So much for a new post-partisanship world with the election of Barack Obama — at least from one cluster of Portland congregations.
Gregg Harris — teaching elder, founder of Household of Faith Community Church, and recent WW cover subject — is lamenting how “it appears that President-elect Obama and the Congress will make life more difficult for the unborn.” And so he is helping to organize a mid-December screening of “Come What May,” a new anti-abortion movie from Advent Film Group.
Harris’ invitation, in turn, has upset at least one local pastor. Rev. Chuck Currie, interim minister at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ in northeast Portland, responded to the screening invitation with a three-page letter urging Harris to “drop the hyper-charged partisan rhetoric” and instead “work with President-elect Obama and all those who wish to make real and lasting change.”
Take a look (PDF) at the invitation and Currie’s response.
- Obama Really is a Lefty I guess I
- From The Archives: Obama and Clinton So now th
- What Ron Wyden Thinks About What President Obama Thinks About Wyden’s Health Care Proposal There wer
- David Wu Gets Off the Super-delegate Fence and Goes With Obama (Updated with more Wu comment) On the fe
- A Barack Obama K-8 School in Portland? Students Say, “Yes We Can.” Students
It is tragic that the pro-life movement opposes practical and achievable legal measures to reduce the need for abortion, even as it promotes the notion of throwing women and doctors in prison AFTER an abortion, when it’s too late to save the unborn.
Likewise, it is unfortunate that some pro-choice activists seem to invest more money in defending abortion rather than promoting the alternatives that I think most people prefer.
Too many pro-life activists like Harris promote reckless anti-sex-education policies which result in even MORE unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Chuck Currie is right to demand that pro-life activists drop the hypocritical rhetoric and join others in a commonly shared and reachable goal of making abortion unwanted and unnecessary among lower-income women where abortion is endemic.
Mike, contrary to Rev. Currie, I do support helping women avoid ever having to consider having an abortion. Some of his recommendations seem worthy, but I have not had a chance to check each one out. I respect Rev. Currie’s work for the homeless, though I probably disagree with some of his theology and doctrine. He is a United Church of Christ pastor and I am not. Please visit hofcc.org to see what I believe and teach.
According to the excellent website, abort73.com, abortion statistics in the U.S. are only available from two sources, privately from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and federally from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Since Alaska, California and New Hampshire do not provide abortion data to the federal government, and since California accounts for more abortions than any other state in the U.S, the CDC numbers are not complete. AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they certainly have a position and agenda in regard to abortion. The following information has been gleaned from both sources and should give you a better idea of the frequency and distribution of abortion statistics.
ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS
* In 2005 (the most recent year for which there is reliable data), approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
* In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), NYC (91,673), and Texas (74,801); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (12), South Dakota (814), and Idaho (963) (CDC).
* The abortion ratios by state ranged from a low of 43 abortions per 1,000 live births in Idaho to a high of 770 abortions per 1,000 live births in NYC (CDC).
* Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (CDC).
* In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).
* The abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).
* The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1973 to 358 abortions per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981. The ratio peaked at 364 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2001, the abortion ratio was 246 abortions per 1,000 live births (for the states that reported, a 0.4% increase from 2000 (CDC).
* Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
* At least 80% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women (CDC).
* The abortion ratio for unmarried women is 510 abortions for every 1,000 live births. For married women it is 61 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
* Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions (CDC).
* 50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).
* Adolescents under 15 years obtained less than 1% of all abortions, but have the highest abortion ratio, 773 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).
* 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI).
* Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI).
* 43% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).
WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
* On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
* 88% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the at 13th week (AGI/CDC).
HOW ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?
* 87% of abortions were known to have been performed by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation [D&E]). Most curetage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).
* Hysterectomy and hysterotomy were used in less than .01% of all abortions (CDC).
* Medical abortions make up approximately 10% of all abortions reported (CDC).
WHO IS PERFORMING ABORTIONS?
* The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). It declined another 2% between 2000 and 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787) (AGI).
* Forty percent of providers offer very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 96% offer abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-seven percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Only 8% of all abortion providers offer abortions at 24 weeks (AGI).
ABORTION FATALITY
* In 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), 10 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).
* The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).
* In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).
THE COST OF ABORTION
* In 2005, the cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation ranged from $90 to $1,800, and the average amount paid was $413 (AGI).
