Are Christians who believe that they should keep the Ten Commandments as a way of life trying to "earn" their salvation? Millions have been taught that "grace" eliminates any need for "works:' But is this reasoning true? Is it possible to "earn" salvation?

The Apostle Paul was inspired to write, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). We are saved through "grace"—an UNMERITED gift of God. And this, Paul explains, is all "through faith"—a faith that is given us by the Holy Spirit as a gift of God. Well then, how can some say we need "works"?

Quoting the Apostle Paul again, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).

In Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, "salvation" in a theological context is defined as "deliverance from the power and penalty of sin." As we have just seen, the penalty, the "wages" or the reward for sin is DEATH. The death Paul is referring to is obviously the second death in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8), because all physical, mortal human beings are slated to die once (Heb. 9:27).

Yet upon our sincere faith in Jesus Christ and His death in our stead, the "death penalty" for having broken God's law is removed from us. As many Bible students know, "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4 KJV). Through true conversion, the Christian is "justified by His blood" (Rom. 5:9). Being justified means to be "declared guiltless"—to be acquitted from the death penalty hanging over the sinner as a result of transgressing God's law (Rom. 6:23).

But does our justification now "free" us to go back and continue VIOLATING God's spiritual law—summarized by the Ten Commandments? Nothing could be further from the truth!

The plain truth that many seem unwilling to understand is that the true Christian has—at conversion—really REPENTED of breaking God's law. During the first Pentecost, the inspired Apostle Peter declared, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Genuine repentance means being SO SORRY that you will turn around and go the other way. Since you were baptized for the "remission of sins" it is clear that you must repent of transgressing God's spiritual law—the Ten Commandments.

When you think about it, the Christian at the time of his conversion is in fact making a covenant with his Creator to QUIT SINNING! At baptism, having faith in the promised "gift of the Holy Spirit," he is covenanting with God to stop sinning and to surrender his mind, his will and his life to God so that the Living Christ may now empower him to live an obedient life—obedient to the law and will of God.

As Paul explained, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2:20 KJV). It is through Jesus Christ literally living His life within us that we are able to keep the Ten Commandments as a way of life.

Do we keep the commandments "perfectly"? No. Nor do we do anything else perfectly! But, as I have explained, we do surrender to let Christ keep God's law in us through the power of the Holy Spirit—and, to the extent we yield to Christ, we are able to fully obey God's law. Then we are told to continually, "GROW in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18). As we grow spiritually, we should be keeping God's law with greater zeal throughout our Christian life.

The book of Hebrews tells us, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). Christ will live the SAME life in us which He did live in the human flesh nearly 2000 years ago. His was an obedient life. He said, "I have KEPT My Father's commandments" (John 15:10).

This is what true Christianity is all about-yielding ourselves to let the Living Christ build within us the very character of God. We need that divine character (2 Pet. 1:4) so that we may live happily and successfully throughout eternity in the Kingdom of God!

My hope and prayer is that every one of our readers may come to recognize that true Christianity is much more than an "empty" faith. It is an obedient, purposeful, exciting and fulfilling way of life.

Top of Page     Bottom of Page

Spring is in the air! Flowers and bunnies decorate the home. Father helps the children paint beautiful designs on eggs dyed in various colors. These eggs, which will later be hidden and searched out, are placed into lovely baskets. The wonderful aroma of the special cakes Mother is baking in the oven wafts through the house.

Forty days of "fasting" will finally end the next day. The whole family picks out their Sunday best to wear to next morning's sunrise worship service to celebrate the savior's resurrection and the renewal of life. Everyone looks forward to a succulent ham with all the trimmings. It's going to be a thrilling day. After all, it's one of the most important religious holidays of the year.

Easter, right? Not exactly! This is a picture of an ancient Babylonian family—2,000 years before Christ—honoring the resurrection of their god, Tammuz, who was brought back from the underworld by his mother-wife, Ishtar (after whom the festival was named).

As Ishtar was actually pronounced "Easter" in most Semitic dialects, it could be said that the event portrayed here is, in a sense, Easter. Of course, the occasion could easily have been a Phrygian family honoring Attis and Cybele or, perhaps, a Phoenician family worshipping Adonis and Astarte. Also fitting the description well would be an apostate Israelite family honoring the Canaanite Baal and Ashtoreth. Or, just as easily, this depiction could represent any number of other immoral, pagan fertility celebrations of death and resurrection that bear uncomfortable resemblance to the modern Easter celebration. These are all similar festivals, separated only by time and culture.

Origins of Easter Traditions

The vast majority of ecclesiastical and secular historians agree that the name Easter and the traditions surrounding it are rooted in pagan religion: "On this greatest of Christian festivals, several survivals occur of ancient heathen ceremonies. To begin with, the name itself is not Christian but pagan. `Ostara' was the Anglo-Saxon Goddess of Spring" (Ethel Urlin, Festivals, Holy Days, and Saints' Days, p. 73).

A brand new children's book about the holiday, Easter Parade: Welcome Sweet Springtime!, says, "In Babylonia ... the goddess of spring was called Ishtar. She was identified with the planet Venus, which, because...[it] rises before the Sun…or sets after it …appears to love the light [be in love with the sun-god]…. In Phoenicia, she became Astarte; in Greece, Eostre (related to the Greek word ‘Eos,’ dawn), and in Germany, Ostara (related to the German word `Ost' east, the direction of dawn)" (Steve Englehart, p. 4).

These names are interchangeable with the more familiar Easter. Anciently, pagans used many different names for the same god or goddess. An example of this is Nimrod, a pagan mentioned in the Bible as the founder of Babylon (Gen. 10). He was worshipped in many ancient cultures as the fire or sun god. They named him either Saturn, Vulcan, Kronos, Baal, Tammuz or Molech. Ishtar (Easter) is no different. She had many names, but was only one goddess. "Ishtar was the Great Mother, the goddess of fertility and the QUEEN OF HEAVEN" (Microsoft Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia).

Originally Ishtar-Easter was Nimrod's licentious widow, Semiramis—as many ancient histories attest, including Lucian's De Dea Syria (Vol. III, p. 382) and Athenagoras' Legatio (Vol. II, p. 179).

