Simple Concepts Concerning Life

In memory of the 50 million Americans lost since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision, I wrote a poem for a competition hosted by the Manhattan Declaration (you can read it here).  The point of the poem is simply this: A little girl in the womb has no guarantee of liberty or the pursuit of happiness in America because she has no guarantee of life.

Two contrary points are typically made by those who favor abortion.  First, it is said that the baby in the womb is something less than human, not quite considered a person.  Maybe it is a fetus or embryo, but not a person.  And because it is philosophically impossible to determine at what point the embryo becomes a baby, we are not at liberty to impose a definition upon the mother. She is free to choose for herself.  Second, the argument is made that because the mother will have the primary burden of caring for the child, then she must decide whether to allow her birth.  Each of these arguments is fundamentally unsound.

On the first point, the question must be answered concerning the child in the womb. If it is not human, then what is it?  If it is human, then it must be protected.  Terms such as fetus and embryo only obscure what ought to be obvious to all.  What kind of embryo is it?  What kind of fetus is it?  Obviously, they are human embryos.  As such, they should be protected under the law.  According to our Declaration of Independence, “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Still, the argument persists because pro-abortion advocates claim that humanity is not so easily defined.  When do the cells and DNA actually become a full human being?  Our simple response to this inquiry is, “When is it ever not human?”  From the moment of conception, a human being is in process—a process of growth which continues throughout the time in the womb and even for most of the next two decades after the child is born.  There is growth and development (in the strictly physical sense) from conception to the age of 18 or so.  This is undeniable.

In fact, this line of reasoning is so filled with common sense that it permeates our legal code.  Take, for instance, Title 16, Chapter 5A, Subchapter II, Paragraph 668 (a), of the United States Code:

 “Whoever, within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof… shall knowingly…take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof of the foregoing eagles, or whoever violates any permit or regulation issued pursuant to this subchapter, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both…”

What is particularly illuminating in the U. S. legal code is the threat of criminal sanction for taking not just the egg of the eagle but also the nest.  It is clear enough that the egg of the eagle is protected (for the sake of protecting all eagles); what is even more astounding is that the eagle’s nest is also protected.  Why?  Because the nest is also a necessary part of the life-development of a bald eagle.  In the case of the bald eagle, the law protects a collection of non-living sticks and limbs because those sticks and limbs provide a nesting area for an egg which—if all goes well—will eventually develop into an eaglet, which–if all goes well–will one day fly as an eagle.  The nest of the egg of the eagle is protected in America because Americans value eagles and want to protect them.  The womb of a mother is not protected in America because Americans…

Now, on the second point of debate, again, the law is clear.  Those who advocate for abortion will say that they may be personally opposed to it, but they cannot feel compelled to burden the mother when child-rearing is her responsibility.  (There are many false assumptions built into this argument—child-rearing is a mother and father responsibility; children are not burdens but blessings; and one cannot be opposed to something and advocate for it in the same breath).  On the basic point of whether the child is the mother’s responsibility solely because it is part of her body, I would appeal to common sense and the law.

Common sense makes plain that the child in the womb is not simply a subsidiary part of the mother’s body.  When a couple goes for an ultrasound, they don’t go there to find out what kind of tumor is growing on the mother’s body.  They go there to find out the ___________ of the ___________.  (Could you fill in the blanks? They go to find out the sex of the baby).  It is simply ludicrous to assert that the baby is like a hemorrhoid, and abortion is good in the same sense as Preparation H.  This is not a part of the mother’s body; it is a separate human body.  The ultrasound is able to determine its sex. If it is a little boy, it will have a little boy organ which belongs to him—not to his mother.

In the law, the same common sense provisions can be found.  Even if we were to say that the baby were merely a growth on the mother’s body, and, because it is her body and her burden, it is also her free choice, we still would not think that the mother is free to do whatever she wants with her body.  Women are not free to do anything they want with their bodies; neither are men.  One cannot expose his body to others without facing charges of indecent exposure.  One cannot prostitute his or her body without facing criminal charges.  One cannot fill his or her body with illegal drugs without violating the law.  There are a great many things one cannot do with his or her body.  There simply is no absolute right to your own body when you live in community with others.

So, we conclude with two simple and undeniable truths.  At conception, human life begins.  And, no one should have the right to rob another human of her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  With these simple facts recognized, we will see the value of human life soaring in America again like the eagle’s.

Tebow Top Ten?