MEDICAL ABORTION
* In 2005, 57% of abortion providers, or 1,026 facilities, provided one or more types of medical abortions, a 70% increase from the first half of 2001. At least 10% of nonhospital abortion providers offer only medication abortion services (AGI).
* In 2005, an estimated 161,100 early medication abortions were performed in nonhospital facilities (AGI).
* Medication abortion accounted for 13% of all abortions, and 22% of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation, in 2005 (AGI).
ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION
* Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception (CDC).
* 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Amont those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).
* 8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control (AGI).
* 9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).
ABORTION AND MINORS
* 40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion (AGI).
* 35 states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion: AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA,WI, WV, and WY. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have the alternative of seeking a court order authorizing the procedure (AGI).
ABORTION AND PUBLIC FUNDS
* The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest (AGI).
* 17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) do use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds (virtually all from the state) (AGI).
President-elect Obama has been clear that he’s "pro-choice." Of course that’s troubling to the "pro-life" movement – they have fundamentally different beliefs!
Post-partisanship doesn’t mean we still won’t disagree on issues. It seems to me that a free, peaceful and informative film screening is a positive step that should be applauded.
Rev. Currie was offered an invitation to see a movie and have dessert. Instead of a long winded, politically charged response a simple "no thank you" would have sufficed.
I think it is fine that Mr Harris has invited local pastors to this pre-screening of the movie "Come What May", but I think it was totally unnecessary to bring divisive politics into the matter. This is a time when we should be trying to come together for the good of the nation. President-elect Obama, like the majority of us, is pro choice but not pro abortion. He will attempt to reduce the necessity for many abortions while keeping them safe and out of back alleys. I fully support Pastor Currie’s comments.
I am sorry, Rika, I responded to you when I meant to respond to Sue.
Also, I do not mean to deny that there are many in America who attempt to be pro-choice while supposedly remaining anti-abortion. However, when we apply the same logic to any other social ill it falls apart. For example, one might say, "I am anti-slavery but I am pro-choice for those who choose to own slaves." Since the slave has no choice in the matter, it is in effect, a pro-slavery position. It is tha same with abortion. The baby has no choice, and it is a baby in the womb. Go to abort73.com if you don’t believe me. What you will find there is gruesome, but it is none the less true.
It is my honest hope that President-elect Obama will use his substantial political skills to end the holocaust of abortion in the United States. Only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps only Obama can end abortion. As Rev. Currie points out, there are better options than abortion. In addition to his suggestions there is adoption reform with generous financial and practical support for those women who keep their baby alive so that others who want a child may have a child.
But ultimately, our nation will have to address the basic immorality of abortion and apply appropriate legal sanctions to prevent it. For those who argue that you cannot legislate morality I must point out that every law is the legislation of someone’s sense of morality. We can and we do legislate morality all the time. That is what law is. So, the challenge is to define that morality wisely and then to build the social and political will to legislate it effectively.
Before WWII, Germany legislated its corrupt sense of morality against Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. That ended in the holocaust and in their national shame. May God help America as a nation to end our horrible injustice against women and children without having to pay a similar price.
Sue, note that Gregg Harris didn’t invite all pastors to the movie — only the male ones. With wives.
Rika, you write, "I think it was totally unnecessary to bring divisive politics into the matter." But then you acknowledge that that Mr. Obama won the election because "the majority of the US" is pro-abortion. I would challenge that assumption, but suffice it to say that this issue of abortion-on-demand is already a political issue. I am only attempting to encourage the pro-life community that, in spite of the fact that our side lost in the recent election, there is still more that we can do to reduce both the need for abortion and the social acceptance of abortion. Rev. Currie read into my letter far more "divisiveness" than I intended. I suggest that everyone simply come watch the movie on January 22nd and see for yourselves that there are far more legal issues involved than have yet been debated by the legislature. Visit abort73.com for more information. The Supreme Court made an end run around the legislative process, and that by itself is a cause for political and social opposition. The question of how we will protect the weakest and most helpless human beings in our society is the political issue of our generation. Out of this question will flow the "solutions" to many other social problems concerning the elderly and the handicapped. Being pro-life is far more than just being anti-abortion, and I am pro-life. I hope Rev. Currie can agree with me on that. To be a just and compassionate society we must be willing to protect all innocent life.
Obama wants to reduce the demand for abortion. He has specifically stated that he wants more prenatal care and more support for pregnant women. Unfortunately, my conservative Christian brethren have worked themselves up into a lather over fetuses whom they conveniently neglect once out of the womb. Let’s be more pro-life when the child is born!