"Ishtar," writes Will Durant in his widely acclaimed Story of Civilization, "(Astarte to the Greeks, Ashtoreth to the Jews) interests us not only as an analogue of the Egyptian Isis and prototype of the Grecian Aphrodite and the Roman Venus, but as the formal beneficiary of one of the strangest of Babylonian customs.... known to us chiefly from a famous page in Herodotus: `Every native woman is obliged, once in her life; to sit in the temple of Venus [Easter], and have intercourse with some stranger'” (Vol. 1, pp. 235, 244-245). No wonder the Bible speaks of the religious system that has descended from that ancient city as "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and of the Abominations of the Earth" (Rev. 17:5)!

The Encyclopaedia Britannica states, "Around the Christian observance of Easter...folk customs have collected, many of which have been handed down from the ancient ceremonial and symbolism of European and Middle Eastern pagan spring festivals...for example, eggs...have been very prominent as symbols of new life and resurrection. The hare, the symbol of fertility in ancient Egypt, [is] a symbol that was kept later in Europe.... Its place has been taken by the Easter rabbit" (1991 ed., Vol. 4, p. 333). There is nothing Christian about any of this! The plain history of these fertility symbols, and the sexual reproductive rites they spring from, is completely hidden from unsuspecting children and adults. These are shocking facts, but true nonetheless.

Easter has long been known to be a pagan festival. America’s Founding Fathers knew it! “When the Puritans came to North America, they regarded the celebration of Easter—and the celebration of Christmas—with suspicion. They knew that pagans had celebrated the return of spring long before Christians celebrated Easter…” (Englehart, p. 4). It might come as a great surprise to some that "for the first two hundred years of European life in North America, only a few states, mostly in the South, paid much attention to Easter" (p. 4). until the Civil War was over did Americans begin celebrating the holiday: "Easter first became an American tradition in the 1870s" (p. 5).

Bible Authority for Easter?

Is the word Easter mentioned in the Bible? Yes, Acts 12:4—by mistranslation in the King James Version. "Easter" is an errant rendering of the Hebrew word, Pascha. The New King James Version and others correctly render this word, "Passover," as even the original King James does in other verses (cf. Matt. 26:2, 17-19; Mark 14:12; 1 Cor. 5:7).

Did early Christians keep Easter? "There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.... The first Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals [Lev. 23:1-2], though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed. Thus the Passover, with a new conception added to it, of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb... continued to be observed" (Enyc. Brit., 11th ed., Vol. VIII, p. 828).

Around this time of year, many television stations broadcast the classic 1958 movie, The Ten Commandments. The story centers on Israel's deliverance from the land of Egypt by the awesome power of God. Exodus 12 states that the Passover ceremony is an annual memorial to be kept by Israel "forever" on Abib 14 (the first month of the Sacred Calendar mentioned in the Bible). Leviticus 23, often called "the holy day chapter," repeats this.

Luke's account of the evening before Christ’s death:

When the hour had come [a definite time!], He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover [not Easter] with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" [Luke 22: 14-20].

People today say this "Communion" can be kept anytime. But that is not so. Jesus clearly commanded His disciples to continue observing the Passover, and He instituted some new symbols to commemorate His paschal sacrifice. Obviously Christ, as the Lamb of God (John 1:29)—killed on Abib 14—fulfilled the symbolism of the Old Testament lamb eaten each Passover. True Christians eat the bread and drink the wine symbolically partaking of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God. By doing so they memorialize Christ's atoning. death and the Christian's entrance into a New Covenant relationship with God.

Despite the overwhelming proof that God's Holy Days, as listed in Leviticus 23, are still to be kept by true Christians today, almost no one who professes to believe in the God of the Bible keeps them. Why?

A Counterfeit Savior?

One of the central themes of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of mankind and offer redemption to a dark world cut off from God. Satan, the master counterfeiter and unseen author of all false religion—called "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4 KJV)—always seeks to counterfeit every aspect of God's plan of salvation. It should not surprise us, then, that this Devil, who "deceives the whole world" (Rev. 12:9), would also counterfeit the true Savior of the Bible and His mission.

In his book, Christianity and Mythology, John Robertson tells us that "the conception of a Savior-God was quite normal in the ancient pagan world.... A conception of salvation underlies the notion of such gods as Osiris, Attis, and Adonis" (p. 395). For this reason, some say that Christ coming as the Savior is just a resurgence of an old pagan myth.

Arthur Nock, in Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background, rejects the notion that Christ's death and resurrection were just a rehash of an old pagan drama. He writes, "It has often been urged that this belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is due to ideas of divine resurrection current in the contemporary world. We know of several such: the stories of Attis, Adonis, and Osiris.... [But] the idea of Christ's resurrection was injected into the old practice of Easter observance and not the other way around" (pp. 105, 107).

How did this "injection" take place? Notice what historian James George Frazer wrote in his famous work, The Golden Bough:

Now the death and resurrection of Attis were officially celebrated at Rome on the 24th and 25th of March, the latter being regarded as the spring equinox, and...according to an ancient and widespread tradition Christ suffered on the 25th of March.... The tradition which placed the death of Christ on the 25th of March...is all the more remarkable because astronomical considerations prove that it can have had no historical foundation.... When we remember...that the festival of St. John the Baptist in June has succeeded a heathen Midsummer festival of water; that the festival of the Assumption of the Virgin in August has ousted the festival of Diana; that the feast of All Souls [Halloween] in November is a continuation of an old heathen feast of the dead; and that the Nativity of Christ himself was assigned to the winter solstice in December because that day was deemed the Nativity of the Sun; we can hardly be thought to be rash or unreasonable in conjecturing that the other cardinal festival of the Christian church—the solemnization of Easter—may have been in like manner ..adapted to a similar celebration of the Phrygian god Attis at the vernal equinox.... It is a remarkable coincidence...that the Christian and the heathen festivals of the divine death and resurrection should have been solemnized at the same season.... It is difficult to regard the coincidence as purely accidental (Vol. I, pp. 306-309).

Plainly, the Church at Rome had a practice of incorporating pagan festivals, pasting "Christian" names over them and calling them "Christian:' This was done to make "Christianity" more palatable and familiar to heathen worshippers, whom the Church was trying to attract. How did such a state of affairs develop?

The Old "Switcheroo"

Two completely different churches are described in the New Testament. One, the true church that Jesus built, is described as the bride of Christ, forsaking entanglements with this world and its ways. But, throughout the Greek Bible it was prophesied that false teachers would creep in and gain control of the church organization. True Christians would have to flee their original congregations in order to obey God. The Bible calls them the "little flock" which would often be scattered—outsiders to any real political power in this present world.

