I could just as easily rename this article the unimportance of children. Indeed, more readers would understand the title. It is my hope that readers will not be put off by the title. This title and indeed this article is not in an effort of blatant scaremongering but the reporting of a serious epidemic that will have serious consequences (perhaps some will argue that such a sentence is actually an attempt to generate fear).
We need to change things in western society and quickly. Antinatalism is a philosophy that looks at childbirth in a negative light. The Chinese government for many years have had a policy that underscores how they assign no value to their citizen's rights to give birth. They may do so because of what they consider as pragmatic reasons but the belief behind it undermines the intrinsic value of the human being.
China, however, is not the only country that has been affected by the philosophy of antinatalism. Japan, too, is very much in trouble because of declining birth rates:
"The population of Japanese children aged up to 14, currently stands at 16.6million in the country but is shrinking at a rate of one every 100 seconds, researchers in Sendai said.
They warned that at the current rate, Japan would have no children left within a millennium."
This is deeply disturbing and significantly difficult to rectify. Unlike China this is not based on policy decisions. In some ways this makes it more plausible for the Japanese government to turn around. In another way what we are seeing is many Japanese people making a particular choice that will have severe ramifications. So it's not just a policy issue for government's but an ethical issue for the layman.
People will read this article and say "so Japan have problems, how does that affect me?" While such a response shows a deep lack of concern for Japan's future, here is another story that may bring it more home to you. In San Francisco we see a similar direction:
"Take just one example gleaned from census and city data: Dogs outnumber children here, making already assertive dog owners an even more formidable political force."
Now this article is actually about coyotes and how dog owners may skew things politically (a reality that one has to deal with in a democracy) yet this article states that the census and the city data show that dogs outnumber children. Nothing more is said about this comment. The article believes that coyotes are the bigger news. But, what a bombshell. In a human city in the United States there are less children than canine pets!
It is a grim future if other countries start following Japan. America looks like it will follow and Australia is prone to doing whatever the United States does. Children are the centre-piece of God's design for the family. They are also imperative to our future. To place no importance on them (which many in western society are doing) will result in the breakdown of families and the destruction of our future.
So, how can we rectify the situation? Is it our imperative to go out and have children. In some way we are called to do that, but not by ourselves. We need to change our thinking and realise that our lives cannot be dominated by work up until the day we retire. Having children might not be a savvy financial decision yet it should not be a decision clouded by money or career prospects. Children are more important than any of these things. If you are one of the convinced then you have the opportunity to change the minds of others. We are surrounded by people who think this way. In Australia, at the moment, people have the capacity to change their minds. On this issue, it is in their best interests that they do.
In recent elections France and Greece took moves that took them away from their previous 'Austerity' measures. In the French elections culminating on the sixth of May, François Hollande (Socialist Party) became the president elect. In the Greek elections, they likewise moved away from the austerity route.
Greece and France have embraced a philosophy of increased taxation and spending in order to both fight back high sovereign debt levels and kick start their economies. On the one hand they view increased taxation as the key to increasing tax revenue as well as accelerated economic growth through increased spending. Increased taxation and spending obviously leads to an increased turnover of funds through the national bureaucracies, given their past inability to balance the national books giving them increased responsibility appears to be the opposite of good stewardship.
If either the spending increases don't enhance national productivity as expected or the tax increases don't increase tax revenue as expected both countries will fall deeper into the hole of debt. With both nations approaching debt levels that may take decades to repay, a new generation may be paying a bill that they never saw the benefits of.
So Barack Obama has come out of the closet. That's right he's a supporter of same-sex marriage. Well, it's alright Mr President. Everyone already knew. There were those tell-tale signs like the way you said in February 1996 that you "favour[ed] same-sex marriage". Thankfully you were able to keep the cat in the bag and twelve years down the track all was forgotten as you ran for President. But recently there have been signals. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell suggested that you were starting to lapse and, finally, your administration's strict policy to stop defending DOMA in court has brought everyone to the realisation that the next logical step would be for you to endorse same-sex marriage in the public arena. So now we have two presidential candidates, one supports SSM and the other does not. Well played, Mr President.
It is clear that the US President's opinion is not the only place where the battlelines have been drawn. In California a Bill is being prepared that would ban "conversion" therapy for teens who identify as homosexual. Conversion therapy is the option to change one's orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. That's right, their parents might think it is in their best interests, the child might be completely for undergoing such treatment but, if the Bill passes, no therapy can be used. Such a position must surely undermine the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution as it impedes the free exercise of religion. This is an extreme law that undermines many people's freedoms.