I hope that Gregg Harris and others will consider emphasizing to Christian media that, as a society, we must all grow beyond the false "prolife/prochoice" labels.
We must work together to reduce abortion — without sacrificing children’s lives (as some activists and politicians do) to ulterior political concerns such as banning condoms; imposing sectarian religious beliefs upon other parents’ public-school kids; channeling taxpayer money to either side of the culture war; or affirming ignorance of life and the environment.
I agree that morality can be legislated to some extent, but often not successfully. Prohibition and the "drug war" are two examples of disastrous, failed efforts to legislate personal morality.
More alarming than the moral question is the battle to legislate science and medicine — which reveal new truths and evolve much faster than the law.
Besides reducing abortion through assistance to alternatives, folks ought to consider another option: Shaming men (regardless of orientation) who have unsafe sex. Both liberals and conservatives continue to promote hypermasculinity and to equate it with male sexual virility regardless of marital status. Teen-age men, in particular, are subjected to homophobic ridicule if they don’t prove their masculinity through sex with women and premature marriage. That has to stop.
I
Hello Rev. Currie and WW readers. To be precise, it was The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that found that contraception is unreliable. That is why so many seek to have abortions.
As much as we might like it to be otherwise, abstinence from sex is still the only trustworthy method of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. It also is fool-proof in avoiding the many STDs that plague our society.
But you refer to the broad support of the Christian community for sex education and abortion on demand. Could you please define specifically what you mean by "Christian?" Do you mean those like myself who hold to the orthodox Christian faith and who believe that the Bible is the special revelation of God to all of mankind, who have been born again by grace of God through faith in what Jesus accomplished for us by dying in our place on the cross and then rising from the dead as Lord of Lords and King of kings?
Or, do you mean those poor men and women who lost their faith in college or seminary, but who insist on wearing the name Christian for professional and career purposes, who, like Judas Iscariot, betray their Lord with a kiss each Sunday by standing in their pulpits to deny that Jesus is in fact God the Son, that He really rose from the dead, and explaining away or discarding what the Bible actually says about the sins of greed, lust, sexual immorality and yes, practicing homosexuality, who explain away the God defined roles of men and women in the church and in the home as no more than ancient cultural bigotry, and who generally cave in on every moral issue that might put their tight friendship with this world in danger?
Let us be frank, Rev. Currie. I don’t know you personally. You may be a wonderful, born again, god-fearing man of God who is trying his best to revive the United Church of Christ and to call his fellow pastors back to faithfulness to the Bible. There are sincere biblical evangelical Christians in every denomination, who, though imperfect, walk in the obedience of faith in Jesus Christ. But as you know, there are also unsaved, wicked scoundrels in every denomination, who do not really trust and obey Jesus, but who merely use His name to advance their own humanistic or even demonic agendas. Entire denominations have become useful idiots in the hands of Satan.
So, which "Christians" are you referring to? The unbelievers who populate Nominal Mainline Christianity in America, or the open true believers in Jesus Christ whom so many readers of WW seem to delight to scorn and ridicule?
God warns us about false Christians and their denominations in the Bible.
2 Tim. 4:1-5 I charge you [Timothy] in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
Which kind of minister are you? The "Christian ministers" I am referring to, the true Christian pastors like the reformers who founded the very denominations that later merged into your modern day United Church of Christ, would be grieved by the systematic murder of unborn human beings. How much of what you teach would they agree with if they were alive today? Would they be ashamed of you?
True Christians are not going to enable foolish people to safely commit sexual immorality. Neither are they going to support the murder of the unwanted children of such foolish immorality. Sexual immorality is wrong in the eyes of God. But the child conceived in such sin is still a human being with an eternal soul and a right to live. "Two wrongs don’t make a right."
We must warn people against committing any sins, but also be ready to help them pick up the broken pieces of their lives if and when they disobey God. That is what grace is all about. Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins. God loves the sinner in spite of his or her sin. That is what I believe and preach and practice. I hope others will join me in this good fight, rather than joining Satan, the real enemy of our souls, in his losing battle against God and all that is truly good.
Thankfully, you don
Rev. Currie. Nowhere in my comment have I even suggested that I decide who is and who is not a Christian. I only asked you to explain what you mean by "Christian." There is One who does decide, and He has given us more than a witness to His Word. The Bible is His Word! Read my comment again and I believe you will see that you are responding to your own resentment, rather than to what I have actually written.
