Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away: behold all things are become new - II Corinthians 3:17
There were several items in the news that I�d like to comment upon.
The first of these comes from a former U. S. Surgeon General (while in that office), in which she pontificated about the need to legalize drug usage.
Leaving aside the fact that her son was under indictment for a drug offense at the time of her statement (A mother�s heart is a mother�s heart in whatever position she is in. I applaud Mrs. Elders for taking a stand which was, in essence, a defense of her son.), what about it? Does the proposition make sense?
The proponents of this view argue that drug usage is a private affair and by the criminalizing of that usage not only is the user caused to enter into a criminal culture in order to place his order, so also is the seller penalized by the law. Further, the argument goes, too much time, effort, and money is spent by the law enforcement community in combating what should not be a crime.
O. K.; let�s carry out this line of reasoning to its absurd end. I would believe that the use, or non-use, of seat belts in cars should be a matter of individual conscience. But, do we have a legal choice of whether or not to use our seat belts? No. Someone in the government has decided that they knew much better than the simple driver - us.
If we would fail to use our seat belts, what harm could we possibly do to others? I can only envision two ways that we could harm others by failing to wear a seat belt.
First, we could possibly fly out the door of the automobile after an accident and hit a passerby - an extremely unlikely occurrence.
Second, we could cause a higher hospital bill to either our insurance company, or to the public trust if we do not have insurance, because of a great injury due to our lack of seat belt use. This latter argument may have some merit in the public discussion of seat belt use.
Now, what harm may the private use of mind altering drugs cause to the public. First, and foremost, as with alcohol usage, an impaired driver may well cause the accident as described above. An impaired bicyclist or walker may even cause that accident. The cost of that accident will cause that higher hospital bill - or even a bill where there may well have been none if the person had not privately used the drug.
Even without this, the impaired individual - and that individual would be impaired, would be less able to function in society, be that job related or in interpersonal relationships. We do not do anything in a vacuum in society. We are all responsible.
We are too quick to life up the banner of freedom for the individual and too slow to realize that freedom is bought with the coin of responsibility. The freedom of which the former Surgeon General has spoken was the freedom of anarchy.
Anarchy! Now there is a freedom for every person to do as he wants. That is not freedom. That is tyranny at its horrid zenith. Anarchy is the tyranny of the strongest feeding on those least able to defend themselves. It is a rule of none because each decides which rule he might follow, or break, or impose!
That is why we have traffic laws for our roadways. Society must work together in a civilized manner to work at all!
It would most certainly free up much time and money for our burdened police force if we did not prosecute drug dealers and users. That same may be said if we did not prosecute the speeder, or people who do not follow the building codes in construction, or a myriad of other crimes. But, would society be any better for the lack of prosecution of any or these? Discharging a gun into the ground within the city limits may harm no one. But, I doubt that we would want to decriminalize that particular offense.
Drug use is a smoking gun in the hands of society. Putting the imprimatur of government upon the use and distribution of drugs would only exacerbate the problem. How can we argue that something is bad and yet legalize it in the same breath? We cannot.
The second item I�d like to address has to do with a woman in Chicago who was told by her doctor that she should undergo a caesarean section rather than give natural birth to her child. She argued against this on religious grounds.
There are two points that I�d like to address about this story.
First of all, she was identified as a Fundamentalist Pentecostal. This was obviously done to prejudice the public opinion against her. After all, when have you ever heard of a person, in a story such as this, who was called and Atheist Humanist?
And you never will! That would be like starting off a story about Ted Kennedy as a radical leftist liberal. Whether it is true or not is not the point. The point is that such a slander would never be considered.
The press does not even seem to understand just what a fundamentalist is. It is simply a word used to odiously color a person as a radical whose views are not entitled to serious consideration. To the press a fundamentalist may be almost anything - as long at the anything is something bad!
The etymology of the word, however, goes back to the early days of the twentieth century. A series of pamphlets was published in this country which set for the historic, conservative view of Christianity. It was during the time of argument between the traditional Christian views and those described as Modernists who seemed to disregard the truthfulness of Scripture and the need to be accountable to a personal God. This series of papers was called The Fundamentals and it is from these that the term Fundamentalist sprang.
A fundamentalist is simply one who holds to the traditional view that God gave His Word to man, and who attempts to define order in this world by the teachings of that Word.