Of course, the nutty left aren't seeing it that way. One program that I keep tabs on is the youtube show The Young Turks. This is my reconnaissance stage. Usually I disagree with them on virtually every point. But they are very good at giving what they consider counter-arguments. I think it is key that you listen very carefully to the points of those that oppose you. In regards to California's proposed law Young Turk co-host Ana Kasparian discusses the issue:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
I was surprised at how much baloney she could actually say in four and a half minutes. Conversion therapy is a stigmatised practice that works for many different types of unfavourable activities. This can include alcoholism, gambling and substance dependence. In regards to sexual issues it can be used effectively for porn addiction and paedophilia. All of these are seen as being perfectly treatable if the subject is willing.
Of course, this is the key criteria. A person must want to change in order to change. So when you see the many stories of patient's who condemn Exodus International and other such organisations we must realise that we are dealing with conditions where people are very likely to relapse and many of them will go back to the way they were living all along. And then, they are spoon-fed this lie that such a change is not possible and they turn on the very organisation that is trying to help them.
It is even more disturbing that California will ban a medical practice because of indirect harm (that is, potential depression and the possibility of attempted suicide). When "conversion" therapy is compared to other alternative therapies it shown to be significantly less dangerous and has a higher chance of success than nearly all of these. Yet there is no proposal for the banning of any of these therapies. We can extrapolate many different activities to see what indirect harm could possibly occur. Jogging can cause a heart attack, eating can cause chocking and airbags can kill. It is not a government's role to crack down on things that have indirect consequences. What we see here is a "special status for homosexuality" (Breitbart article) quashing the right for people to have a choice about their orientation.
Kasparian makes several other mistakes in this video. Perhaps the biggest being her key scientific argument from the position of the American Psychological Association and, specifically, the DSM's (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) condemnation that reparative therapy ("conversion" therapy) is dangerous and unlikely to work. Now the first edition of the DSM did have homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disorder". Most liberals argue that because this first edition was some sixty years ago (and the DSM no longer classifies it as a disorder) this is proof that science (and psychology specifically) is now reflective of reality rather than public opinion (unlike in the 1950s). Such an accusation cannot be further from the truth. The DSM was changed on December 15th 1973 not because of science or date but because of pressure from homosexual advocates. Dr. Ronald Bayer wrote at the time:
"The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."
Dr. Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, pg 34
Homosexual proponents are keen to suggest science is on their side but there really are no grounds for such an assertion. Kasparian finishes the video by wishing that policies were made based on science and not on ideologies. Well, I can assure you, if such logic was available to the APA in the 1970s the DSM would not be as contorted as it is today.
It is not just in America where the tension is heightening. Some of my so-called Facebook friends have also congratulated Obama on his "evolution". Others, aware of my outspoken position find my posts incredibly infuriating. I know this through other sources rather than coming from them specifically. It is clear that they have the moral superiority over me and I am just left making up a position based on Scripture and facts. My opinion can be disregarded because it is not based on having numerous friends who are homosexual. If I knew them, then surely I'd be more lenient towards homosexuality. Maybe I'd even change my understanding on Scripture to be more accommodating. Were that it was this simple.
The denigration of marriage is a particularly worrisome "evolution" for society. Regardless of why marriage is being contorted it has far-reaching consequences. Divorce essentially eroded the permanence requirement from marriage. Something that was intended to last for a lifetime now had a get-out clause. And then along came the "evolution" of easy divorce, another crack in the armour of the family. What same-sex marriage activist's don't understand is the importance and the genesis of marriage:
"But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mark 10:6-9 (ESV)
Most non-Christians will disregard this as being merely a religious argument but the fact remains that marriage was created in the beginning by God. I do not have monopoly over it, nor do you, nor should it be transformed by worldly government's. Yet, this is what homosexual activists are trying to do.
There is a further group of people who must come under scrutiny. That is the Christians who reject verses like the one above and seek to bring supposed "equality" in marriage. They have betrayed the foundations that God has set into place since the beginning of material time. Some believe our faith is all about our relationship with other humans. Others have too many friends who are homosexual and do not understand how God could condemn them for who they are. Barack Obama is one such self-professing Christian who has decided that the homosexual cause is just his flavour.
Christians who fall into this camp either have a low view of Scripture or a distorted view of Scripture. There are many people who would call themselves Christians but only like some of the ideals that Jesus discussed in His sermon on the mount, or His golden rule. Many of these will not acknowledge the Old Testament in any capacity and most disregard it as being part of the "old covenant" and not what Jesus was on about. They believe in the fallibility of the Bible and that it can, at times, be unreliable. Those with a distorted view of Scripture seek to argue that none of the verses condemning homosexuality really mean what they seem to. By clutching at straws these people speculate and spin yarns about how culturally these verses can be better understood as referring to hospitality or to male prostitution.
