Like many in the Christian community, I've found the recent string of undercover videos revealing the butchering and subsequent selling of aborted babies at Planned Parenthood facilities... troubling, to say the least. As if abortion itself was not enough of an atrocity, now so-called "doctors" are in the business of chopping up the just-murdered babies' bodies and selling their parts for money. The fact that it's done in the name of "science" is somehow supposed to excuse it all.

On social media, the defenders of Planned Parenthood can only talk about how the practice is "legal," since the pay they received was only for "reimbursements." A highly questionable claim in itself.

But what the videos reveal is not just disturbing to those of us that are considered "conservative." Camille Paglia is a self-described "dissident feminist." She said in a recent interview, "Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights." Translation: she supports abortion on-demand. She continued, "But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials." Now, I'd like to know exactly to what ethics she's referring, as I have no doubt my ethics differ from hers. But still, at least there is some sense that she sees wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood.

Since the first of these videos came out, the question I've asked is not "why," but rather, "how?" How can my fellow human beings believe that this is okay? How could they possibly excuse this, which is inexcusable?

To make matters worse, which I've learned is always possible, many who have had nary a word to say about this issue are now up in arms about a lion that was hunted and killed in Zimbabwe. Again, I have to ask, "how?" How could you say nothing about babies being literally butchered, but speak up loudly about a lion being killed? How can the media ignore the atrocities committed by Planned Parenthood, but give glaring attention to the death of "Cecil the Lion"? Even worse, some not only spoke out against the death of this lion, but also spoke up in support of the evil committed by Planned Parenthood.

If you'll bear with me, imagine you're in a courtroom where a trial is about to begin. The lead prosecutor begins his opening statement with these words:

The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected ... To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.

Does that sound like a good start to a trial of some abortionists? It does to me. But those are words from history. Those are the words of prosecutor Telford Taylor at the start of the 1946 Nuremberg doctors' trial. "Twenty doctors and three administrators — twenty-two men and a single woman — stood accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They had participated in Hitler's euthanasia program, in which around 200,000 mentally and physically handicapped people deemed unfit to live were gassed to death, and they performed fiendish medical experiments on thousands of Jewish, Russian, Roma and Polish prisoners."

The experiments conducted on these people were horrifying. "Some of these human guinea pigs were deprived of oxygen to simulate high altitude parachute jumps. Others were frozen, infested with malaria, or exposed to mustard gas." Doctors intentionally infected some with gangrene, typhus, and other diseases. All the while, "medical personnel conscientiously recorded their agonized screams and violent convulsions."

In the opening statement above, Mr. Taylor states that, "these wretched people were ... treated worse than animals". How is this possible, for one group of people, the Nazis, to treat another with such callous disregard? To treat them as subhuman? To answer this question is to also answer regarding how we treat the unborn. From the article:

"A rough answer isn't hard to come by. Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It's wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat. To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats."

We have biblical support for this idea, that how you think will determine how you act.
Romans 8:5-6
Colossians 3:2

So for the supporters of Planned Parenthood, I have to conclude that they are simply deluded. They simply do not see the unborn as human. Instead, they see "tissue," or a "clump of cells." The only way to treat another human so inhumanely is to convince yourself that they're not human. For Christians, the bible tells us otherwise.

Jeremiah 1:5

This verse, told to the prophet Jeremiah, shows that we are indeed fully human before we are born. Further, it is because we are created imageo dei — in the image of God — that we are more valuable than the animals. In the ancient world, to assault an image-bearer of a king was the same as assaulting the king himself.

Genesis 9:6

As for "Cecil the Lion," I don't agree with the manner in which he was killed. I agree that it was cruel, and the people responsible deserve some level of punishment. But let the punishment fit the crime. A lion, as beautiful and majestic as one is, is not an image-bearer of the Almighty. Killing a lion is not equal to, and certainly not worse than, the murder of an unborn human baby.