Tim Tebow is not the best quarterback in the NFL. He isn’t even in the top 5 of NFL quarterbacks. –Hold it, I am not a hater!  I love Tim Tebow. I have enjoyed following him since he entered the Swamp as a freshman at Florida. Tebow supporters have an obligation to be honest about his abilities and his limitations. So, here is my attempt to assess the value of Tim Tebow to the Denver Broncos and to the NFL. After making my case, I hope to explain further why Tim Tebow—the 6^th best quarterback in the NFL—is uniquely positioned to be the #1 most criticized NFL player.

You read me rightly. Tim Tebow is the 6^th best quarterback in the NFL right now.  You may wonder about the basis of such a statement.  My assessment is not the result of some strange, sports calculus. Unlike both the BCS ranking formula and the ESPN QB Ranking conundrum, my assessment is simple and straightforward. My assessment of a quarterback is related primarily to how effectively the quarterback scores touchdowns on offensive plays with which he is associated.

There is no need to lock this secret formula into a vault somewhere; it is both simple and transparent, something that cannot be said of typical QB rankings and passer ratings. Here is a very simple way to assess an NFL quarterback.  How often does he score a touchdown?  On average, how often does he get the ball in the end zone?

A long, long time ago (it seems now), before Tim Tebow replaced Kyle Orton as the Broncos signal caller, I made the assertion that Tim Tebow gave the Broncos the best chance to win games—much better than Kyle Orton or Brady Quinn or the guy throwing mile-high peanuts in Denver’s stadium.  Tebow was reportedly demoted to 14^th string quarterback or something like that. Yet, I made the assertion then that Tebow had something invaluable for an NFL quarterback: Tebow had a nose for the end zone.  He proved (in only 3 starts the prior season) to be willing and able to find pay-dirt.  The classic picture of him in the end zone against his college nemesis Florida State with blood-red paint from his face to his feet was no fluke. He burrowed his way into end zone after end zone in college, and he proved early to be able to do the same thing in the NFL.

In fact, Tim Tebow is the 6^th best quarterback in the NFL at finding the end zone.  That is one of the main reasons he and the Broncos are 6-1 over his starting stretch.  Tim Tebow scores a touchdown—on average—for every 18.5 plays for which he is responsible.  In other words, when he runs or throws the ball, there will end up being a touchdown (not a field goal) by the 19^th play.  There are only 5 quarterbacks in the NFL with better numbers this year than Tim Tebow.  In order, these 5 are (not surprisingly) as follows: Aaron Rodgers; Tom Brady; Drew Brees; Matthew Stafford; and Matt Schaub.

Before his injury, Matt Schaub was getting 6 points for every 18.06 plays in which he was a primary player.  Peyton Manning’s lifetime number is 18.16.  So, the Broncos are not winning in spite of Tim Tebow. They are winning largely because of the contributions of Tim Tebow.  The supposedly inept, unorthodox Tebow is scoring more efficiently than Eli Manning, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, and Ben Roethlisberger.  His efficiency is neither a freak show nor a prep school fad, as some have suggested. It is, instead, basic football well played. “Hey, quarterback, get the ball in the end zone.”  The NFL is not so far removed from the prep school game if one remembers the basic goal of the game—which, for a quarterback, is to get the ball over the goal line.  Tim Tebow does that better than most quarterbacks in the NFL.

[Next: Why Is Tebow So Maligned?]

 

 

Adoptions Down

The 2011 adoption statistics were just released, and they showed that adoptions are down in the U.S.  Indeed, adoptions were down a significant 15% from the 2010 numbers, and down a mind-boggling 60% from the peak numbers of 2004.  One must go back nearly two decades (1994) to find a year in which there were fewer adoptions than there were this past year.

What is going on?

Apparently, government interference is going on.  I’m not an anarchist. I’m not an anti-government libertarian.  I’m not even an “occupier.”  I am a parent who is caught up in the process of adopting 2 orphan boys from Ethiopia.  In 2010, Ethiopia completed 2,513 adoptions to parents in the U.S.  Last year, the number dropped to 1,727—which means 786 fewer orphans were brought into a forever family.  The reason for this is not that Ethiopia has fewer orphans needing to be adopted: There are still more than 4 million orphans awaiting adoption.  The reason for the decline is government intervention.