This brings me to my final point. Just because somebody has an alternative perspective regarding Scripture doesn't mean that it is one that should be given any credence. Many people will argue (Christian and non-Christian alike) that there are so many different interpretations of the handful of verses that may or may not address homosexuality that it is perfectly fine for our differences to remain and people to have diverse views and each should be voiced accordingly. The danger of this fallacy cannot be understated. Interpretation of Scripture in scholarly circles is not really divided. The Bible is clear and unequivocal much to the advocate's dismay.
Obama seeks to both distort and downplay Scripture:
"[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule.
If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
He chooses which parts of Scripture he wishes to follow and which ones he deems to be too obscure to place any relevance upon. This is the ultimate human arrogance and a mindset that we'd be best to avoid. God's word stands clear. It is not within our power to alter even the smallest detail in Scripture to suit our own political agenda.
"1. Who wrote the film? Who produced it? Who directed it? Do we know through the writings and previous work of these people anything about their philosophy of life? The previous works of actors are also important. Actors contribute much to the quality of a film, little to its fundamental conception. But actors do tend to sign on to projects with which they have some ideological affinity (assuming financial rewards are not otherwise determinative). Mel Gibson almost never takes on films with a heavy sexual element; Mickey Rourke almost always does. The presence of certain actors, granting that they sometimes go "against type," can tell you something about the message of a film.
2. Is it well-made, aesthetically? Are the production and acting values of high quality? These factors may have little to do with the "message." But they do tend to determine the extent of the film's cultural impact, and that is important for our purposes. If a film is well-made, it can have a large impact upon the culture for good or ill. (Of course some bad films also have a major impact!)
3. Is it honest, true to its own position? This is another mark of "quality." Generally speaking, an honest film, regardless of its point of view, will have a larger cultural impact than one which blunts its points.
4. What kind of film is it? Fantasy? Biography? Realistic drama? Comedy? Obviously each film must be judged according to its purpose and genre. We don't demand of a fantasy the kind of historical accuracy we demand of a supposedly literal biography.
5. What is the world view of the film? Is it theistic or atheistic? Christian or non-Christian? If non-Christian, is its main thrust relativistic or dogmatic? How does it employ the theme of "equality?" Is there any role for providence, for God? Is the film pessimistic or optimistic? Does the action move in deterministic fashion, or is there a significant role for human choice?
6. What is the plot? What problems do the characters face? Can these problems be correlated in some way with the Fall of mankind in Adam? Does the film in effect deny the Fall, or does it affirm it in some way?
7. Are the problems soluble? If so, how? What methods are available to the characters so that they can find the answers they need?
8. What is the moral stance of the film? Is the film relativistic, dogmatic, or both in some combination? What are its attitudes toward sex, family, human life, property, truth, heart-attitudes? What is the source of moral norms, if any? Does justice prevail?
9. In comedy, what is it that is funny? What are the typical incongruities? Who is the butt of the jokes? (Christians? traditional values? the wicked? the righteous? God? Satan?) Is the humor anarchic? Is it rationality gone awry? Is it bitter or gentle? Does it rely on caricatures? If so, of whom?
10. Are there allusions to historical events, literary works, other films, famous people, Scripture, etc. that would give us some idea where the filmmakers are coming from? We should remember, of course, that allusions may be negative, positive, ironic, or merely decorative. A biblical allusion does not necessarily indicate acceptance of biblical values.
11. What are the chief images of the film? Is there anything interesting about the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, the timing which would reinforce a particular theme? Are there significant symbols?
12. Are there any explicit religious themes? Christ-figures? Does the film express significant attitudes toward Christ, the clergy, or the church? Does it distort Christianity or present it at its worst? Or does it present it with some insight and/or sympathy? Does it recognize the element of personal piety in people's lives? There are exceptions. If so, does it approve or disapprove of it? What about Satan, the demons, the occult? Does the film recognize their activity in some way? Is the devil taken seriously? If so, how is he dealt with"
"For you did not obtain favor by yourself, so that anything should be owed to you. Therefore, in giving the reward of immortality, God crowns his own gifts, not your merits."
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 3.10
I thought I might elaborate on the essential doctrine of justification by faith that I have mentioned a couple of times in previous articles. I have done extensive reading and my hope is that this article will be a good introduction regarding what is at stake in this contentious topic.