But the main church body, large in numbers and politically influential, compromised with biblical doctrine. This powerful church is portrayed in Revelation 17 as a harlot queen (like Semiramis/Easter) in bed with the successive secular rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and its historic revivals. Gradually, this church, headquartered at Rome, adopted more and more pagan practices, blurring the distinctions between pagan and Christian. Easter was one of those pagan adoptions.

Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period in the practice pf the Christian Church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy.... The Jewish Christians...[observed] the l4th day of the moon at evening...without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians [led from Rome] on the other hand...identified the first day of the week with the resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month.

Generally speaking, the Western Churches [Roman Catholic] kept Easter on the 1st day of the week, while the Eastern Churches [including the remnant of the true Church] followed the Jewish rule [the true Christian Passover].

Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evangelist [last of the 12 apostles], and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject, and urged the tradition which he had received from the apostles of observing the l4th day. Anicetus, however, declined. About forty years later (197), the question was discussed in a very different spirit between Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, metropolitan of proconsular Asia. That province [embracing churches founded through the Apostle Paul, like Antioch and all of those identified in Revelation 2 and 3 as the true church) was the only portion of Christendom which still adhered to the Jewish usage. Victor demanded that all should adopt the usage prevailing at Rome. This Polycrates firmly refused to agree to, and urged many weighty reasons to the contrary, whereupon Victor proceeded to excommunicate Polycrates and the Christians who continued the [correct] Eastern usage. He was, however, restrained [by counsel from other bishops] from actually proceeding to enforce the decree of excommunication...and the Asiatic churches retained their usage unmolested. We find the Jewish usage [the true New Testament Passover] from time to time reasserting itself after this, but it never prevailed to any large extent.

A final settlement of the dispute was one among the other reasons which led [Roman Emperor] Constantine to summon the council at Nicaea in 325. At that time the Syrians and Antiochenes were the solitary champions of the observance of the l4th day. The decision of the council was unanimous that Easter was to be kept on Sunday, and on the same Sunday throughout the world, and "that none hereafter should follow the blindness of the Jews.” [Or, in other words, no one was allowed to follow the example of Christ and the true Church He founded!].... The FEW who afterwards separated themselves from the unity of the [prolifically influential] church, and continued to keep the l4th day, were named "Quartodecimani" [from the Latin word for 14], and the dispute itself is known as the "Quartodeciman controversy" [Encyc. Brit.,11th ed., Vol. VIII, pp. 828-829].

It was the "few" who remained faithful to the Truth. Historically, as the compromising church grew in political influence, the death penalty was imposed on anyone found keeping God's seventh-day Sabbath or God's other festivals, such as Passover.

Can Easter Be Kept "in Honor of Christ"?

Many will come to this point and say, "So what? I know Easter comes from paganism. But I'm not pagan. I keep it in honor of Christ." God knew that the ancient Israelites would feel the same way when they encountered the religious customs of pagan nations—that they would try to use these in honor of the true God. But what does God think of such an attitude?

After giving Israel all of His commandments and instructions—including the Passover—God said, "Observe and obey all these words which I command you.... When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to...dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them...and that you do NOT inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?....' You shall NOT worship the LORD your God IN THAT WAY; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates [like Easter] they have done to their gods.... Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it [as keeping Easter certainly does] nor take away from it [as not keeping Passover does)" (Deut. 12:28-32).

God will not accept pagan forms of worship even if they are done "in His honor." Jesus Christ described such worship: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.... All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:7-9). God commands us not to use pagan customs and traditions to. honor Christ.

God is even more explicit than this when it comes to Easter traditions. In Jeremiah 7:18, God says he is provoked to anger by people making "cakes for the queen of heaven.” Remember who that is? Ashtoreth or Ishtar (Easter)! God repeatedly condemns the worship of Ashtoreth in the Bible. Ashtoreth, as we saw previously, is just another name for Easter. In Ezekiel 8:15-18, God shows His disgust for sunrise services in honor of the resurrection of Tammuz (the counterfeit Christ and consort of Easter)—it is not a "trivial thing" in His eyes. Such services may seem beautiful and religious, and even be deeply moving to those participating in them, but God has told us not to devise our own religious customs and ideas.

Now you can better understand why the Apostle Paul was afraid that the Corinthians would fall for the subtle deceit of those bringing "ANOTHER JESUS whom we have not preached" (2 Cor. 11:4). Just because people may think they are worshipping the true Savior does not ensure that they, in fact, are! Paul knew this. So do all of God's true servants.

God inspired Jeremiah to write, "Learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain" (Jer. 10:2-3 KJV). True Christians must NEVER mix God's Truth with pagan practices. Will you reject pagan celebrations like Easter and embrace God's festivals such as Passover? The choice is yours to make.

Top of Page     Bottom of Page

When many of today’s children longingly ask, “Where’s Daddy?” the sad answer for too many millions of American children is, “You never had a Daddy.” In half a century, the concept of fatherhood in the United States has degenerated from “Father Knows Best” to father is a jerk, a deadbeat, a bigot, an uninvolved, uncommitted absentee father and now finally—the ultimate minimalist position—a “sperm father.”

This incredible shift in our national attitude about men’s role within families has had a profoundly negative impact on American culture. Resolving fatherlessness is a major key to our many intractable social problems.

Yet there are relatively few alarmed at America's growing fatherlessness. Most public commentators featured in the mass media assure us that "new" types of families can rear happy, successful children just as well as the old "Dad, Mom and the kids" model. In fact, many feminists think eliminating the old-fashioned "toxic mascupathology" that "barbed wire of the old, masculine stereotypes," is a definite step forward.

One "enlightened" family therapist put it this way: "Cities full of men stomping around flexing their muscles and growling manly noises at one another have become our modern jungles. Men fight for turf and wrestle for control over people and things, whether through war, armed robbery, or corporate takeovers.... Heavy doses of masculinity are unquestionably toxic, and no longer socially acceptable" (Frank S. Pittman, Networker, "The Masculine Mystique " May/June 1990, pp. 40-41, 48).

Recently, however, a few voices have begun to call for reinforcing the traditional family with its biological father responsibly engaged in the nurture of his children.