Your denomination is well known for its lack of loyalty to the Bible. Your positions on homosexuality and women in ministry make a travesty of discipleship. Their current positions have jettisoned the faith of their fathers and of the Bible their fathers believed and preached. Be honest with yourself. You stand in an historically indefensible position of disregard for the clear teachings of Scripture. Why not just throw the Bible away rather than twist it so? I have not hijacked Christianity, you and your denomination have abandoned it under the guise of being more open and tolerant.
It is true that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But He is on the record in the Bible for where He stands on many important issues of public policy. He is clearly pro-life! Yes, He is a Father to the Fatherless and a Husband to the widow. I agree with Jim Wallis on many issues of social justice. But I have read your blog and your denomination’s website and it is very clear to me that you and your denomination take pride in what you ought to be ashamed of. You are blind leaders of the blind. My views on this are neither marginal nor extreme. I am what your forefathers were, faithful to the Bible. Certainly I co-operate, as you say, on many issues where Biblical moral standards are not at stake, "…fighting poverty, to protecting the environment, God�s own creation." And I am in communion with all those who have trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, but as the Apostle Paul said so clearly in Gal. 1:8-9 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." If the gospel that you preach is not the same as the Gospel that Paul preached, I encourage you to own up to it, repent and return to the faith. Otherwise you and those who follow you will be lost forever. You cannot be the friend of this evil world and the friend of God. You must choose one or the other. I pray that you will choose to stand with Jesus and His disciples.
I pretty sure you did sugguest that only people who share your views are real Christians. And I’m pretty sure you confuse the Republican Party platform for the Gospel teachings of Jesus.
What do I think is important about being a Christian?
To Greg Harris:
"Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and wiht the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in yoiur own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly the remove the speck from your brother’s eye." – Matthew 7: 1-6
To both of you (Harris & Currie),
Where in Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) can I find the authority for, or the condonance of, Christian Pastors seeking/advocating the legislating of sectarian beliefs?
Let me know your last question by providing a link to a sermon that I gave on just this subject. I hope you will find it helpful. Please let me know if you have questions / concerns.
The Politics of Jesus
http://unitedchurchofchrist.blogspot.com/2007/11/politics-of-jesus-podcast-sermon-on.html
Thank you for the response, Rev. Currie. It would be accurate to say that my politics are very similar to yours, although they once were virtually identical to Pastor Harris’.
I’ve read the text of your sermon and find that it doesn’t answer my question.
Specifically, I find the following assertion in your sermon at odds with Christ’s Great Commission: "In practical terms, that means that we have a responsibility as the church to speak out on legislation under consideration by Congress or initiatives put before the voters."
The supporting evidence cited in the sermon appeals to a time when Israel was a theocracy, which this country never has been.
Setting aside Jesus’ statement in John 18:36 which apparently disavows the secular (politics, etc), we have His sermon in Luke 17:20-37 where He likens the End Times to Sodom. Throughout the New Testament we find a theme teaching in effect that sin will only increase. If that’s the case then isn’t the advocation by the Church leadership of intervention in secular law working at cross-purposes with Jesus’ teaching and His Great Commission?
Understand that I’m drawing a sharp line between what followers of Christ do as citizens of whatever nation they happen to live in and what they do under the auspices of the formal Church body. Individuals have to live in the societies in which they live, and that would seem to include politics. But the marching orders for the Church body seem pretty clear and concise in the Great Commission. And it doesn’t appear to support the Church advocating one way or the other on political issues. To the extent that the Church does that it is distracting itself and it’s members from their marching orders given directly by Jesus. No?
I
Rev. Currie. Thank you for your response. I can see in your answer that you are sincere in your faith and I appreciate that. A big part of the difference between your faith and mine is the role of Scripture in defining what that faith in fact is. You seem to have an understanding of Scripture that borders on disbelief in its authority and a much higher view of human reasoning than the Bible warrants. If The Gospel of Thomas serves as a more authoritative source than the Gospel of John we are in very different faiths indeed.