Wayne Grudem gives us a great definition to work from:
"Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ's righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight."
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 723
In the legal sense we are justified, made right with God. Paul speaks clearly on this issue many times:
"Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" Romans 4:4 - 5 (ESV)
There are many Church leaders after Paul who also preached the fundamental importance of justification. Augustine was known as "the doctor of grace" and he had much to say about justification:
"What is grace? That which is freely given. What is "freely given"? Given, not paid. If it was due, wages would be given, but grace would not be bestowed. But if it was really due, then you were good. But if, as is true, you were evil but believed on him who justifies the ungodly (What is, "who justifies the ungodly"? The ungodly is made righteous), consider what by right hung over you by the law and you have obtained by grace. But having obtained that grace by faith, you will be just by faith - "for the just lives by faith.""
Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 3.9
Augustine emphasised the importance of grace in justification. We do not have to work for salvation, it is a free gift imparted from God. It should be stressed that "apart from the grace of God, the [human] free will is not capable of anything good" (Ildefonsus, On the Knowledge of Baptism, pg 100). We do not have the capabilities to justify ourselves (sola fide).
Martin Luther was a major proponent in the Reformation and the chief split between his doctrine and the Catholic Church was justification. His understanding of human interaction with justification was essential to the development of human comprehension of justification since then:
"For inasmuch as the saints are always aware of their sin and implore God for the merciful gift of his righteousness, they are for this very reason also always reckoned righteous by God. Therefore, they are before themselves and in truth unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because he reckons them so on account of this confession of their sin; they are sinners in fact, but by virtue of the reckoning of the merciful God they are righteous."
Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, LCC 15:125
This is the idea of a Christian being simultaneously righteous and sinner (simul iustus et peccator). This is different from the Catholic notion of God's elect being partly righteous and partly sinful (Gregg Allison, Historical Theology, pg 511). This is where the Catholic Church adds the act of sanctification (God working to transform the life of the Christian) to the act of justification (God imparting His righteousness on the sinful). The Catholic Church errs on this important distinction as established by John Calvin:
"By confusing justification and sanctification, the Roman Catholic Church emphasized the infusion of righteousness rather than the imputation of righteousness, and it viewed justification as a reward that could be merited. But justification is not about merit, nor is it about infusion of grace, even with the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has missed the point of justification of grace through faith alone."
God's righteousness is transferred to us. His work in our lives after we are justified (which is the act of sanctification) has no bearing on our right standing before His judgment throne. We are completely dependant upon His actions. As it is He who condemns it is also He who pardons. Our perceived righteousness has no bearing on our salvation.
Of recent times there has been a "fresh" understanding of justification dubbed the "new perspective on Paul". Scholar N. T. Wright has led the charge in this redefinition. Essentially God's righteousness cannot be imparted upon the believer. God's righteousness, according to Wright, refers to His faithfulness to the His own covenant promises. Therefore, "[j]ustification was not so much about 'getting in,' or indeed about 'staying in,' as about 'how you could tell who was in.'" (N. T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg 119).
This redefinition finds itself heavily on the side of the Catholic understanding of justification. No longer are we justified by faith alone. Covenant faithfulness is one of the works that can lead to salvation. Our justification, by this standard, depends on our whole life lived. Yet Paul is clear that works cannot justify the sinner. We are viewed righteous because God views Christ as righteous. At this junction lies a huge gap between the Catholic Church and the Reformed Churches. Unfortunately, justification is "the principal article of the whole doctrine of salvation and the foundation of all religion" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.1). As such it is a difference that cannot be overcome by taking the middle ground as Wright attempts to do.
Justification shortcuts:
God bestows His righteousness to us.
This is not works dependant but by faith alone.
We are simultaneously righteous and sinful.
Justification is significantly different than sanctification.
The new perspective on Paul seeks to redefine justification.
Most of you won't know who Dan Savage is. To be honest I am at a loss as to what he does for his day job. Apparently he was the creator for the It Gets Better Project, of which you have probably seen celebutards post youtube videos in support of this project. Now as much as I find this campaign disappointing my criticisms are not levelled at the Project in this article, but at its creator.
Dan Savage first came on my radar when he decided that he didn't like the (till-recent) Republican nominee Rick Santorum. In fact he didn't like him so much that he made a website which depicted Santorum to mean something most foul. Yes, this makes him perverted and disgusting but not a bully, which religious organisations are calling him now.
The reason why they are calling him a bully is because he verbally attacked Christians and ridiculed the Bible at a High School Journalism Convention. The clip is shown below:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Now I don't think this is bullying, per se. It is being deliberately confrontational and very direct but it is not bullying. And even though he attacks the Bible, it can stand his attacks because they are unfounded.