Of course, the government was compelled to intervene after dozens of serious irregularities were uncovered in Guatemala back in 2007.  The nadir of the Guatemalan adoption program came when 6 year-old Anyelí Liseth Hernández Rodríguez was adopted legally by a Missouri family who were told that she was an orphan. In truth, Anyelí was kidnapped from her home in Guatemala and sold as an orphan through the criminal actions of an adoption attorney and an agency worker in Guatemala.  The attorney and the agency worker have been found guilty of kidnapping and sentenced to 21 and 16-year prison terms respectively.  They have also been forced to pay heavy fines to the mother of the child.

The Guatemalan kidnapping sent shockwaves which have reverberated throughout the sea-bed of the inter-country adoption ocean, causing a literal tsunami of regulations to flood out orphanages from Ethiopia to Manila.  As regulations increased, adoptions decreased.

Everyone appears to understand the dynamic, but who is prepared to correct it?

No one condones kidnapping and child-trafficking (at least no one with a moral compass).  Obviously, little Anyelí is caught between two families who each appear to love her and call her their own, though she can only be with one of them—and not the other.  Her case has hamstrung the will of many adoption proponents who are now forced to ask whether it is worth it if even one case comes to separate a child from her parents. No doubt, any parent would answer in the negative if it were her child who was kidnapped.

Still, as tragic as Anyelí’s case is, it is but one—one case in more than 100,000. In fact, even though Guatemala’s adoptions have been shut down because of numerous infractions (such as forged birth certificates and falsified papers), the problem cases in Guatemala represented only 3% of the total adoptions which took place in 2007.  This means, of course, that 97% of the adoptions which were completed in that year ended with needy, abandoned children being united with a loving, familial embrace.

To state the matter another way, more than 15,000 orphans in Guatemala have not been available for adoption since 2007.  Instead of being united with families in the U.S. who desire to nurture them, many orphans have been left in orphanages to formulate their own family structure, attaching to workers and children who, no doubt, come and go throughout their lives.

Even more to the point (for it is understandable that extra precautions must be in place in Guatemala), in Ethiopia, adoptions have been cut in half because of increased fears of improprieties in the adoption process, even though no actual improprieties have been discovered.  What this means is that people like me must wade through the slog of paperwork, while patiently enduring a two-year process which winds up costing about $40,000.  Other countries are more difficult than Ethiopia.

Tragically, this means that little orphan boys and little orphan girls are forced to remain alone, abandoned, and, most likely, never adopted into a family.  By some estimates, there are more than 4 million orphans in Ethiopia.  Adopting at the current rate, it would take more than 2,300 years to get current orphans in Ethiopia into an adopting family; and that is operating on the impossible assumption that no further orphans will be added to that number. The task appears impossible.

Efforts of governmental agencies—no matter how well-intentioned—are hurting thousands and thousands of children in need of familial love.  The current downward spiral of inter-country adoptions needs to be reversed.

Chuck Johnson of the National Council for Adoption gets it right in this quote from a USA Today article: “This trend is not right, and it is not good for children.  Given the increasing number of orphaned children worldwide, the continued decline in intercountry adoptions means that children’s most basic needs and rights are being denied.”

May the Lord raise up more advocates to speak up for the little ones who need familial love.

 

Path to True Blessing?

How do you know when you are blessed?  On first blush, you might respond that you know you are blessed when you have peace with God and peace with your wife and family.  Many of us would think we are blessed when we have plenty of money.  We think that NFL players who get paid 6 million bucks a year to catch passes are the ones who are blessed.

But what about Abera Ongeremu, is he blessed?  Ongeremu—a traveling evangelist—was visiting at a church in Olenkomi, Ethiopia, when members of the Orthodox Church there stormed the evangelical church building in which he was staying. They ordered him to burn his Bible.  He replied that he would not burn the word of life. So, they decided to burn him.  They tied his hands, poured diesel all over the room, started the fire, and locked the doors.  Ongeremu was certain this was his day to die, but his persecutors weren’t satisfied that their diabolical scheme was a sufficient outpouring of torture.  Thus, they dragged him back out of the burning church and beat him until he fell unconscious on the ground.  He did not die that day (you can read his story here).

Would we call Ongeremu blessed, or cursed.  According to the Scriptures, Jesus calls this man blessed:

Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:10).

I doubt that we mean for anything like this to happen to others when we say to them, “God bless you.”  Indeed, when we seek the Lord’s favor and ask for His blessing, we are not at all hoping to be treated by the world the way Ongeremu was treated.  Quite the opposite, in fact, we are usually hoping that the blessing will cause the world to look on us with favor (thus giving us the job, the award, the contract, the admission to the school, etc.).