In closing, let us pray for Planned Parenthood and their supporters. If not for the grace and mercy of God, I would probably count myself among them. Let the following serve as a reminder of that:

"The Holocaust is the most thoroughly documented example of the ravages of dehumanization. Its hideousness strains the limits of imagination. And yet, focusing on it can be strangely comforting. It's all too easy to imagine that the Third Reich was a bizarre aberration, a kind of mass insanity instigated by a small group of deranged ideologues who conspired to seize political power and bend a nation to their will. Alternatively, it's tempting to imagine that the Germans were (or are) a uniquely cruel and bloodthirsty people. But these diagnoses are dangerously wrong. What's most disturbing about the Nazi phenomenon is not that the Nazis were madmen or monsters. It's that they were ordinary human beings."

A Biblical Response to the Case of Kelly Gissendaner

     On the evening of February 8, 1997, Kelly Renee Gissendaner dropped off her boyfriend at her house in Auburn, Georgia, before going to a party with friends. Kelly admitted later that it was her idea to have him, Gregory Bruce Owen, murder her husband, Doug Gissendaner. In a plea deal with prosecutors, Owen described what happened:

Owen said he put a knife to Doug Gissendaner's throat and forced him to drive to a spot near the Walton County line, then made him walk into the woods and kneel down. Owen beat Doug Gissendaner with a nightstick, he said, and stabbed him repeatedly in the neck and back.

Then, Owen said, he drove around in the victim's Chevrolet Caprice until Kelly Gissendaner paged him. She arrived with a Coke bottle filled with gasoline, Owen said, and he used it to burn the car.

     As part of that plea deal, Owen testified against Gissendaner in exchange for a life sentence, avoiding the death penalty. Owen will become eligible for parole after spending 25 years in prison, sometime in 2023.
     Unfortunately for Gissendaner, she did not take an offered plea deal, and a jury sentenced her to death. That death sentence has now been postponed twice. The original execution on February 25, 2015, was delayed due to a winter snow storm that struck parts of Georgia. When it was attempted again, on March 2nd, there was another delay because of the execution drugs:

"Prior to the execution, the drugs were sent to an independent lab for testing of potency. The drugs fell within the acceptable testing limits," the Georgia Department of Corrections said in a statement.

"Within the hours leading up to the scheduled execution, the Execution Team performed the necessary checks. At that time, the drugs appeared cloudy. The Department of Corrections immediately consulted with a pharmacist, and in an abundance of caution, Inmate Gissendaner's execution has been postponed." 

     Over the years, Kelly has earned a theology degree from Crossroad Bible Institute. Now, hundreds of church leaders have added their names to a petition seeking clemency for Gissendaner. The sole authority in Georgia that could commute her sentence is the Board of Pardons and Parole. The Board reviewed and denied her appeal for clemency back on February 25th. Nevertheless, many faith leaders and church members have since added their names to this petition, addressed to state and local judges and other elected officials.
     The "grounds for the commutation of Kelly's sentence" in the petition are nothing more than appeals to emotion. Nowhere is there an appeal to the bible, nor even sound reasoning.

• Kelly has accepted full responsibility for her involvement in the murder of her husband

     I commend her for taking responsibility. However, that does not negate the need for justice. Romans 13:4 says of our governing authority, "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

• Kelly has experienced a profound spiritual transformation, maturing as a person and in her faith.

     Her 18 years of incarceration should thus be considered a blessing, allowing her to be forgiven of her sins and share her faith with others. However, forgiveness of sins does not abrogate the consequences of those sins. In the book of 2 Samuel, after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed, God sent the prophet Nathan to rebuke David. David then repented and was forgiven, but there was still a consequence for his sin: the death of his son.

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” (2 Sam 12:13-14, NASB)

•  Kelly is respected by Department of Corrections staff; she is seen as an example to other inmates and viewed as an asset to the institution.

