UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc

1 Chronicles 12:32

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2003

LOSING A FATHER

My father passed away in Virginia on August 14th.

He called his doctor that morning because he had significant abdominal pain. The doctor called an ambulance, and after it arrived my dad walked out of the house, locked the front door (to keep the house safe until his return), and laid down on the stretcher. On the way to the hospital he turned critical, so the paramedics rushed him to the nearest hospital rather than the intended destination of the VA hospital.
My father had an aortic aneurysm which ruptured. After two hours of surgery, he was taken to the ICU. However, he did not regain consciousness and did not recover, passing away just a few hours later.

What was really frustrating about this was that I did not find out anything about it until about two hours after hehad died. All of my siblings and I live hours away from my father, so I found out after my brother checked his answering machine messages after coming home from work.

To say this was a shock to my system is an understatement. My dad had been dealing with some health dificulties, and I had hoped to visit him within the next couple of weeks not only to check on his condition but also to discuss his wishes for the end of his life (which, I had assumed, would be a while off). We never had that conversation.

There are several things I have learned from my dad's passing:

First, I found out I was wrong when I thought there would always be more time. More time to visit with and help my dad. More time to work on our relationship. More time to get his affairs in order. But Solomon warned us about this when he wrote “man does not know his time” (Eccl. 9:12).

Second, I recognize the need for preparing for the time when I will leave this earth. Earthly affairs should be left in order so that others can more easily deal with the loss.

Third, I have had to ask myself “What legacy will you leave behind?” I know there is much more I want and need to do during the time the Lord has given me.

Last, I see clearly that our relationships are the most important things in our lives. Relationships with family, friends, and neighbors. The most important is our relationship with Christ. All the possessions in the world cannot replace the need for love in our lives. Am I loving others as God would have me love them? Paul reminds us, “now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13).

GAINING A BROTHER

I have had the privilege of teaching a basic apologetics course I am calling Apologetics 101 at Horizon Christian Fellowship, a Calvary Chapel church here in Charlotte. It has been a blessing.

The greatest blessing came after one class when the pastor of the church came up to me and said, “Dave, I would like to introduce you to Dennis, who attended your class last week as an unbeliever and attended tonight's class as a new believer in Christ.” My response was simply, “Awesome! Praise God!”

Dennis had sought out the pastor sometime after the previous class when we had discussed the nature of truth and the fact that Jesus is the very embodiment of truth to the world. The pastor led Dennis to saving faith in Christ.

When I asked him if there was something in the class that helped him to take that step, Dennis said that he saw there was no argument against the truth. “I had been living my life as a lie,” he said. Now he has placed his trust in the One who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

Dennis has attended every class and is enthusiastically soaking up truth like a sponge and learning to defend his new-found faith.

SPEAKING SCHEDULE 2003

October 15

Apologetics 101 Class, Horizon Christian Fellowship Charlotte

October 22

Apologetics 101 Class, Horizon Christian Fellowship Charlotte

October 24-25

National Conference on Apologetics, Northside Baptist Church, Charlotte

October 29

Apologetics 101 Class, Horizon Christian Fellowship Charlotte

www.ContendfortheFaith.org

CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH

UNDERSTANDING SUPREME COURT ERRORS: PART TWO

The aftershocks of the latest invention of constitutional “law” from the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision are still being felt. The 6-3 ruling invalidating all state laws that prohibited sodomy has been giving tremendous aid and comfort to the archenemies of the traditional family.

Since this late-June decision by the Supreme Court, several things indicating the further erosion of our society have occurred.

The Episcopal Church has elected and approved its first “openly gay” bishop, bringing even greater dishonor on what was once an orthodox community of Christians. Gene Robinson divorced his wife and left his children years ago to take up with his “partner,” a man named Mark Andrew with whom he now lives. But since the Supreme Court says there is nothing wrong with this behavior, why not elect a leader of the church who engages in it?

Solicitation of sodomy used to be a crime in North Carolina, but not any more. In July, a judge in Charlotte threw out two such charges against a man accused of doing so in a public park, calling the act of soliciting sodomy an issue of free speech and personal expression. So don't worry about your kids being approached in the park by what used to be called perverts. The Supremes have said this is okay.

On September 8th, the Charlotte City Council decided to form a committee to study the possibility of providing benefits to city employees involved in “same-sex relationships.” One advocate of this change in policy said of providing these benefits to unmarried people engaging in homosexuality, “It is morally right. It is socially right and it is civic-mindedly right.” So why not force Christians to pay their taxes to help promote and endorse homosexual relationships? Six justices in Washington, DC have said same-sex couples “are entitled to respect for their private lives.”

The most devastating effect of the Lawrence ruling has not yet been felt, but it no doubt will be soon – namely, homosexual “marriages.” In the not-too-distant future, a court somewhere in the US will rule that there is a constitutional right to “gay marriage.”

As Americans are gearing up for off-year elections this November and for presidential and congressional elections in 2004, Christians now have at least two essential questions they must ask of each candidate seeking their vote:

1. Are you pro-life or pro-abortion?

2. Do you support traditional marriage or anything goes?

There is also no doubt that advocates of homosexuality will call those who oppose it “intolerant, bigoted, mean-spirited, and immoral.” So let us not shrink back from upholding biblical principles of morality for the good of our society, for those on the other side see this as a moral crusade to impose their immorality on the people of this nation through the courts and through the legislatures.

Because of the Lawrence decision it is even more crucial that those we elect to the Senate will do their constitutional duty and carry out votes on the judicial nominees the president selects for the highest courts in the land. Excellent, well-qualified judges have been waiting months or even years to have a vote on their confirmations in the Senate, but the votes have been held up by liberal senators who are fundamentally opposed to judges who rule according to the law rather than make up new laws.

I would urge everyone who cares about these issues to go online and read the Lawrence v. Texas decision on the Internet.

If you read nothing else, you should read the brilliant and blistering dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia, in which he destroys the arguments used by the majority to attempt to defend their indefensible views.

Some gems from Justice Scalia:

In response to Justice Anthony Kennedy's assertion that sodomy cannot be illegal since homosexuals have the “right to liberty under the Due Process Clause [which] gives them the full right to engage in their conduct,” Scalia responds that the Texas anti-sodomy law “undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. But there is no right to ‘liberty' under the Due Process Clause, though today's opinion repeatedly makes that claim.”

In response to the majority's outrageous reference to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights as support for their decision, Scalia writes, “Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct. . . . The Court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since ‘this Court … should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.' Foster v. Florida, 537 U. S. 990, n. (2002)”

Any Supreme Court justice who appeals to the laws or rulings of foreign countries to determine what the American Constitution means should be, I believe, removed from the Court. After all, each one swore to “perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Posted under the Newsletter category on: Saturday, August 30th, 2003 at 3:55 pm
(5 years, 4 months ago)
You can follow any responses to this entry through our RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.