In the New Testament, however, persecution is a blessing.  “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me” (Matthew 5:11).  As we contemplate persecution (and the persecuted) we realize that blessedness is something more than (and something strangely different from) what we had imagined.  Blessedness is directly related to relationship to Christ—not to material prosperity.  The Lord does not say “rejoice and be glad” when you become rich.  Instead, He warns that it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 19:24).  But Jesus does tell us when we are persecuted that we should “rejoice and be glad” for our reward in heaven is great.  This is, in fact, the way it has always been for the people of faith (Matthew 5:12).

To be blessed means to be in the presence of Christ.  Or, more specifically, it means that Christ is present with you (Matthew 28:20).  Such divine presence tends to make one invincible.  It means to be in right relationship to the Living God.   When we are made alive in Christ, no death will be a final threat to us. We cannot be threatened with death or any of death’s allies because death only promises to bring us nearer into the presence of Christ.  To be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8).  In Christ, we, too, are blessed like Ongeremu and will never be defeated.

 

What the Blind Man Sees

Blind human rights activist Chen has reportedly died from the torture and beatings he has endured at the hands of the Communist Chinese.  However, as this story notes,  no one can be sure of whether Chen is alive or dead, given the fact that the Communist government has sealed off access to Chen and has even shot at those trying to get a closer look at whether he is still alive.

Chen Guangcheng has been very active in the past, calling the world’s attention to the barbaric enforcement of the Chinese one-child policy. Whether he is alive or dead, the truth is certain that this blind man could see so much better than most what the value of human life actually is.  The video below is an excellent (and short) overview of Chen’s life.

 

Islam Run Amok

UPDATE: 

Thanks to Nina Shea, we now have word that Pastor Yousef did not waiver in his faith. He stood firm and once again refused to deny Christ.  From the court proceeding:

The Washington Post’s blog Religion Right Now posted a piece by Jordan Sekulow that included the following excerpt from court proceedings this week: “When asked to ‘repent’ by the judges, Youcef stated, ‘Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?’ The judges replied , ‘To the religion of your ancestors, Islam.’ To which he replied, ‘I cannot.’”

We should continue to pray, as his fate will be determined soon.

ORIGINAL POST BELOW:

As this news article from Baptist Press details, Islam in Iran is once again displaying its blood-thirsty side.  Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, a house church leader for 400 Christians in Iran, is subject to the death penalty because he will not renounce his faith in Jesus Christ.  Earlier this year, Nadarkhani’s execution was delayed so that he might be given the opportunity to recant.  According to the law, Nadarkhani must refuse 4 times before being put to death. He has already refused 3 times.  Today could mark the end of his life if he refuses for a 4th time to deny Christ.

The blood-thirsty nature of Islamic clerics in Iran is particularly on display in this case, given the fact that Nadarkhani was never a practicing Muslim. The fact that he is descended from Muslims is enough to warrant a charge of apostasy culminating in death.  The article

Pray for this man.

points out that he remains guilty of apostasy because he has Muslim relatives.  Even more, there is no law in Iran specifically calling for the death penalty for those who leave Islam.  Thus, even though Nadarkhani never left Islam, and even though there is no law against leaving Islam in Iran, this pastor may well be put to death for leaving Islam.

In short, Pastor Nadarkhani may be put to death for his faith in Jesus Christ. If so, his death will be a great injustice. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time (or the last) that the body of Christ were treated unfairly and killed untimely.  May the Lord strengthen this brother with grace and peace and faith–and reward him with the crown of life if she should die.  To be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord.  It may well be the will of our God for him to be delivered as Peter and Paul and others often were. We should (as they did in Acts 12) pray to that end.

Tebow’s Nose

Folks are upset.  Fans are upset that the Denver Broncos lost their home opener for the first time in more than 10 years.  Even with the abysmal Bronco record of 4-12 last season, the team was at least able to win the home opener against the Seattle Seahawks.  This year, however, it was not meant to be.  The Broncos started their year of recovery the way they ended their year of frustration: losing.  New coach Fox attempted to salve over the wound by reminding fans they were just like half of the NFL teams with a record of 0-1.