     Again, it is commendable that she is acting responsibly in prison. But good behavior does not annul the requirements of justice for the sake of her victim.

• If the state proceeds to execute Kelly, it will be the first time in the modern death penalty era (post-1976) that Georgia has executed an individual who was not the “trigger person” — that is, the person who actually used violence in the crime.

     This fact is irrelevant. What if it was the first time Georgia had ever used the death penalty? Would that make it unjust? Certainly not. Kelly is still deserving of the death penalty, regardless of how it has been applied in the past. Similarly, just because God shows mercy to some does not mean that any are deserving of that same mercy.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:14-18, NASB)

     Currently, Kelly Gissendaner has filed a lawsuit, citing cruel and unusual punishment from the last attempt to carry out her execution. I make no legal arguments here. Is there a place for mercy in our legal system? Certainly. That's the point of probation and parole. But Kelly Gissendaner is well past a time for either of those.
     To those who would criticize the compatibility of the death penalty with the New Testament, I leave you with a passage that clearly shows the Apostle Paul had no problem being executed, if he was deserving of death.

But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” (Acts 25:10-11, NASB)

False Churches Are A Blessing

The true church is defined in the Bible as a called-out assembly of those who are true followers of Jesus Christ. Of his true disciples, Jesus said, "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:50) The corollary would then mean that a false believer does not do the will of the Father. We know the will of the Father by what His Word says. It follows that false disciples must deny what scripture teaches:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

Therefore, it can be said that a "false church" is one that does not teach the plain things of the Bible. I like this definition:

The false church: The body of self-identified Christians who may, or may not, have begun the process of sanctification through belief upon...Christ. The false church either rejects the infallibility of scripture outright, or seeks to rationalize and radically "reform," revise or reinterpret scripture to justify sin.

False churches exist because of false believers. They do not want to hear the truth of the Bible, so these false brethren join together and create a church of their liking, complete with a false teacher:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

If all the preaching and teaching at a false church suddenly became good and biblically-sound, do you think the people that attend would also become true disciples? Perhaps a few would, but for the most part they would no longer attend that particular church. They would either go elsewhere or stop going anywhere. French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) said "In democracy we get the government we deserve." With the freedom to choose one's government, comes the responsibility for that government. The same is true in countries with religious freedom, where a group can easily set-up a church of their liking. It could be said, "With religious liberty, we get the church we deserve."

In Romans 1, the Bible speaks of God giving people over to their sins:

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. (verse 24) 

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural... (verse 26) 

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper... (verse 28)

This is a form of judgement: the removal of God's restraining grace. Restraining grace is present even for unbelievers. Charles Spurgeon said of it:

Oh! what a mercy to be prevented from sinning, when God puts chains across the road, digs ditches, makes hedges, builds walls, and says to us, “No, you shall not go that way, I will not let you; you shall never have that to regret; you may desire it, but I will hedge up your way with thorns; you may wish it, but it never shall be yours.”

A false church is likewise an indication that God has removed his restraining grace. He has given that church over to the desires of its' members. He is no longer preventing false teaching.

False churches are a blessing. First, they keep a lot of false converts out of the good churches. There are enough false believers in our doctrinally-sound churches already. If we closed all the false churches, where do you think their members would go? A lot would end up in your local, Bible-believing place of worship. Then they would undoubtedly begin to make changes to what is taught, which brings up the second reason false churches are a blessing: they keep out false teachers. A bad church gives a bad teacher somewhere to go other than to your good church.

We should pray for those that are in false churches: both the members and their leadership. What is being taught will send them to hell if they do not repent. They must be evangelized with the true gospel of Jesus Christ. God will call out his elect from these false churches.

then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, (2 Peter 2:9)

False churches are then a curse to those within them, and a blessing to those without.

Is Andy Stanley About To Be Gay-Affirming?

