Peter Witkowski Apologetics

A Pastor’s Response to the VA Abortion Debate

Christians must use all legitimate civil means to stop the government of Virginia from embracing Governor Ralph Northam’s position on infanticide and abortion. In an radio interview on WTOP earlier this week, He said the following in regards to House Bill 2491,

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Regardless of how one may attempt to slice or to spin the governor’s comments, the words always point to one meaning: Infanticide. Governor Northam believes parents and doctors should be allowed to determine whether or not a child lives. If a mother’s  physical or mental health could be hurt by the existence of the “comfortable” baby, then the mother could choose to kill her baby. And the definition of health provided by court case Doe v. Bolton is so vague almost any maternal inclination would be ample justification for killing the baby in question. A mother could terminate her child because the child was the ‘wrong’ gender, or because the child threatened the mother’s financial or career goals, or because the child had deformities that promised to consume the mother’s time and financial resources. Governor Northam’s statement did not concern women’s health. It concerned infanticide.

Now before I proceed further, I want to be clear. I do not want to minimize the sacrifices associated with motherhood. My four siblings and I taxed my mother to no end. And as the father of three kiddos, I watch my dear wife repeatedly sacrifice her desires, health, money, and mental well-being for our children. Motherhood is a huge undertaking.

But Governor Northam and by extension Kathy Tran who sponsored House Bill 2491 are not seeking to support motherhood through tax breaks or government programs. They are seeking to empower mothers to kill their children after birth. They are seeking to normalize infanticide. They are seeking to allow one portion of the population to exterminate another portion of the population.

And once one part of a society is permitted and licensed to kill for convenience sake, others will seek similar permissions. If all human life is deemed to have no intrinsic value, then ultimately any life can be sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ or mental health reasons. If the old, the Jews, and the mentally infirm (to name a few groups) are deemed by the government to be causing a significant portion of the population mental anguish, what will stop Virginians from exterminating them?

The press and the Democratic Party of Virginia has attempted to deflect the outrage bubbling up around House Bill 2491 and Governor Northam by claiming the whole ordeal is an orchestrated political stunt engineered by Republicans seeking to protect their control of the Virginia legislature. After all, four similar bills have already been put forward and voted down in Virginia over the last three years with little fanfare. Sarah Jones from New York Magazine dismissed the whole controversy and encourages us to do the the same writing,

The idea that abortion providers tear apart full-term, viable babies about to breathe has animated the right for a long time. It’s the stuff of pulp fiction, and the myth bears little resemblance to reality.

And as Governor Northam’s office said, “No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances.”

Sadly, Sarah Jones and Governor Northam are mistaken. The idea of abortion that Sarah Jones mocks as pulp fiction is not the day dream of crazied political junkies; it is reality. Abortion kills millions of viable babies in the cruelest and most uncaring of ways as can be seen in the medical drawings that detail the abortion procedure. Abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood suck babies from the womb piece by piece.

Infanticide will also harm the innocent. Notice that the governor’s office defines tragic and difficult circumstances as things, “such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.” Non-viable pregnancies that could claim the mother’s life such as ectopic pregnancies are already covered by Virginia law. The governor is not talking medically non-viable pregnancies. He is talking about killing babies who have fetal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome or anencephaly that may disrupt their mother’s quality of life. In short, Governor Northam believes doctors and mothers should be allowed to let unwanted yet viable babies die.

Though the press may now view the defense of life as being ‘sensationalism,’ Christians must continue to declare the truth about abortion and infanticide. Abortion and infanticide are not Democratic Party and Republican Party issues. These practices are moral issues of the highest level, issues of good and evil.

Regardless of their political affiliation, Christians cannot call evil good; they cannot sit quietly on their hands as their government casually discusses murdering its citizens. Christians must deal with reality identifying abortion for what it really is…murder.

The Scriptures clearly teach that all life from inception to death represents the image and beauty of God. The words of Psalm 139:13 apply to all people regardless of their age, gender, or health.

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

Luke chapter 1 also clearly teaches that both babies in the womb and out of the womb are fully human. And Exodus 21:22-25 states that anyone who takes the life of a baby should be charged with murder.

Theologian Wayne Grudem concludes,

The Bible teaches that we should think of the unborn as child as a person from the moment of conception, and therefore we should give to the unborn child legal protection equal to that of others in the society.”

As a Christian, as a husband, as a father, as a pastor, and as a voting Virginian, I call upon Governor Northam to defend the life of every Virginia. I call upon him to disavow his support of infanticide and of abortion on demand. I also urge my fellow Christians to join me in supporting life. I encourage them to use their voices and their votes to defend the life of every Virginian.

Will you join me?