Karmaman, thank you for the reminder not to judge others. The passage you quote forbids us to take God’s place in condemning others. Forgive me for not being more gracious. God alone is the Judge. However, the following passage is also a part of Scripture:
2 Timothy 3:23-26 "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."
This requires pastors to be firm in our attempts to expose doctrinal error in Christ’s church, not in order to condemn and reject others, but in order to bring those who are in error to repentance and faith in what is really true. In order to obey this passage there has to be a standard to which all of us are accountable. I believe that standard is the Bible alone. I am afraid that Rev. Currie has lost his doctrinal anchor and drifted into a place where, in effect, he believes only in the impossibility of being sure of anything. Some people are absolutely certain there is no such thing as absolute truth. They try to make a virtue out of being apostate. That is both very sad and very wrong.
As for pastors being involved in politics, we have to wear several hats. We are citizens and often heads of households and so we have an interest in the political process just like everyone else. We are also leaders in our churches and so our opinions are often sought out. I do not believe that a church should ever become a block of votes that can be bought and sold by its leaders to politicians. Pastors should equip their church members to think for themselves in the light of God’s Word about each issue. Each member should then use his or her political influence as conscience dictates. But I agree with Rev. Currie that pastors should make their voices heard on the political issues that matter to God and man. The civil rights movement is one very good example. The issue of abortion is another.
Perhaps it may be helpful to observe that those like myself who hold to a high view of the authority of Scripture, who actually believe that Jesus really died for our sins and really rose from the dead in actual history just as described in the Bible, and who submit their hearts and minds to the authority of the Bible as the literal Word of God, tend to be pro-life and opposed to using abortion as a form of birth control. That is where I stand.
For a great read on the doctrinal differences between pastors like Rev. Currie and myself, I recommend "Christianity & Liberalism" by J. Gresham Machen. I also recommend a new book by Rev. Timothy Keller called "The Reason for God." It is a current bestseller.
In closing, I would like to post the following explanation of the Gospel as I understand it for those who may be confused by some of the others ideas and sermon links that have been posted here.
The Good News
Many today have had brief but ineffective contact with Christianity. The following is intended to clarify the truth of the Gospel— the good news of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ.
The good news comes to us through the Bible, which is God’s message to all mankind. There we find that God is sovereign over all things — He does whatever He pleases and no one can stop Him. But God is also good — all that He does, He does for good reason. All that He commands us, or forbids us, is for our good and His glory. He created us to honor Him by enjoying friendship with Him.
Unfortunately, the first humans doubted the goodness of God and in their distrust they disobeyed His commandments. Then, because God is good, He had to punish them for their sins and that punishment was death. In this way they brought sin and death on all of their descendants.
Our corrupt human nature now affects everything we do. We have all doubted and disobeyed God. We have all done what we know to be wrong. Our guilt keeps us from enjoying God. Unless God rescues us, we are dead in sin and we deserve only punishment.
However, because God is good, He is also merciful and kind. In His mercy God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to teach us and then to die on a cross in order to rescue all who trust in Him.
Why did Jesus have to die? Because the goodness of God requires Him to be absolutely just. He cannot be unjust. Someone must die for all the sins we have committed and Jesus agreed to do so. He took our punishment on Himself as our substitute. He died for us.
But how can we know for certain that Jesus is who He said He was, and that God’s plan to save us through His death actually worked? After three days God raised Jesus from the dead. This is the proof that His death satisfied all the demands of God’s justice. Now, because Jesus is alive, He is also Lord! He is Master, and by trusting Him enough to actually obey Him, He continues to save us from wasting the rest of our lives in sin.
Today, anyone who trusts in the goodness and mercy of God enough to actually obey Jesus Christ as Lord, has been born again. This is how we are saved by faith alone. But an authentic faith will not remain alone for long. It will produce what the Bible calls good works which are the obedience of faith. Faith without such obedience toward God is dead and ineffective. Nominal Christianity cannot save anyone. It is by the active kind of faith that God transfers us out of darkness and death into true eternal life.
Has this happened to you yet? Do you trust God enough to actually obey Him? Do you see any evidence of faith?
If you have been born again, you desire to do what pleases God and you fight against sin. You enjoy honoring God in worship, learning about Him through Bible study, talking with Him in prayer, gathering with fellow believers in His church and telling others about what He has done for you.
If none of this is true of your life, you have not yet been born again. If so, admit the truth. Repent. Ask Jesus to save you. He will! That is Good News!
I hope this will be helpful to those WW readers who are seeking to know God in truth. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it. Talk to God right now. He will not reject you. He loves you, and so do I. Please contact me through http://www.hofcc.org if I can be of any further service to you.
Unless one believes that he/she has learned all that there is to learn, from God, how does one know with any certainty whether one is engaging in a foolish argument or not?