The fans were so upset—especially after the ball slipped from Kyle Orton’s hands deep in Oakland territory—they started chanting, “Tim Tebow! Tim Tebow.”  Such a response from the Tebow loyalists drew out the sportswriters’ ire.  SB Nation writer Brian Floyd was more than a little flummoxed by the fans calling for the ouster of Kyle Orton.  According to Floyd, the Broncos have a problem—a ridiculous problem—on their hands, as a good portion of their fan base keeps clamoring for Tebow to play.

While Tebow’s stats truly are not better than Kyle Orton’s, the truth is, they aren’t that much worse.  Kyle Orton owns a lifetime QB Rating around 85, while Tebow’s early struggles have thus far earned him a QB score of 80.  Neither score is comparable to, say, Peyton Manning’s 94.9 lifetime rating.  Denver simply does not have a franchise quarterback right now.  Yet, both Tim Tebow and Kyle Orton have a higher rating than does the Rams’ Sam Bradford, who is highly touted as a future franchise player.  Obviously, even the coaches and the experts make their judgments by more than just the numbers.  Bradford’s QB rating is around 76.

To be sure, the fans chanting, “We want Tebow,” weren’t thinking so much about his QB rating.  They wanted the man because of their belief that he is a winner.  Floyd acknowledges that folks see Tebow as a likable guy and a winner, but he appears to dismiss such affections as so much idolized emotionalism.  Such emotional attachments don’t count for much in the business known as the NFL.  To make it in the NFL, you must put up real, tangible numbers.  And Tebow hasn’t done that yet, has he?

Well, maybe he has.  Maybe there really is something to the “he’s a winner” meme that the fans instinctively sense, even if there is not yet a stat for it.  Call it an “intangible.”  This intangible may yet be quantifiable.  Tim Tebow is young and inexperienced in the NFL without a doubt.  Yet, even in his limited playing time, and even with his troubling mechanics, Tim Tebow has found paydirt.  Tim Tebow has a nose for the end zone.

I have been a soccer coach for years, coaching both girls and boys, and I have noticed an odd phenomenon.  It is not always the purest striker who finds the net.  Some players have a nose for the net.  I coached one girl who had the uncanny ability of being in the right place at the right time—time after time.  She could barely dribble, but she always scored goals.  They weren’t always pretty—sometimes off of her thigh, sometimes off of her chest or hip—but they were goals.  Each one counted as much as the laser shots from 20 yards away into the back corner.  Some players have a nose for the net.  Tebow appears to be one of those players.

Consider his numbers in this area.  Tim Tebow has been involved in 125 NFL plays.  This means he has thrown the ball or run the ball a combined 125 times in the NFL.  In those 125 times of being active with the ball, Tebow has scored 11 TD’s.  That comes out to an average of a touchdown every 11 plays.  How does this ratio compare with other quarterbacks?  Tom Brady, whom most would categorize as a productive quarterback, averaged a touchdown for every 14 NFL plays in 2010.  At least in his limited roles thus far, Tebow has produced touchdowns at a very high rate, which is probably why frustrated fans were calling for him to replace Kyle Orton in the opening loss to Oakland.

Kyle Orton has not been as effective finding the field’s end zone.  Orton, who is equal to Tom Brady in number of plays, is nowhere near Tom Brady’s touchdown rate, which means he is even further from Tebow’s 1:11 end zone ratio.  With Orton at the helm, touchdowns happen only once every 26 plays or so.  Brady Quinn is even worse, generating a touchdown every 34.5 plays.

While these numbers are not exactly scientific, they are indicative of an otherwise intangible quality found in players who generate team confidence and solidify fan support.  If the team puts up touchdowns and loses, that is one thing.  When a team loses the ball and can’t put up touchdowns, that is another thing altogether.  Fans forgive the one much more readily than they do the other.

I think Floyd is right that Denver has a problem (or two).  But I don’t think the problem is Tebow or his fan base.  Tim Tebow will be a winning quarterback in the NFL, even if he never is one in Denver.

Life Is the Winner

A Baby in the Womb

The little boy came galloping into his living room with his six-guns a-blazing.  On cue, his dad made a series of agonizing contortions, grabbing his chest and groaning loudly as he fell to the floor in dramatic style, making sure his little gunslinger received full compensation for his cowboy skills.  The little boy loved the scene. Gunfights were always OK in this living room corral—as long as the little guy was allowed to win.

When dad decided to fire back his imaginary pistols, the pint-sized Paladin refused to die in agony.  Instead, his face switched from glee to gloom, and his lip slightly quivered: “No fair. Gunfighters don’t sposed to die.  I don’t want to die, daddy.”  Life and death games are always more fun if you are on the winning side of life.  We never really outgrow this lesson, do we?