Columnist Patrick Fagan writes, "Imagine an America in which most neighborhoods are the bloody turf fought over daily by violent gangs, and where public safety itself has become more the exception than the rule.

“That is the horrifying prognosis if the United States doesn’t bring illegitimacy under control. At present rates, half of all births in this country, not just those in the inner city, will be to unmarried mothers within a dozen to 20 years.

“Over the past 30 years, the increase in violent crime parallels, almost exactly, the increase in families abandoned by fathers; high-crime neighborhoods invariably have large proportions of single-parent families in which the father is absent from the home.…” (The San Diego Union Tribune, "Illegitimacy: father of violent crime," Mar. 19, 1995).

How Bad Are the Statistics? What Are the Casualties?

According to social scientists Larry Bumpass and James Sweet's 1984 study, "About half of all children born between 1970 and 1984 are likely to spend some time in a mother-only family" (David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, BasicBooks, 1995, p. 295). However this statistic on fatherless children continues to increase as the percentage of illegitimate births has skyrocketed since 1984, growing 82 percent from 1980 to 1991!

"Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, revising Sweet and Bumpass's estimate, calculated in 1991 that `for children born in the 1990s, the figure [of children living without their fathers] could reach 60 percent if the divorce rate remains high and non-marital childbearing continues its upward trend'” (Fatherless America, p. 235).

In his excellent book, Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn argues that we should focus more attention to the leading indicators on the state of fatherhood instead of statistics on the numbers of business failures, rate of inflation or other commonly used business forecasting tools—if we want to see the true future possibilities of our local communities. The present statistical trend isn't encouraging for America.

Fatherlessness in late twentieth century America has meant an ever-growing welfare roll to support vast and increasing numbers of women and children. "The number of families receiving assistance more than doubled between 1970 and 1990, a period when the U.S. population rose 22 percent. The average monthly benefit tripled" (Los Angeles Times, Mar. 25, 1995). In 1970, there were 1.9 million families receiving an average of $178 per month of welfare. By 1990 this figure had increased to 3.97 million families whose average benefit had increased to $389 per month. Of these, "More families are headed by one parent, and more children are born out of wedlock. The percentage of children receiving welfare where the parent did not marry increased from 27.9 percent in 1969 to 52.9 percent in 1991!" (Los Angeles Times, Mar. 25, 1995).

How Did It Get This Way?

During the twentieth century, the United States has sustained three major assaults on the foundations of hands-on, effective fatherhood. The first of these assaults came when the U.S. military conscripted millions of fathers to fight the Nazis and militaristic Japanese.

"By 1943...it had become clear that draft quotas could not be filled solely from the ranks of single men and married men without children. The Selective Service was forced to turn to the `father class' of roughly six million men. As one general bluntly complained in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs: `If the men are single or if the men are fathers is really immaterial. It is the men, it is the bodies that we need'” (Fatherless America, p. 51 ).

American society, however, was vociferously reluctant to separate the fathers from their families and many protested such an action. They knew that fatherlessness, "even temporarily, would present a clear and present danger to child and societal well-being" (p. 51 ). Legislation was introduced in Congress to delay that proposed draft of fathers, but by October 1943 military needs prevailed, and Daddy had to go to war to kill other peoples' husbands and sons. War has always been a curse to families.

When the end of the war neared, many wanted the soldier-fathers given the priority in the order of demobilization and brought home immediately after the enemies' surrender. "Mothers formed `Bring Back Daddy' clubs to organize lobbying campaigns, presenting members of Congress with baby shoes with tags reading `Bring Daddy Home'.... As one congressman from New Jersey put it: `A generation of fatherless children would make our country a second-rate power and everything should be done to prevent such a tragedy'” (p. 52). Sadly, for about 183,000 of these American children, Daddy would never be coming home again.

But the curse of death in battle was not the most bitter of the blows against the family. Rather, the cultural loosening of the nation's moral fabric and a lessening of family ties during the war presented the gravest threat to the culture of fatherhood. "During and immediately following the war, there was an upsurge in men deserting their families.... Many fathers were tormented with doubts about whether the children presented to them by their war brides were, in fact, their own.... The war clearly undermined male habits of family commitment.... Army life and the accompanying decline of sexual restraint, constituted a poor preparation for monogamous marriage" (pp. 59-60).

It was also the approach to interpersonal relationships which many of the young men learned in the military during the war which set up society for the moral rebellion of the post-World War II "baby-boomer" generation against their fathers. "For fathers coming home after prolonged absence in a military environment in which they either gave orders or promptly obeyed them, there seemed little doubt that their sons and daughters should respond to them as buck privates had to first sergeants. A militaristic approach to family life provoked resentment and sometimes rebellion among children, in turn leading some fathers to `crack down' even harder" (p. 58).

The fatherlessness of 50 years ago bears some similarities to today's version of life without Dad. During World War II, 20 to 25 percent of families with children were fatherless while, in 1992, the number was 21.5 percent of families. However, when the war ended, the soldier-fathers did come home. Today, absent fathers almost never do.

Divorce and illegitimacy have been the second and third prongs of attack against fatherhood. From 1960 to 1990, the divorce rate has increased more than four times while illegitimacy is more than five times more prevalent.

Our society has stopped teaching that self-sacrifice, responsibility and commitment are essential elements in creating a happy family. Today the selfish ego is in full bloom. "When individual freedom becomes the reigning ethos not only of political life but also of sexuality and procreation, the primary result for children is the loss of their fathers. As a political and civic ideal, `starting over' has been a potent American strength. But as an ideal of family life, it constitutes our most disabling weakness: the animating cause of contemporary fatherlessness and thus the propeller of our most urgent social problems" (p. 167).

Today we like to deceive ourselves about the effects of divorce and illegitimacy. Since many modern family therapists and feminists believe that fatherhood is superfluous, they suggest that all we need to do to ensure a child's well-being is to create a more effective support web of social services to replace that old dysfunctional masculine figure—Daddy. Social services cannot replace what a father contributes to the family. The human casualties of our culture of divorce and sexual irresponsibility—fatherlessness—are filling our homes with hopelessness. We don't need more prisons and welfare programs; we need committed fathers.

"Paternal disinvestment cannot be offset by either maternal investment or public investment. As a society, we will not solve our crisis of fatherlessness with prison cells, mentoring programs, antiviolence curricula, boyfriends, anti-stalking laws, children's advocates, income transfers, self-esteem initiatives, or even mothers. We will solve it only with fathers" (p. 48).