For example: you cited the civil rights movement. How do you reconcile your stated advocacy of interfering in political affairs with Paul’s exhortation that Titus teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them and to not even talk back to their masters?
The same question goes to the other pastors as well.
Understand that I personally believe that the civil rights movement was and is a wonderful thing. But the question of Paul’s teaching remains. If, as has been asserted all around, it is a Christian teacher’s role to "should make their voices heard on the political issues that matter to God and man," was Paul an unfit teacher?
Gregg, I am a friend and colleague of Chuck Currie and a United Church of Christ pastor as well. I’ve read this exchange with some interest.
I think that your main difference does seem to be one of Biblical authority, which you have already said. Not to get in the way of your conversation, I do want to add some clarification. You wrote: "Your denomination is well known for its lack of loyalty to the Bible. Your positions on homosexuality and women in ministry make a travesty of discipleship. Their current positions have jettisoned the faith of their fathers and of the Bible their fathers believed and preached."
The United Church of Christ is not united by common "positions" on anything. We are bound by confession – not creed. Our common confession is belief "in God as heavenly Father, and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and depending on the guidance of the Holy Spirit" (Article V of the UCC Constitution). We stand with the apostles Peter and Thomas in their confessions (John 20:28 and Matthew 16:16). We believe that true confession alone is sufficent for the unity of Christ’s church.
We don’t have denominational "positions." We lift up the responsibility of every believer to grow and witness to his or her relationship with Jesus Christ. It is not a denomination for lazy believers!
I don’t believe that you’d find me "disloyal" to the Bible. The Bible guides my life and my ministry. It reveals Christ to me and to millions of others. It has done so reliably that I can claim it the Word of God.
However, I do not believe that the Bible is God’s special revelation – I would say that isn’t even a Biblical view. Jesus Christ is the Word of God – John 1. The Bible can only claim to be the Word of God when it serves to communicate Christ, which like I said it does reliably.
As a United Church of Christ pastor, it is my relationship and service to Jesus Christ that saves and encourages me. Each day I make the decision to live in his Way and obey his teachings. Each day I am born again.
Chuck Currie is my brother in Christ. We are devoted to Christ’s church and his teachings. My Christian brotherhood with Chuck, and with you, is not based on my agreement on all issues. It is based on our shared confession in Christ.
As for finding doctrinal error in our preaching and teaching, I attempt to be firmly based in the Bible. After all, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes." (James 3:1-2)
Gregg, you strike me as a teacher who honestly pursues God. I pray that I am too. I ask that in your broad statements about the United Church of Christ, you can be less judgmental of your sisters and brothers.
Pastor Roberts, Thank you for your kind and gentle exhortation. I receive it. I mean no harm to you personally. Both you and Rev. Currie have been a pleasure to engage in this conversation/debate. I am honestly not trying to be judgmental. But I am trying to be faithful to the sound doctrine that you and Rev. Currie have departed from. You may call it a "confession" rather than a "position" if you like, but I have read your denomination’s website articles and listened to Rev. Currie’s sermons. It is very clear to me that someone is not working hard enough at keeping their preaching and teaching firmly based in the Bible. The people who write such things betray their Lord with a kiss of affection while disregarding His teachings and those of His apostles. To add insult to injury they mock those of us who attempt to hold true to the historical grammatical interpretation of Scripture. I appreciate your explanation, but I cannot agree with what your denominational leaders are saying and doing. If you are as you profess, a believer in Jesus Christ (without any intellectual gymnastics to redefine what that means), I love you as a brother in Christ, and therefore I love you too much to leave you to your error. If you are not my brother in Christ, I owe it to others to warn them of your error. Either way, I must say and do what I believe the Scriptures require of me as a teacher who will indeed be judged with greater strictness. It is a fearful thing to be entrusted with such an awesome responsibility. May God be merciful to us all. I am praying for you, and I hope that you are also praying for me.
Gregg Harris,
Blessings to you for standing up for the life of the unborn. False teachers like Chuck Currie do a great disservice to the unborn (I don’t call him a false teacher lightly. I have read his blog and listened to sermons where he denies many essentials such as the exclusivity of Jesus. He is also a proven liar and unrepentent libeler.) He teaches a different Christ than the one revealed in scripture.
Re. pastors in politics: they should tread carefully, but it is absurd to think that people’s religious beliefs should not inform their political views. Politics is all about the ethical use of power, and religious views should inform that. What should we do, vote the opposite of our beliefs?