I thought of this as I considered how most of us consider ourselves “pro-life,” but we are a little unsure of how far this conviction should take us.  Do we, for instance, refuse treatment for a life-threatening disease on the grounds that the treatment was derived from the stem cells of human babies who were aborted?  It is a dilemma which tests the seriousness of our pro-life convictions.  Like the little boy, we don’t want to die.  Sure, we don’t want to destroy babies in the womb just to harvest their stem cells, but we really don’t want to die.  Should we refuse treatments derived from human embryos?

Thank God, that isn’t a choice we actually have to make.  You may think this is a choice you will have to make, but it isn’t.  Here is the reason you won’t have to make that choice.  There are no treatments being successfully used to cure anything with embryonic stem cells.  None.  Nothing is being helped—much less cured—by embryonic stem cells.

You may not believe this claim, or you may be confused by it.  After all, you might have received stem cell treatments.  One of your loved ones may have been helped by stem cell treatments.  So, you think that stem cells are being used to treat disease, right?  You are partially correct.  Stem cells are being used.  However, the stem cells which are being used to treat diseases are adult stem cells—not from human embryos.

In fact, a group of doctors who form the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics has compiled a list of stem cell success.  So far, according to their count, there are 73 successful treatments for diseases which use non-embryonic stem cells.  And there are 0 successful treatments using embryonic stem cells.  The score is 73-0 against taking stem cells from aborted babies.  In any game, 73-0 is a lopsided blowout.  Even in a staged gunfight, the dad insisted on at least 1 victory.  Embryonic stem cells have none.

Unfortunately, politicians have exploited the success of non-embryonic stem cells to continue aiding the abortion industry by encouraging embryonic stem cell research, but the science is against embryonic stem cells.  Common sense morality is against them, too.  Embryonic stem cell research destroys human life, while non-embryonic research extends it.  The choice is obvious, isn’t it?  The good news for us is that maybe we don’t have to die—thanks to non-embryonic stem cell research.  The sad news, on the other hand, is that some life has to die for embryonic stem cell research to take place.

Faithless Funerals

There is a controversy brewing in Houston, TX, between veterans and the Veterans Administration.  I am interested in the controversy for a couple of reasons.  First, I attended the funeral service of my wife’s grandfather not too long ago in Houston.  He was a veteran, and there was a veteran’s service for him at the Houston National Cemetery.  I preached at the service and called on God to bless the family with grace and peace.  I am not sure whether the veterans attending the service spoke the name of God to my mother-in-law.  But, if they wanted to wish her God’s grace and peace, they certainly should have had that right.

Second, and more fundamental to the cause of freedom, I am interested in this incident because of its shocking similarity to another incident in a society which once sought to eradicate references to God from funeral services. I am thinking, of course, of the National Socialism in Hitler’s Germany.

On June 12, 1934, Pastor Paul Schneider took a stand for freedom and was summarily arrested by the Nazi leaders in Dickenshied.  In the so-called cemetery incident, Pastor Schneider spoke against Heinrich Nadig, a Nazi official who sought to take over the funeral service and promote a fictional “Horst Wessel Troop” in heaven rather than allow Pastor Schneider to conduct a normal funeral service.  Pastor Schneider could not remain silent while a Nazi official replaced mention of the living God with a fictitious, heavenly “Horst Wessel Group,” invented by a Nazi sympathizer.  Thus, Pastor Schneider protested just as the people in this video are protesting now.  For his protests, he was arrested.

Pastor Schneider was released and arrested again repeatedly.  In October of 1937, Pastor Schneider was arrested for the fourth and final time.  He was sent to the concentration camp at Buchenwald, where he was eventually killed by his captors.  Upon his death, Pastor Paul Schneider became the first Christian martyr in Nazi Germany.  He was killed on account of his faith in Jesus Christ.  His persecution started with his stand for God and liberty at a funeral service.

 

Some Relief for Sudanese Christians?

Sudan has been a nation at war for years.  The Muslims of the north have waged an all out war against the non-Muslims of the south, who are mostly Christians and animists.  As of today, South Sudan is a country of its own.  Let’s hope this move brings peace.  Indeed, let’s pray for peace.  The track record in Sudan has not lately been laced with peace.

For now, congratulations, South Sudan.  You are the world’s newest nation.