assisted suicide is a very small step from physician-insisted suicide. Barbara Wagner found out in May, 2008 that her lung cancer that had been in remission for two years was back. Her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life. But Wagner was notified by the Oregon Health Plan that it would not cover the cost of the prescription. It would, however, pay to kill her. She did not take Oregon up on its offer. She has since died from her cancer. Barbara Wagner was in every sense of the word a human sacrifice to the idol Money, the very idol millions of Americans, including self-proclaimed Christians, worship daily.

What happened to Barbara Wagner at a state level is a harbinger of what will happen on a national level if Obamacare becomes the law of the land. When the sword of government (Romans 13:4) is placed in the hands of those who believe life is only valuable when it can contribute monetarily to society, thus insinuating money is more valuable than a human life, people who drain the economy will inevitably be sacrificed to reduce that drain. Considering who now wields that sword (Obama, a man who has already proven he will use the sword of government to kill the unborn and the just born while a senator in Illinois, and a majority of Congress who shares his values) that sacrifice is being prepared right now to sate the monetary appetite of the self-indulgent.

“No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" (Luke 16:13 ESV). We are called to love people and use money. This is the mark of true Christianity. When the people of a nation insist on loving money and using people what mark do they bear?

Soli Deo Gloria!

Related Articles
ONE WORLD CURRENCY
THE MARK OF THE BEAST
IS THIS HEALTHY
OBAMA'S CHARACTER REVEALED - AGAIN
Post A Comment
Comments 18 comments for this article
  <<  <   1  |  2   >  >>
Added: September 07, 2009. 06:48 AM CST
(You could of course argue that the killings late in Exodus are killings, but not murder; but couldn't exactly the same be contended about abortion? so that would not exactly get you off the hook!)
Zander
Added: September 05, 2009. 06:46 PM CST
On the killing thing...
...Your use of "Thou shalt not kill" is in fact of itself an excellent example of "picking and choosing" the easier bits of the Bible.

Yes, the author(s) of Exodus depict God as saying to Moses that human people should not kill. But elsewhere, even elsewhere in Exodus, God orders human beings to kill other human beings (Ex 32:27). That's pretty common in the Old Testament. As I've noted below, in 1 Samuel 15 God even orders human beings to kill other human beings' infants at the breast, on the basis of the tribe they belong to.

So "thou shalt not kill", as a prop for your arguments against abortion, is a bit of a thin reed. A full and inclusive reading even of Exodus, let alone the Bible as a whole, argues that the writers of these books did not think of God as prohibiting all killing; so how are we possibly to use this part of Exodus to argue that modern surgical abortion is one of the categories of killing of which God disapproves?

Because your Church says so. That is where the authority for your statement comes from. Not coherently or clearly from the Bible, and not necessarily at all from God.
Zander
Added: September 05, 2009. 05:07 AM CST
If the Bible also unequivocally identified life as beginning at conception, then you could use "Thou shalt not murder" as a condemnation of abortion. But as we have seen, St. Augustine himself felt that the Bible supported an interpretation where life begins forty days after conception. So you are right that I do not think your case is proven here.

As for when human life begins: if forced to a conclusion, I would consider life to begin when a baby takes its first breath. I am far more comfortable with abortions before a fetus is capable of independent survival than with ones after.

I saw my twins grow and move in my wife's womb, week by week. I certainly thought of them as being human, and wanted desperately for them to survive (which was very doubtful at the time, because they had a syndrome that is associated with a 90% chance of death in the womb).

However, I do not see the point of prolonging the suffering of fetuses with deformities that ensure that they will not survive, like fetuses without heads (acephalism) and so on, just so we can say as a society, "We are pro-life".

What needless suffering that causes to the parents and to the fetus itself! And many late-term abortions performed in this country are of precisely this kind!

The process of a baby coming into being is fraught with difficulty, and the error rate is one of which Toyota, or even Trabant, would not be proud. Women should not be forced to carry a baby to term that will not live, or that threatens their chance to live.