Let me quickly turn to two of his criticisms of the Bible. The first is that "the Bible got slavery and women's rights wrong" so how could it get a much more complex issue like human sexuality right? This is not an argument regarding interpretations of the Bible (see revisionism, for example) this is saying "Yeah, the Bible says that, but the Bible is wrong on these other issues, so therefore how can it be trusted". I will leave the response in Professor Robert Gagnon's capable hands (the leading expert on Scripture's discussion of homosexuality):
"As regards slavery,
(1) the Bible nowhere endorses theories of racial inferiority of African persons, while the New Testament rejects distinctions based fundamentally on ethnicity.
(2) The biblical witness also offers no compelling witness for preserving the institution of slavery. Yet it does clearly show a strong vested interest in preserving a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions.
As regards women's roles,
(1) the attempt to equate being a woman with experiencing homoerotic impulses is a gross confusion of categories, as is the attempt to equate ethnicity with homosexual orientation.
(2) As with the matter of slavery, there are many biblical texts critical of the oppression of women but absolutely none that are critical of a categorical rejection of homosexual practice."
He elaborates greatly on these categories and I will link the PDF for you to read further. Suffice to say that the Bible does not get slavery wrong. Another article is posted on the Answers in Genesis website.
The second attack that Dan Savage uses is to criticise Christians who condemn homosexuality but do not condemn the eating of shellfish or many of the other Leviticus commands. He believes this shows hypocrisy by the Christians (as well as selective reading). Again I will use Robert Gagnon:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Not only does Gagnon clearly outline the differences between ritual purity and sexual ethics he also elaborates about why Jesus did not let the woman caught in adultery be stoned (John 8). Namely because what is at stake. Her immortal soul is at stake. He leaves her with the command "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). The first half of this video elaborates clearly upon Savage's misconceptions of Scripture.
We need not worry about Dan Savage. He has a liberal mentality where he feels that Christians are the oppressors and, therefore, he is justified is saying anything he likes. Fortunately, when we look carefully at his attacks we see that it is just smoke and mirrors. His arguments from Scripture hold no weight. He pretends to know a book that he disdains. He may live up to his last name (unlike Rick Santorum) yet we have seen his like before.
We need to change things in western society and quickly. Antinatalism is a philosophy that looks at childbirth in a negative light. The Chinese government for many years have had a policy that underscores how they assign no value to their citizen's rights to give birth. They may do so because of what they consider as pragmatic reasons but the belief behind it undermines the intrinsic value of the human being.
In recent elections France and Greece took moves that took them away from their previous 'Austerity' measures. In the French elections culminating on the sixth of May, François Hollande (Socialist Party) became the president elect. In the Greek elections, they likewise moved away from the austerity route.
So Barack Obama has come out of the closet. That's right he's a supporter of same-sex marriage. Well, it's alright Mr President. Everyone already knew. There were those tell-tale signs like the way you said in February 1996 that you "favour[ed] same-sex marriage". Thankfully you were able to keep the cat in the bag and twelve years down the track all was forgotten as you ran for President. But recently there have been signals. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell suggested that you were starting to lapse and, finally, your administration's strict policy to stop defending DOMA in court has brought everyone to the realisation that the next logical step would be for you to endorse same-sex marriage in the public arena. So now we have two presidential candidates, one supports SSM and the other does not. Well played, Mr President.
I was surprised at how much baloney she could actually say in four and a half minutes. Conversion therapy is a stigmatised practice that works for many different types of unfavourable activities. This can include alcoholism, gambling and substance dependence. In regards to sexual issues it can be used effectively for porn addiction and paedophilia. All of these are seen as being perfectly treatable if the subject is willing.
Martin Luther was a major proponent in the Reformation and the chief split between his doctrine and the Catholic Church was justification. His understanding of human interaction with justification was essential to the development of human comprehension of justification since then:
Of recent times there has been a "fresh" understanding of justification dubbed the "new perspective on Paul". Scholar N. T. Wright has led the charge in this redefinition. Essentially God's righteousness cannot be imparted upon the believer. God's righteousness, according to Wright, refers to His faithfulness to the His own covenant promises. Therefore, "[j]ustification was not so much about 'getting in,' or indeed about 'staying in,' as about 'how you could tell who was in.'" (N. T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg 119).
Now I don't think this is bullying, per se. It is being deliberately confrontational and very direct but it is not bullying. And even though he attacks the Bible, it can stand his attacks because they are unfounded.