What Does a Father Do?

In the modern Western world, especially America, society's understanding of the role of fatherhood has been shrinking since the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century when the physical location of home and work were separated. "No longer, according to Alexander Mitscherlich, could children typically acquire skills `by watching one's father, working with him, seeing the way he handled things, observing the degree of knowledge and skill he had attained as well as his limitations'” (Fatherless America, p. 13).

Today, Daddy goes some place, works, and comes home with an automated bank deposit receipt. We still expect the man of the house to be the chief financial provider for the family. In fact, the federal government is going on the warpath to make financially irresponsible men, "Deadbeat Dads," pay up or else!

In his political contest with the welfare-reform-minded Republicans who dominate Congress, President Clinton has sounded a public call to return to personal responsibility. The President, strongly implying that it isn't up to Uncle Sam's taxpayers to support the offspring of every Tom, Dick and Mary's flings, said, "Join us to send deadbeat parents all across this country a loud signal: If you neglect your responsibility to support your children, we'll suspend your license, garnish your pay, track you down and make you pay!" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, Mar. 19, 1995).

In today's political climate, even liberals would agree with the Apostle Paul's admonition to fathers, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). From God's point of view, even the most carnal, blockhead guy should understand that he has a duty to provide for his own family! This is a spiritual preschool-level lesson.

But for many men, if they aren't involved with their children and don't have a working relationship with the mother of those children, they are reluctant to pay. "Ultimately, meaningful child-support payments will come only from men who see themselves as fathers.... Calling them deadbeats, circulating Wanted posters aimed at humiliating them [which is ineffectual]—the evidence clearly shows that the nature of child-support payments depends primarily upon the nature of the father-child bond.... In short, the more fatherhood, the more money" (Fatherless America, p. 134).

Our society has been trying to cheat men out of fatherhood and then expect them to pay for it. Effective fatherhood requires that the man have a happy marital relationship with the mother of his children and that he reside with his children. Public policymakers should be obsessed with promoting these two foundational principles of effective fatherhood and as an individual, you should be too if you care about your children!

Yet, when a man gives sperm, maintains a parental alliance with the mother, resides with his children and provides financially—he is only being a minimalist father from God's point of view.

Much more is required of fathers! "In sum, over the past two hundred years, fatherhood has lost, in full or in part, each of its four traditional roles: irreplaceable caregiver, moral educator, head of family, and family breadwinner" (p. 16).

Our society has forgotten that it is the father's duty to morally instruct his children by both his words and actions. We teach by what we say and do. This is why the importance of fatherhood was more clearly understood in previous centuries, when fathers worked with their children at or near the home, than it is in our present, unsustainable, self-destructing, "modern" culture of fatherlessness.

Notice the importance that God attached to a father's responsibility to provide a righteous moral education to his children: "And the LORD said, `Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing, since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him'” (Gen. 18:17-19).

The LORD talked with Abraham and showed him what He was about to do. This was God's method of teaching Abraham about a father's responsibilities. Because the LORD knew Abraham's character, He had confidence that Abraham would teach his children the right way to live. God placed immense importance on Abraham's willingness to teach his children, calling Abraham the father of the faithful. "You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, `And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed'” (Acts 3:25 NRSV; cf. Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:7).

However, God also knew that some fathers would abdicate their duty to provide a true moral education and He warned them of the consequences: "The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation" (Num. 14:18). As our loving heavenly Father, God administers discipline.

If a child learns violence, sexual irresponsibility and drug abuse from his parents, and as an adult, lives that way showing the same example to his offspring—what will be the consequence?

"For he will repay according to each one's deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom 2:6-11 NRSV).

A Father to the Fatherless

If you are a fatherless person, how can you experience a loving father's influence in your life? You know and deeply feel the need for a real father in your life, yet perhaps you realize that your own physical father will probably never return to help you.

What can you do? To whom can you turn? You should turn to the Everliving One, your heavenly Father who will remember you: "A father of the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in His holy habitation. God sets the solitary in families; He brings. out those who are bound into prosperity; but the rebellious dwell in a dry land" (Ps. 68:5-6). When God calls Himself "a Father of the fatherless," He is not proclaiming empty words. He means what He says!

Here is a promise in which you, personally, can have TOTAL CONFIDENCE: "Jesus answered and said to him, `If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me" (John 14:23-24). Please notice that, like any conscientious father, God the Father requires something of you: you must KEEP HIS WORD!

If you will bring your heavenly Father into your home, He will take the keenest interest in your most intimate hopes and even your mundane activities (Ps. 139:1-16). Your heavenly Father will protect and provide for you in spite of any danger or hardship you might face. "I sought the LORD, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. They looked to Him and were radiant, and their faces were not ashamed. This poor man cried out, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles" (Ps. 34:4-6).

You can count on your Everlasting Father. He will always come through for you if you faithfully walk with Him. "Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD, trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass" (Ps. 37: 4-5).

God the Father is our ultimate "irreplaceable caregiver, moral educator, head of family, and family breadwinner." This is true whether or not you had a physical Daddy who cared for you.

While you may have many difficulties to face in your life, you should be encouraged that your elder brother in God's family, Jesus Christ, faced similar problems and overcame them with His Father's help (Heb. 2:11; Eph. 3:15; Heb. 4:15). Remember Jesus Christ's sacrifice. He allowed Himself to be tortured and then executed while doing His Father's business, absolutely trusting that His heavenly Father would resurrect Him later (Matt. 20:18-19). If you put your life in the Father's hands, He will not desert you.

In fact, Jesus Christ says to you, "But I will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God" (John 16:25-27).

Much of America, today, is literally fatherless. We say on our money, "In God We Trust." But we don't. A living relationship with God the Father isn't found in most homes these days. As a nation we are in confusion: "One primary result of growing fatherlessness is more boys with guns. Another is more girls with babies" (Fatherless America, p. 45).

Every child deserves a father. If you are a man don't abandon your children, leaving them to cry, "Where's Daddy?" Have compassion on them. Seize the happiness and fulfillment that awaits you and become a loving, cherishing, nurturing father who will guide a new generation into a loving relationship with their heavenly Father. You can count on Him to instruct you on proper fatherhood, just as He taught Abraham. You only need to study and then act on God's instruction manual, the Bible.