To Karmaman – if you are against judging, why are you judging pastor Harris? That seems inconsistent to me. You have misunderstood Jesus as many do. He was saying not to judge hypocritically. Unless you are claiming that Pastor Harris preaches against abortion while simultaneously support abortion then your claim is unfounded.
"Jesus Christ is the Word of God – John 1."
Aaron, that is true, but Chuck explicitly denies the authority and accuracy of the Gospel of John and elevates works such as the gospel of Thomas over it. He also claims that we have as much to learn from other religions than they have to learn from us.
He thought that John 14:6 was the only passage claiming the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation and thought his work was done after he rationalized it away. He didn’t even know of the countless other passages pointing to the exclusivity of Christ. You can’t claim to take the Bible seriously while denying the teaching that Jesus is the only way, as Chuck does.
Does the UCC send out reverse missionaries instead of regular ones? After all, if Jesus isn’t the only way to salvation then we should tell the Christians in persecuted countries to convert to their local religion, right? Why go through all the suffering if God just revealed himself in different ways in different parts of the world? If that sounds absurd, it is because the logical extension of Chuck’s worldview is absurd. I hope that you don’t share it.
You can’t claim to take the Bible seriously while denying the teaching that Jesus is the only way, as Chuck does.
Yes, I can, and I do.
I highly encourage people to read about Obama’s pro-abortion extremism here – http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert%20P._Obama’s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
Just one example:
"For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate."
Satchel, why don’t you believe the passages that state that Jesus is the only way? Why do you trust the others but not those?
Here are a few if you need a refresher, along – http://www.4simpsons.com/Jesus%20is%20the%20way.htm
How can you read the New Testament and then simultaneously affirm and deny Jesus? Do you realize how that mocks the cross and the blood of the martyrs?
In Acts 17, does Paul even hint that other gods can save people? Does he just offer Jesus as another option?
Do you send out reverse missionaries? If not, why not? Why should persecuted Christians suffer needlessly if other paths are equally valid?
I see that Chuck posted this on his blog. I need to respond to show you what a lying, cynical "reverend" he is.
"Yeah. I just saw that. Thanks. I had to ban Neil from making comments here. He
Obsess much?
When people libel me publicly and I defend myself, why would you call that obsessing?
How about if I wrote, "Satchel left racist, sexist, homophobic comments that contained offensive language and more" on my site, then failed to offer a shred of evidence or let you respond. Oh, and if I was holding myself out as a "Reverend?"
When I called him on it he could have apologized for the childishness and all would have been forgotten.
But what did he do instead? He compounded his lies by repeating them.
I thank God for public forums like this where the truth can come out.
Chuck’s non-Christian views of the Bible and his pro-abortion views would be wrong regardless of whether he was such a vicious liar, but it is interesting what a complete package he offers.
I also find it ironic that you wrote on Chuck’s site that I "trashed" Chuck online. I have always noted that Chuck may be a fine father, husband and neighbor. I just point out that his theology is horribly flawed and does not resemble authentic Christianity – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/jesus-is-still-the-only-way/ .
Speaking of obsessing, why is it that Chuck even referred to me in his sermon (even though he mischaracterized that as well)?
"Chuck Currie is right to demand that pro-life activists drop the hypocritical rhetoric and join others in a commonly shared and reachable goal of making abortion unwanted and unnecessary among lower-income women where abortion is endemic."
Your reasong and that of Chuck Currie is flawed. He says there is nothing morally wrong with abortions. So why reduce them? The folks at Planned Parenthood et al insist that they are safe — even safer than pregnancy — so that would make them a cost effective form of birth control. (PP says things like that when they aren’t busy hiding statutory rape – youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLDGFzdPjBU&eurl= )
But science shows that a new human being is created at exception. This is a fact. So abortion kills an innocent human being. That should not be legal. Make it illegal and abortions will go down dramatically. People use it as a fail-safe method of birth control.
Neil writes:
"Your reasong and that of Chuck Currie is flawed. He says there is nothing morally wrong with abortions. So why reduce them?"
Actually, there is nothing morally wrong with lots of undesirable things, such as illness, bee stings, coffee burns, icy roads, etc. Yet we strive to reduce occurrences of all of the above for reasons other than their moral legitimacy.