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Making Sense of Lady Gaga’s Theology

lady-gag

Lady Gaga now identifies as a Christian with deep theological concerns. At a concert a few days ago, she said, “I am a Christian woman, what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice, and everybody is welcome.” Consequently she deemed Vice President Mike Pence to be “the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian,” referring to  Mrs. Pence’s decision to teach art at a Christian school that affirms the historic Christian faith once delivered for all. Gaga claimed that those who agree with the Bible’s condemnation lesbianism and sex outside of marriage (among other things) should no longer be able to claim the title ‘Christian.’ She concluded, ““To Mike Pence, who thinks it’s acceptable that his wife work at a school that bans LGBTQ, you are wrong,”

Lady’s Gaga’s identification with Christendom was shocking and completely unexpected. To make sense of what all this story means, we have to discern our authority.  Simply put, we have to ask ourselves “Is the Bible the authoritative Word of God?” “Or have men used the book to twist and limit God’s majestic message of love?” As Paul Young, the author of The Shack, said, “Nobody wanted God in a box just in a book.”

Does true Christendom, true spirituality, and true communion with Jesus exists outside the pages of the Bible?

Lady Gaga condemnation of the Pence’s clearly flows from the presumption that Jesus is more than hero of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In 2011 she began defining her view of the Scriptures when she sang, “In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance.” Those whose life exist outside the bounds of Scripture and refuse to repent can only claim Christianity as their own if they move Christianity beyond the Bible. Such self-proclaimed Christians have to have an authority that surpasses and completely trumps the authority of the Bible.

Professor emeritus Luke Timothy Johnson happily made such an argument back in 2007 when seeking to justify the sexual ethic that Lady Gaga champions. He wrote:

 I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.

I believe Lady Gaga would applaud Johnson’s appeal to the weight of human experience. She has sung, “Don’t hide yourself in regret…Just love yourself and you’re set.” After all “Maybe it’s time to let the old ways die.” Only a Christianity that has replaced the Bible with personal experience could affirm Lady Gaga as Christian and condemn the Pences as sinners for affirming the teachings of the Bible.

Can we accept this new version of Christendom? Do we need to unhitch Jesus from the bonds of Scripture to discover God? Do the Old ways need to die?

I believe the answer is no. Christ did not believe the Scriptures reduced or confined him. He based his view of marriage and sexuality on Genesis (Matt. 19:4-5). Jesus said “Scripture cannot be broken.” Jesus also uttered the words that “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19).” While walking on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appealed to “Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Lk 24:27)” And most famously of all Jesus said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Jesus affirmed the Bible and used the Bible to condemn the very things that Lady Gaga has championed from the concert stage.

When we leave the Jesus of the Bible, we do not find a better Jesus, we simply found ourselves dressed up in a Jesus costume thinking our desires are the voice of God. And when confuse our voice for God’s voice we do not find love and acceptance. We find cruelty and hate.

In 1940, Nazi theologians declared that Jesus was a Jew hating Aryan. They said, “it is impossible that he himself could have been of Jewish blood and spirit.” (156 Twisted Cross). The Nazi theologians were able to make their arguments because they had previously moved beyond the bounds of Scripture. In 1937, the clergy sympathetic to the Nazi cause approved a resolution that stated: “A demon always resides in the written word…The devil values the printed page and stretches it out to demand signatures…Jesus never did so.” The Nazi’s appealed to their own experiences when searching for God and found a Jesus who supported the murder of millions of Jews.

Once Jesus ceases to be historic Son of God, he can be made into the poster boy of any and every social movement. He can be said to be the first transgender man; but he can also be said to be an advocate of hate, violence, racism, slavery, and death. He becomes the pawn of pop-starts, dictators, and everyone in-between.

Lady Gaga is by no means a Nazi. But she shares that church’s flawed theological commitment to extra-biblical authority.

The Reformer and 16th century pastor, John Calvin summed the situation well when he wrote,

In one respect we are indeed unalike, because each one of us privately forges his own particular error; yet we are all very much alike, in that, one and all forsake the one true God for prodigious trifles.

We don’t need to rescue Jesus from the Bible, we need Jesus to rescue us from the prodigious trifles of our hearts.

What will be the major trifle of our age? Who will have to suffer because of it?

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

The Girl Scouts Sue The Boy Scouts For Being Too Inclusive: A Christian Response

scoutsThe Girl Scouts of the USA have sued the Boy Scouts of America for reaching out to girls. While the Girl Scouts have applauded inclusion within their own ranks warmly embracing both homosexuals and transgender members, the group has found the Boy Scouts latest steps towards inclusivity to be profoundly troubling.