Let us all take to heart this warning to our generation living in the end-time: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse" (Mal. 4:5-6). We all have a part to play to "Bring Daddy Home.”

Top of Page     Bottom of Page

V-E Day—lest we forget

by Raymond F. McNair

Few have ever really known why Anglo-American-led Allied forces defeated the Axis powers in World War II. Many have forgotten how precariously close the Allies came to losing that war—in fact, the outcome of that titanic struggle hung precariously in the balance until the very end of WW II! We need to remember some of the major turning points of World War II. Why? Because those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!

Hitler Ignites World War II

What, or who, really triggered World War II? Some historians think the Second World War began in July 1937—when Japanese and Chinese troops first exchanged fire near Beijing. But, it was Adolf Hitler, more than anyone else, who was responsible for beginning World War II—sometimes called “Hitler’s War.”

Adolf Hitler’s rise to power began in 1932 when his Nazi party received 40 percent of the German vote in the federal elections of the decrepit and ineffective German experiment with democracy known as the Weimar Republic. Subsequently, Germany’s aging president, Paul von Hindenburg, was persuaded to name Hitler chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, in an effort to buy domestic peace in a divided nation. As chancellor, Hitler used his power to bring all strategic governmental power centers under his control. When Hindenburg died on August 19, 1934, Chancellor Hitler grabbed the presidency of Germany and promptly gave himself the title of “Der Fuhrer” (the Leader)—proclaiming himself the people’s savior. Adolf Hitler’s mesmerizing oratory electrified the German people. He promised the unemployed work and the desperate hope. He declared that Germany’s glorious Third Reich would rule Germany for a thousand years—bringing peace, happiness, prosperity and Deutsch Kultur to the whole world. Hitler also gave his people a scapegoat for their problems—the Jews and the nations supposedly controlled by them. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, outlined his idea for a “final solution.”

In early March 1936, Hitler denounced the onerous Versailles treaty agreements, which were forced on a defeated Germany at the end of World War I by the Allied victors. Der Fuhrer ordered the newly revitalized German army to occupy the Rhineland—a demilitarized buffer of German land that separated Germany from its nervous western neighbors.

Today, it is clearly understood that if the French, Belgians or British had opposed the Rhineland occupation, Hitler’s troops would have beat a hasty retreat back over the Rhine. But the Allies pretended not to notice and deceived themselves with mutterings that it was not important. The Nazi troops stayed put. Hitler’s gamble paid off. France, Britain, Belgium, the other democracies of Northwest Europe and the League of Nations (the United Nations’ predecessor) did absolutely nothing. Hitler’s ego soared. He believed he was destined to annex all the German-speaking peoples of Europe—6 million Austrians and 3 million German-speaking Czechs living in the western part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudentenland.

On March 12, 1938, Hitler again gambled by sending his army to take over Austria, and the following day he proclaimed the Anschluss—a forced union of Austria and Germany.

Once again, the Western democracies and the League of Nations made excuses and did absolutely nothing. Appeasement and compromise only whetted Hitler's appetite.

Next, Hitler demanded self determination for Sudeten Germans living in western Czechoslovakia—so he could annex the Sudetenland. Now, British and French leaders were worried. So on September 29, 1938, Britain's Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, and France's Premier, Eduard Daladier (the Fuhrer called them "little worms"), met in Munich with Hitler and Mussolini. Democracy's leaders were again deceived into thinking peace was still possible. Unfortunately for that generation, they sought to appease Hitler by giving in to His demands to dismember Czechoslovakia.

Prime Minister Chamberlain, thinking the "Czech situation" was defused, returned to Britain "victoriously" waving his famous piece of paper (a copy of the Munich Pact). He proclaimed, "There has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." But there had been no honor, and there would be no peace! Winston Churchill, then an out-of-power "back bencher" in the British parliament, called the Munich Agreement "a total and unmitigated defeat!" He bellowed, "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame—and will get war!"

On October 1, 1938, Hitler's troops occupied the Sudetenland under the color of protecting or freeing the ethnic Germans living among the Czechs. A few months later, on March 15, 1939, German troops, unopposed, bullied their way into Prague and annexed all of Czechoslovakia. Still, the Allies did nothing! Now Der Fuhrer was ready to gamble again—this time the prize was to swallow half of Poland.

To destroy the sovereign Polish nation, Hitler needed an evil accomplice—Joseph Stalin, the murderous communist dictator of the USSR. Der Fuhrer wanted to avoid a fight with the Russians at this point until he had first finished his business with the Western democracies.

After whipping up the German public with an enormous propaganda offensive of lies about Polish "aggression," Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. The Germans used blitzkrieg (lightning war) military tactics—combining the rapid advance of armored columns, mechanized infantry and aerial bombardment—against a brave, but poorly trained and ill-equipped Polish army. In just over two weeks, the Nazis occupied the western half of Poland. On September 17, the Russian army shamelessly invaded eastern Poland and rolled easily over what remained of that hapless country.

Hitler's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, triggered World War II because it led to Britain and France declaring war on Germany on September 3. But the Western Allies still didn't want to get into a real war with the Nazis, so they waged a sitzkrieg (phony war) throughout the winter of 1939-40, sitting behind their defenses, conducting a half hearted war, hoping the Germans would come to their senses and sign a treaty of some sort. But the Western democracies would soon find out that a "phony war" would make no impression on a very real, evil enemy such as Hitler. Ignoring mortal danger was then, and still is today, just plain stupid!

In April 1940, the Nazis invaded Denmark and Norway and quickly overran them. The German blitzkrieg seemed unstoppable. Then, on May 10, to the horror of the lazy Allies, powerful German army and airborne units, bypassing France's useless Maginot Line, knifed their way through Luxembourg, Belgium, The Netherlands and northern France. The Allies' armies were too poorly trained and inadequately equipped to turn back this unprecedented blitzkrieg type of warfare!

The Miracle of Dunkirk

By May 10, the Allies' situation was desperate! Their defenses were collapsing. Their armies were being encircled. Complete destruction of the British and Allied armies by the German Wermacht was close at hand—unless the Allies could escape by sea through the northern French port city of Dunkirk. For the British—and indeed for all men who loved freedom—the stakes were incredibly high. If the Germans destroyed those Allied armies, whatever forces the British still had left on their island could hardly hope to hold out against a German invasion.