I do not think of abortion as murder, because I do not think that a woman getting an abortion is doing anything that would warrant conviction or imprisonment if abortion were made illegal. Do you?

You don't believe in the God of the Old Testament or that He is good. That would imply He doesn't know what justice, kindness, or humility even is.

More accurately, I don't believe that the Old Testament perfectly depicts the goodness, justice and kindness of God. That doesn't mean that Micah does not offer some useful insights. I would not pay any attention to the Bible at all if I did not feel that it sometimes gets close to what God is. Sometimes, though, it is also so horribly far away.

My sense of what is just, kind or humble comes from my upbringing, from my parents, my wife, my friends, my experiences and my reading.

So does yours, but you posit additionally that in one specific book you read lies a complete and perfect depiction of what is just and good.

I feel I have come to enough of an understanding of justice to determine that genocide is wrong (unlike, for example, 1 Samuel 15). Less obvious moral statements require more thought and study, and require me to proceed with more of a consciousness that I may be wrong about this or that.

I sense that you will find this answer unsatisfactory. You expect me to have some source, other than the Bible, from which I derive absolute standards. I don't. I believe that absolute standards exist; but I also believe that we cannot be perfectly sure that we are right about what they are. I know how fallible I can be, but there is also no infallible source that is not me. That is what reason and judgement, mine and other people's, are for. To say otherwise would be arrogance, not humility.
Zander
Added: September 01, 2009. 03:48 PM CST
Exodus 20:13
Zander, You said: "If you know of more similar passages in which God is shown as unequivocally condemning surgical abortion, let's discuss those instead." Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder"
(NASU).

I realize that will probably not be a satisfactory answer for you since you failed to tell me when you think human life begins or if there us any time during pregnacny that abortion should be restricted or forbidden. But it does satisfy me because the fact that human life begins at conception (something I think you disagree with)makes abortion murder.

I do appreciate your honesty and openness about your beliefs. Having said that my article: For the Love of Money was written to expose the hypocrisy of those who identity themselves as Christians and claim to believe the fundamental doctrines of traditional Christianity. By your own admission that would exclude you. You are free to believe what you wish. But those who claim to be Christian and hold up the Bible as the Word of God have a responsibility to explain why they believe abortion (or other sins) are justified.

As for determining right from wrong and good from evil you quote Micah 6:8: "He (God) has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (NASU).

But you don't believe in the God of the Old Testament or that He is good. That would imply He doesn't know what justice, kindness, or humility even is.

So where does your sense of justice, kindness, or humility come from? And what makes your definition the standard that others should comply with?

These are not criticisms of you personally, Zander. You to are a human being created in the image of God (whether you believe that or not) and as such are entitled to respect and that is the Truth.

Terry L. Brown
Added: August 29, 2009. 06:19 PM CST
Well, you asked!
My religious beliefs are somewhat eighteenth-century. Like Jefferson, Franklin or Paine, I am impatient of the claims of organized religion, but strongly believe in one God. Then, they called people like me Deists; now, we're most often termed Unitarians.

I would certainly not meet your definition of a Christian. I grew up as a Christian, and for that reason sometimes describe myself as a Unitarian Christian (to distinguish myself from other Unitarians who come out of Jewish, Muslim or pagan traditions).

Through a great deal of avid reading in the Bible, I found that there were parts of it that, if applied today, would justify immoral acts (the genocide of the Amalekites being a case in point). I believe unshakably in a God who is good and just. Therefore, I could not logically maintain any coherent sense of morality and believe in a Bible that is all divinely inspired. The Bible does not do God justice, and I put God before the Bible.

I read with great interest the sacred texts and stories of different religions and cultures (over the last few months, the Gathas and the Shahnama of the Iranian people). Each is interesting, and shows what other people have thought about what God is like.