     Back in 2012, I was pretty unfamiliar with pastor Andy Stanley of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia. I was, however, familiar with his father, pastor Charles Stanley of FBC Atlanta. In fact, I had bought several of the elder Stanley's books. Some minor disagreements aside, I have always viewed him as a faithful teacher & preacher. I would have expected the same from his son, but that was my mistake. So it took me by surprise when in April 2012, Andy Stanley delivered his "When Gracie Met Truthy" sermon. From The Christian Post:

While preaching on the tension between grace and truth ("the truth is 'you're a sinner,' and the grace is 'I don't condemn you'"), Stanley told the story of a divorced couple who formerly attended North Point together. They separated after the woman's husband began a same-sex relationship with another man, who was still married to a woman.

The man and his partner wanted to serve as volunteers at the church, but Stanley explained that the two men were committing adultery since one of them did not finalize his divorce yet and thus could not serve as volunteers.
The "messy" story, as Stanley described it, ends with the gay couple, the first man's ex-wife and their child, as well as her new boyfriend and his child from another relationship, all coming together to worship together at a big service at North Point Church. The pastor refers to them as an example of a modern day family. Christians, he said, are called not only to hold on to the truth, but also to grace which includes forgiveness and love.

Which was followed by this analysis by Albert Mohler:

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Dr. Mohler then went on to ask:

Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later.

     What hardly seemed possible in 2012 is now, it seems, likely. Last month, in January 2015, Andy Stanley gave an interview regarding his new book, The New Rules for Love, Sex, and Dating. When asked why he wrote the book without addressing the "LGBT community", he said:

When I taught this content to our churches, I met with about 13 of our attenders who are apart of the LGBT community. I met with them to ask lots of questions, including their response to the series because I did not address the LGBT community directly. It was unanimous that they thought it was helpful and shared some of the stuff they learned.

So there are people attending North Point that identify as LGBT. The problem is that Stanley is not calling them to repentance. Instead, he seems to be very sensitive not to offend them. This is just a small step shy of "gay-affirming".

     Then on February 1, 2015, Stanley gave a sermon in which he declared that the church has become "unnecessarily resistible" to unbelievers. Take a look:

“The Church really should be … nothing more than a community of people who follow the teaching of a man sent from God to explain God and to clear the path to God. You don’t have to agree but you shouldn’t dislike it unless there’s more to it.” 

“How is it there are things that people say about us (Christians), the reasons they don’t like us have nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is ultimately our ultimate authority?” Stanley asked. “How did we become so resistible? … (Jesus’) three top commandments [were] to love God, love one another, love your enemy. What is there to resist about that? There should be nothing resistible about the church except … our loyalty to Jesus Christ.”

There is just so much wrong with these statements. "You don't have to agree"? On key doctrine, oh yes, we do. Philippians 2:2 tells us we are to be "of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose."

     “How is it there are things that people say about us, the reasons they don’t like us have nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is ultimately our ultimate authority?” Could we have some specifics here? I'm not sure to what he's referring, but all the reasons I ever see for unbelievers not liking Christians are indeed relating to the truth of Jesus and the bible. It's those so-called Christians that never speak the truth of scripture and never call unbelievers to repentance that the world loves.

     Stanley also stated:

"We are going to figure it out," he told North Point attendees. "We are going to let go of the things that have been holding us back. We are going to do our best to re-embrace what Jesus had in mind when he said this is something new." 

"By God's grace, perhaps in our generation, we will be used to strip away everything that makes the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ unnecessarily resistible."

     As I said, the primary thing that makes the church resistible is the truth of Christ. The necessity to turn from sin and turn to Christ in faith. The unregenerate love their sin and the only "church" they will attend is one which accepts, or even applauds, their lifestyle.
     I will hold out hope that Stanley's church is not going to become gay-affirming, but it certainly appears headed in that direction. Sadly, Andy Stanley's North Point would not be the first gay-affirming evangelical megachurch in the country. It would be the third, following Seattle's EastLake Community Church and GracePointe of the greater Nashville area.