A hasty Allied retreat was ordered on May 11. Before long, over 350,000 Allied troops (British, French, Belgian) had retreated to Dunkirk, hoping fervently to be evacuated across the English Channel to ports in southern England. Crucial questions haunted the Allies. Could their outnumbered and outgunned troops hold out long enough to evacuate more than a fraction of their armies from the beaches of Dunkirk? Were most of freedom's soldiers doomed to be slaughtered on the beaches or become prisoners? Was the war over? Had Hitler and his Nazi barbarians won? Only a miracle could save the Allied armies and England herself!

Incredibly, at this crucial turning point in history, Hitler ordered his panzer (tank) generals to halt their attacks against the surrounded Allied troops. Their annihilation was to be accomplished by Hermann Goring's air force. "Dunkirk is to be left to the Luftwaffe," ordered Der Fuhrer! The frustrated German generals twiddled their thumbs, unable to move in for the kill.

Then, inexplicably, unusual weather closed in on the region. An extremely thick fog blanketed the area and the usually rough water of the English Channel became so calm that even the smallest boats could sail on it without risk of capsizing. The fog grounded the Nazi airplanes which couldn't effectively see their targets to bomb them. On May 26, the British War Cabinet gave the order for "Operation Dynamo"—the immediate evacuation of Dunkirk using one of the largest and oddest "armadas" the world has ever known. That motley flotilla of about 1000 boats of every size and description (Royal Navy ships, ocean liners, private motor boats, fishing boats and even row boats) evacuated over 338,000 Allied troops from the beaches at Dunkirk. Of the over 350,000 Allied soldiers bottled up in Dunkirk, the Allies had originally expected to be able to evacuate only about 30,000—less than one-tenth of their encircled forces. But Hitler's strange order—a fatal hesitation—and the God-sent weather saved the day.

"My Hands Were Tied!"

The Germans didn't realize what was happening under their very noses until May 29—three days after the Allied evacuation had begun. By the time the evacuation was forced to cease on June 4, the British had pulled off the "impossible," saving the bulk of their army to fight another day—snatched from under the muzzles of the enemy's tanks and the bombs of the Luftwaffe.

It was Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group A which had held the Allied troops, as sitting ducks, within its grasp. Reminiscing later, Von Rundstedt complained, "If I had had my way the English would not have got off so lightly at Dunkirk. But my hands were tied by direct orders from Hitler himself. While the English were clambering into the ships off the beaches, I was kept uselessly outside the port unable to move. I recommended to the Supreme Command that my five panzer divisions be immediately sent into the town and thereby completely destroy the retreating English. But I received definite orders from the Fuhrer that under no circumstances was I to attack.... Bad weather grounded the Luftwaffe and we stood by and watched countless thousands of the enemy get away to England right under our noses!"

Historians offer three explanations as to why the powerful German panzer units sat idly by while most of the Allied troops escaped:

1) Reportedly, Hitler feared pushing his tanks too far and too fast, knowing he would soon need them to crush any remaining resistance in France.

2) Air Reich Marshall Goring is said to have prevailed on Hitler to let the Luftwaffe destroy the Allies—rather than let the German Generals get the credit, some of whom were not even members of the Nazi party.

3) Others think Hitler believed that if he didn't annihilate the British army at Dunkirk, he might still entice the British leaders back to the peace table.

But many among the British and Allies considered their escape from Dunkirk an instance of divine intervention—a godly deliverance by "some Guiding Hand" (in Churchill's words)! They saw the "hand of God" in the calm, overcast weather of intermittent fog and cloud cover, coupled with Hitler's strange order halting the German advance. Was it just an accident? A quirk of fate? In later speaking of the "Miracle of Dunkirk," Prime Minister Churchill said, "Wars are not won by evacuations, but there was a VICTORY inside this deliverance.”

After Dunkirk, Britain is reported to have had only 100 tanks and two or three poorly-equipped, battle-ready divisions—whereas Germany could field forty-five assault divisions to subdue Britain. Some think even German paratroopers could have conquered Britain at the time—if they had close support of the Luftwaffe. Clearly, Britain would have been hard pressed by the Nazis had they invaded Britain at that critical time.

France Collapses and Many Collaborate While the British Struggle for Survival

On June 5, 1940, German forces unleashed a new blitzkrieg offensive against France, culminating in the victorious Germans entering Paris on June 14. The Nazis promptly divided France into two zones. German troops occupied the northern and western zone; and Marshal Philippe Petain, as Premier, set up a puppet government in Vichy, France, from which he would govern the unoccupied southern part of the country.

Hitler's Germany had ruthlessly crushed six countries in only three months! All of Northwest Europe except the British Isles, was now under the Nazi heel. Hitler boasted that in only two more months his victorious Wehrmacht would march into London. Truly, at that perilous moment in history, a relatively defenseless Britain stood all alone!

During this critical time, a new leader came on the scene to rally the British. Winston Churchill became Britain's Prime Minister on May 10, 1940—the very day German panzer units smashed into Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland and France—only 16 days before the Dunkirk evacuation began. On May 13, a grim Churchill told his fellow Britons, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat!"

And on June 4, an undaunted Churchill told the British nation, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!" Such a lion-hearted leader was badly needed to inspire Britons to fight with bull-dog tenacity in the perilous years ahead—especially during the Battle of Britain.

Only 11 days later (June 15) French Premier, Paul Reynaud, told Churchill, "We have been defeated! We are beaten!" Churchill later said, "When I warned them [the French] that Britain would fight on alone, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet: `In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken!' Some chicken! Some neck!"

Before Hitler dared launch his plans to invade Britain, code named "Operation Sea Lion," he believed he must first destroy Britain's airports radar stations, communication centers, and defeat the Royal Air Force. The Battle of Britain (June 20-October 31 ) which soon followed was decisive in saving Britain from falling under the oppressive Nazi jackboot!

At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, German planes outnumbered British planes three or four to one. The British were well aware that they must not allow the Germans to knock out their airfields and communications centers. If they lost them, they would fall easy prey to Hitler.

Churchill later wrote of the Battle of Britain: "In the life-and-death struggle of the two air forces, this was a decisive phase.... There was much anxiety at Fighter Headquarters.... Extensive damage had been done to five of the group's forward airfields, and also to the six sector stations. If the enemy had persisted in heavy attacks against the adjacent sectors and damaged their operation rooms or telephone communications, the whole intricate organization of Fighter Command might have broken down.”