However, it seems like arrogance to me that mere mortals such as we are should pretend to know, in a final and absolute sense, the nature and desires of the Creator of the Universe. The Universe contains billions of galaxies, of which the Milky Way is only one; and in the Milky Way, there are billions of stars and, it appears from recent discoveries, billions of planets also. I have no rational reason to suppose that Christians on Earth, alone in all of Creation, have worked out the sole true way to please Him.

So, I do not speculate on whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not, or whether he was the Son of God in the way you mean. Whether he was or was not, and what God has set up as the economy of salvation and damnation, I do not presume to know.

It will not affect one way or another the obligation I have to treat my fellow human beings lovingly and justly. I aim to "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God", just as I am sure you aim to do with yours.

As for how I determine right from wrong, good from evil: I read as much as I can, travel as much as I can, gain as wide an experience of people as I can, and hope steadily to learn more thereby about how to live my life rightly and to better the lives of others. My participation as a columnist for the Cypress Times helps with that process. Perhaps the process will even, in death, bring me closer to God. But if not, and if we disappear after death, I would do it anyway.
Zander
Added: August 28, 2009. 07:48 PM CST
As for your questions about my own faith...
...I will happily respond to them when I have more time to do so.
Zander
Added: August 28, 2009. 07:22 PM CST
The way you see it...
Hosea was a true prophet of God, and what he says will happen to Samaria is what God intends to happen to them as a punishment. Right?

It logically follows that circumstances exist where the God of the Bible is willing to countenance fetuses being ripped from their mothers' wombs. You say that here, Samaria deserves this punishment, but that does not alter the fact that the Bible here depicts the true prophet of God countenancing killing fetuses, even if he believes the end to which it is a means to be worthy.

This, and the other two passages, seem to be the closest references I can find in the Bible to surgical abortion. If you know of more similar passages in which God is shown as unequivocally condemning surgical abortion, let's discuss those instead.
Zander
Added: August 24, 2009. 04:40 PM CST
Zander
A quick note on your analysis of the Hosea 13 passage you mention. You stated: “Your problem is that the Hosea reference makes the Biblical morality of it (abortion) ambiguous, in that your God seems to be willing to approve of it so long as it is visited as a punishment on a nation he dislikes.”

The passage reads: “Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hosea 13:16 ESV).

How does this passage prove, or even suggest, “my” God approves of abortion? The destruction spoken of here is the result of the apostasy of Israel (Samaria being its capitol), the northern kingdom established when the monarchy was divided after the dead of Solomon. Israel had gone into deep idolatry and was reaping what she had sown. Nowhere does this suggest God approves of abortion.

But please allow me to ask you a few questions.

Are you a Christian?

When does human life begin?

Is there any point during pregnancy in which you believe abortion should be restricted or forbidden?

Was Jesus the Son of God?

Was Jesus divine?

Was Jesus human?

Was Jesus born of a virgin?

Is forgiveness of sins and salvation possible outside of Jesus?

How do you determine right from wrong and good from evil?
Terry L. Brown
Added: August 24, 2009. 12:29 AM CST
It is right and proper to apply one's mind to problems.
I am simply suggesting, using parts of the book you hold sacred, that what you perceive as a simple, biblically clear truth about abortion could be a little more complex than you have thought. That is not trying to tie God down to a spreadsheet. That is trying to help you to understand how difficult it is to draw simple moral lessons when one considers the whole of the Bible as being sacred.

Try not to view it as being asked for facts and figures. After all, I did not ask you for either. Try to view it as urging you to be more cautious in the lessons you draw.
Zander
Added: August 22, 2009. 04:41 PM CST
To Zander-
You can't put faith into a spreadsheet, any more than you can prove the existence of love with facts, figures or pie charts. Until your head gets out of the way of your soul, that eternal truth will be forever lost on you and you'll waste your life in a meaningless search through the "facts' and "figures" not ever present in this ethereal life.
John
  <<  <   1  |  2   >  >>
Reader Login
Username:
Password:
 Save Login?
Free Sign-up
Forgot Password?
Reader Control Panel
Our Newest Articles