There is a little more than that involved, but I don�t want to be bogged down in an extended theological discussion right now. Suffice to say that many groups which the press will call Fundamentalists simply can not be. It would be impossible given their doctrinal stands.
The second point about this story is the attitude of the state towards this woman. It strikes me as completely alien to propriety that this woman could be prosecuted for not giving birth in the proper way. But, if she had decided to kill the baby the same state and society would have said that this was her own personal choice! Those most involved in the murder of the unborn (I hesitate to honor this gruesome action with the civilized sounder term: Abortion!), were the most vociferous foes of this woman.
Next I�d like to comment on a piece of news that I really didn�t hear very much about. It was reported that Reginald Denny sued the city of Los Angeles for his injuries in the aftermath of the first Rodney King trial of the policemen involved in his arrest and beating. (First trial? Didn�t our U. S. Constitution once have a prohibition against multiple trials for the same offense? There must have been an amendment to that constitution that I missed hearing about.)
Since I did hear so little about this I can not verify the truthfulness of the story. But, it would still point up something else interesting in our present society.
The issue here is that of personal responsibility. During the trial of his assailants we witnessed the compassion of Mr. Denny for his attackers. We applauded his attitude of forgiveness as something quite special. It was! It is! To forgive those who had attacked him as savagely as had those rioters showed a brand of forgiveness far superior to that which most of us could have found in our Christian hearts.
Am I not, sadly, right!
Still, we cannot allow Mr. Denny�s compassion to blind us to the fact of their guilt. The men did the deed. Society did not attack Reginald Denny. Los Angeles did not throw a brick against the head of Reginald Denny. Those two men did! That much was never in question.
Most (almost all!) of South Central Los Angeles, was not involved in that riot. Most (almost all!) of the people who lived in that area were not on the streets looting, and beating, and burning, and so on. These men were. They are to blame for their own actions.
The final news article upon which I�d like to comment has to do with news from England that eggs are being harvested from aborted female fetuses to be implanted in infertile women. Spoken another way: The bodies of dead babies, killed in hospitals and clinics for the profit of the doctors and the convenience of their mothers, are being dissected and parts of these dead children are being sold to, and implanted in, adults.
I don�t even know how to make a comment about this. This story may come from England, but we in the U. S. are also engaged in fetal research which farms pieces from these dead children How sick! How sad that an industry such as this should arise!
It has been said before, and bears saying again: �If God does not rise up in judgement against this present generation He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!� Perhaps this isn�t Gospel Truth; but, it is a valid observation!
I think that it would be good for us to take the time to think back to the entrance of sin into the world. Read Genesis, chapter three, and you will notice in verse three what might have been called the first sin. Eve, speaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, said, �God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.�
Compare what she said with verse seventeen of chapter two: God said, �But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die.�
You may notice that Eve got it wrong. Eve lied. And, yet, nothing happened! Interesting.
What was it about Adam that was not true about Eve? Eve, we could say, was tricked and cajoled. That�s not really an excuse. But, it is obvious that something different when on with Adam.
This point is mainly that Adam was the first man - the first created human. As such he was the head of the race. When sin - a rejection of God and His commandments became part of Adam�s nature this trait was passed on down through the generations which he began. Roman�s 5:12 puts it thusly: �Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.�
Also, Adam made a cold, hard choice to follow his own way rather than the way which God had given him. He was neither tricked nor cajoled. He was simply invited to partake of the forbidden fruit. Adam turned his back on God and God�s leading.
Since that time man has been in rebellion against the things of God. Have you ever noticed that we can ask anyone for their astrological sign, but we are cautioned, even by our own fears!, to not speak of Christ in public? �Don�t ever,� we are told, �talk religion with people if you want to get along with them.�
Why is this? Is it not because the things of God are at variance with the things of man? Man wants to go his own way and find his own happiness. Man does not understand that true happiness can only be found in God and God�s plan for us. Fulfillment lies in following the Owners Manual of Human Existence (The Bible). This Owners Manual was produced by the Manufacturer of the human organism: God!
This is one of the reasons which we have such absurdities as have been observed here.
If you�ve not already done so, find God�s way. Find Jesus Christ. He, Alone, is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life (see John 14:6). Note that Jesus is not simply a Guide; He is The Destination.