No one else on the cultural left including the Girl Scouts sued nor even threaten to sue the Boy Scouts when the Boy Scouts began their march to diversity. The Boy Scouts welcomed openly gay members in 2013, embraced gay scout leaders in 2015, and invited transgender boys to join in 2017 with support of the cultural left. In 2018, the Boy Scouts accelerated their march up the mountain of diversity by declaring that their historic organization would change its name from Boy Scouts to Scouts BSA. The name change accompanies the Scout‘s plan to begin awarding the rank of Eagle Scout to both boys and girls starting in 2019. The organisation hopes, “to offer families the options they want.” Zach Wahls the co-founder of Scouts for Equality and an Eagle Scout in his own right hailed the announcement as “yet another step forward” for the Boy Scouts which signals that the “future is bright for Scouting in America.”

But Girl Scouts have strongly object to the Boy Scouts plan, believing the name change marginalizes women.

Why do the Girl Scouts have such a negative view of the Boy Scouts’ affirmation of girl empowerment?

The Girls Scouts find the Boy Scout’s announcement offensive because it denies the beauty of femininity. Girl Scouts exists upon the presumption that girls are different than boys. According to the Girl Scouts, “only Girl Scouts has the expertise to give girls and young women the tools they need for success.” Kate Taylor from Business Insider noted,

“However, positioning girls joining the Boy Scouts as the ultimate triumph for feminist scouting does a massive disservice to girls. There is an opportunity to applaud an organization that centers itself around girls and women, instead of assuming that a male-centric organization is implicitly preferable.”

These statements combat the notion that men and male driven cultures should dominate feminine ideas and life. But these mild expressions of feminism make are founded upon the presumptions that men and women are biologically different, and that women should be celebrated for diverging from masculine norms.

However, the historical and biological definition of gender that shaped the Girl Scouts has been abandoned by America’s cultural elite with the arrival of the homosexual movement and the transgender movement. Today, those who feel they are male are deemed by society to be male regardless of their birth-certificate; and those who identify as female are proclaimed to be female regardless of their chromosome makeup. If gender can be changed as quickly as one changes a t-shirt, gender becomes a meaningless distinction. He who was a boy today could be a girl tomorrow. Since gender is a social construct created apart nature, the terms ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ can be reduced to obsolete expressions from archaic cultures that no longer shape modern thought. Consequently, the need for cultural institutions that serve just boys or just girls disappears. Children and adults simply are. They don’t need Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; they just need Scouts.

The conflict between the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts is much bigger than scouting. It reveals the limits of the sexual revolution. The revolution cannot both deny biological gender and meaningfully affirm the beauty and strength of femininity (or masculinity for that matter). Either girls exist in nature and benefit from groups like Girl Scout, or girls don’t exist in nature and don’t need their own groups. How you answer the gender question will determine whether or not you applaud or deride the Boy Scouts for extending the olive branch to girls.

The Christian Response

Thankfully, Christians have no such dilemma. We can affirm science and happily proclaim that two gender exists. God created us male and female. Boys and girls come into the world as boy and girls. Jesus affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman (Matt 19:3-6). The Bible does not abolish the two genders. It affirms the existence of biological men and women.

And gender is not a matter of power. According to the Scriptures both men and women are created in the image of God. Both equally picture the divine creator. Yet the genders are distinct. The male and female sexual anatomy have several irreconcilable and enjoyable differences. Men and women have different strengths and abilities. Yet, men and women thrive in unity. They thrive in marriage where the strengths of the man complement the woman and where the strengths of the woman complement the man. Marriage is beautiful because it unites men and women by celebrating their complementary differences.

Christians can and should celebrate the difference between men and women. We have plenty of room to have gender-based organizations within Christendom. Christians deny the idea that girls have to be boys or do boy things to thrive in society. But they arrive at this conclusion by affirming the existence of biological gender. If biological gender exists, then girls do not need to be Boy Scouts and boys do not need to be in Girl Scouts even if they feel more feminine than male. Christians have an answer to the Scouting dilemma. The secular elites do not.

Because we have answers to these difficult questions, we should lovingly share them. We should not retreat from the world fearing what people will think or fearing that talking to the gay couple at McDonald’s will make us icky. We have truth. We have the loving truth that Jesus Christ has died to save sinners which guides all of life.. And we should share the truth with our hurting world. Dr. Albert Mohler rightful notes,

America’s post-Christian culture is filled with people who believe that they have heard too much from the Christian church – too much judgment, too much moralism, too much intolerance. The New Testament, however, tell us that the world around us has seen and heard far too little authentic Christianity.

We truly have something amazing to offer a culture that struggles to determine if girls should be allowed to join Boy Scouts. Shouldn’t we be desire to loving converse with our confused world?