As a supporter of abortion rights, I recognize that, as Pastor Harris pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of those who have abortions are disproportionately women of color who are younger than 25 and unmarried; populations that are historically disadvantaged compared with more privileged folks. I believe that by working to ensure that people who live in low-income communities have sufficient access to education, housing, jobs, and health care, we will ultimately reduce the number of abortions.
And besides, practically speaking, if people who are both for and against abortion rights can come together and work to improve communities, with eliminating abortions as the byproduct OR main objective, that’s good for both sides.
Peace,
TR
Hi Tom,
If people really want to reduce abortions — especially if they claim to be Christians — then they should support Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They provide help to women in need and do not advocate policially or protest abortion clinics
There is nothing wrong with the latter, but there is nothing at a CPC that should offend a true pro-choice person. After all, we acknowledge that the women have a choice and want to help them make what we see as the right choice (not killing their unborn). We are completely honest with them. We don’t show pictures of abortions at CareNet (where I’m a donor / volunteer / board member), though of course there would be nothing wrong with showing pictures of the procedure in question.
We offer free life skills training (breast feeding, parenting, relationships, finances, auto maintence), diapers, formula, clothes, adoption and housing referrals, pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and more — all for FREE.
We also offer to share the Gospel with everyone who comes in. If they aren’t interested in it or reject it they get the same love and attention as those who are interested in it (or who are already Christian).
We also offer post abortion trauma counseling. Many clients have already abortions and need help. We don’t just them, we just help them.
I have yet to find theological liberals interested in helping CPCs. They typically speak as you do, as in "let’s solve poverty completely then abortions will reduce."
But if abortions are not morally wrong, as you seem to claim, who cares if you reduce them? Again, according to Planned Parenthood / theological liberal reasoning, they are safe for women. So that would make them cost effective methods of birth control. Why not focus your energy elsewhere?
Fact: Scientifically speaking, abortion kills an innocent human being. Go read any secular embryology textbook and you’ll find that life beings at conception (I have a link to resources if anyone would like it). I don’t even need the Bible to argue against abortion, though of course it applies to Christians ("Thou shalt not murder" plus a host of other passages).
You are right that abortions are higher in black communities — roughly 3x the rate of whites. Abortion will kill more black human beings this week than the KKK ever did. That is Obama’s policies are so awful. There will be less black people in 4 years if he repeals the Hyde Amendment, for example, than if he doesn’t. I think that will be a bad thing, but you apparently think it will be good if more of these young ladies have gov’t funded abortions to kill their black children.
Do I want black children to be poor? Of course not. But I’d rather have them be poor than dead.
Hi Neil,
I don’t have any particular problems with CPCs, but neither do I agree that starting from the premise that abortion is wrong will work for everybody in all circumstances at present. That’s why I’d rather focus my efforts on those areas in which we overlap instead of you coming all the way over to my side and vice versa.
Peace,
Tom
Hi Tom,
Currently CPCs are the only thing I am aware of that are actually reducing abortions. The failure rate of poor kids using the birth control pushed on them is astronomical.
Might I ask, why do you think abortions should be reduced?
Do you agree that they kill innocent human beings?
Regards,
Neil
You should all be sure read about Planned Parenthood’s latest embarrassments – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/planned-parenthood-still-hiding-statutory-rape/ .
They were caught — again! — hiding statutory rapes. Why is Planned Parenthood so well supported by theological liberals?
Hello Neil, Tom and Rev. Currie. I have been away fro a while doing Christmas and family things. Neil, I appreciate your zeal for the unborn. And Tom, if you want to reduce abortions I suggest sending as many people as possible to http://www.abort73.org. This website has a huge success rate in turning pro-choice and pro-abortion people into pro-life people simply by walking them through the facts. It is a gentle but firm presentation that everyone should view at least once. As for you, my friend, Rev. Currie, I pray that you will someday repent and really believe the gospel as it is presented in the New Testament. Otherwise, you ad all who agree with you and follow you will be lost forever. The following passage from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Philippians illustrates the emptiness of your liberal theology. If you deny the literal and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ you cut yourself off from the resurrection of the Christian as well.
"Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself" (Philippians 3:17-21).
Paul makes his case very well in 1 Corinthians. Follow the line of his argument and you will see what a hopeless state we would be in if Christ had not in fact risen from the dead.
"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:12-20)
If you don’t believe that Paul knew what he was talking about, you expose the fact that you are not really a Christian anyway. You have simply departed from the faith of Christianity.