The R.A.F. was being seriously drained of both pilots and planes. From August 24 to September 6, the British lost 103 pilots killed, 128 seriously wounded, and 466 Spitfires and Hurricanes were destroyed by the enemy. Churchill admitted, "Out of a total pilot strength of about 1000, nearly a quarter had been lost.…”

It was therefore with a sense of relief that Fighter Command saw the German attack focus on London on September 7, concluding that the enemy had changed his plans. But, of course, there was a cost to the English people. During the Luftwaffe's first night's blitz on London, 2000 Londoners were killed or wounded.

"The Intervention of God!"

If the Luftwaffe had continued to press its strategic attacks against British airfields and communications centers, the Germans would have succeeded in knocking out the Royal Air Force. Britain would then have been a sitting duck—unable to defend herself effectively against the whole array of Germany's fearsome military machine. Hitler would have launched "Operation Sea Lion," and, very probably, Britain would have lasted no more than a few months against a hail of Nazi steel and fire raining mercilessly down upon her comparatively beleaguered forces.

But fortunately for Britain, the German strategists changed from strategic bombing of Britain's airports and communications centers to terror bombing of London and other major British cities. This gave Britain a badly needed breathing spell just enough time to train more pilots, repair and build more aircraft, install more anti-aircraft installations. It also gave her a little time in which to receive a continual stream of planes, tanks, guns and other war material from America, the world's foremost "arsenal of democracy"!

At the height of the Battle of Britain, September 15, Britain destroyed 56 German planes in one day. Churchill admitted that Britain lost 915 aircraft during the Battle of Britain (July 20 through Oct. 31), while claiming to have destroyed 2698 German planes. (Germany only admitted having lost 1733 aircraft—nearly double the R.A.F losses.)

After the Battle of Britain, Mr. Churchill acknowledged, "In the upshot we got two to one of the German assailants, instead of three to one, as we believed and declared. But this was enough. The Royal Air Force, far from being destroyed, was triumphant. The stamina and valor of our fighter pilots remained unconquerable and supreme. Thus Britain was saved. Well might I say in the House of Commons, `Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few!'” The fact that Britain had badly mauled the Luftwaffe must have been humiliating and demoralizing to both Hitler and Goring. On the other hand, British morale soared after that signal victory.

What really enabled the British to win the Battle of Britain? The person most responsible for directing that decisive battle was Britain's Chief Air Marshal, Sir Hugh Dowding, Commander in Chief of Fighter Command. But he gave God the credit—having seen the Hand of God in the British victory achieved during that crucial battle. "I say with absolute conviction that I can trace the INTERVENTION OF GOD, not only in the battle itself, but in the events which led up to it, and that if it had not been for this [divine] intervention, the battle would have been joined in conditions which, humanly speaking, would have rendered victory impossible!"

A ferocious, revengeful Hitler had planned to invade Britain on August 16, 1940—but with the defeat of the Luftwaffe by the R.A.E, he had to postpone "Operation Sea Lion" indefinitely!

Three years after the Battle of Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, preached a sermon in St. Paul's Cathedral, London, on September 26, 1943. He asked, "Why has God preserved us? We [British] may, and we must, believe that He who has led our fathers in ways so strange, and has preserved our land in a manner so marvelous, has a purpose for us.... In the tradition of our nation and our Empire we are entrusted with a treasure to be used for the welfare of mankind."

But did Archbishop Temple realize that his people, the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples of Britain, were, in fact, the modern descendants of those peoples called "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" (Encyc. Brit., vol. II, p. 627)—descendants of those very Israelites who were taken captive to "Assyria" and the "cities of the Medes" in the latter part of the eighth century B.C. (2 Kings 17:6)? Probably not! Yet God inspired several prophecies in the Bible that He would grant victory to those descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes "in the last days" (Gen. 49; Deut. 33; Micah 5).

The desperate events at the outbreak of World War II should soberly remind us, "No king is saved by the multitude of an army; a mighty man is not delivered by great strength..... Behold the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, on those who hope in His mercy, to deliver their soul from death…” (Ps. 33:16, 18).

Even today—55 years after the Battle of Britain—it would be difficult to convince many of Britain's older generation that the LORD God Almighty did not bring about the circumstances of both the "Miracle at Dunkirk" and the Battle of Britain! These British people still believe the events of those crucial battles clearly reveal that a divine "Hand" had preserved their nation in their hour of desperation—when they stood all alone against Hitler's fearsome Nazi juggernaut!

Top of Page     Bottom of Page

by Staff

Notice what Christ told the Pharisees, who were looking for a sign of the Messiah: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and NO SIGN will be given to it EXCEPT the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:39-40).

The only sign Jesus gave to prove He was the Messiah was the length of time He would be in the grave—exactly “three days and three nights” (or 72 hours). But the Easter tradition maintains that Christ was crucified just before sunset on “Good Friday” afternoon and resurrected early Sunday morning—only two nights and one day (or 36 hours)!

Some will argue the definition of “day.” Christ clearly stated, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9). Easter proponents take that remark and conclude that Christ was in the grave 3 days x 12 hours = 36 hours. However, this leaves out the “three nights.” There are approximately 12 hours of daytime and 12 hours of nighttime in one 24-hour day! So three days and three nights is definitely 72 hours.

Also consider that, when the women, “it was still dark” (John 20:1) and He had already risen. How could this be? The Sunday resurrection proponents contend that He had risen just moments before. If they are correct, then “three days and three nights” earlier would be just before sunrise on Thursday morning—or any morning for that matter—and with good reason. When Joseph of Arimathea laid Christ’s body in the tomb, “the Sabbath drew near” (Luke 23:50-54). Biblical days, including Sabbaths, begin at sunset and end the following sunset (see Gen. 1:5; Lev. 23:32)—a nighttime period followed by a daytime period.

Christ was buried just before a particular Sabbath began at sunset. Three days and three nights later would be the exact same time of day—just before sunset. Now we have another problem. If we assume that Christ was crucified and buried on Friday afternoon, as the Good Friday tradition asserts, then His resurrection—72 hours later—would be Monday afternoon. Yet no one believes this either! What, then, is the answer?

Why have so many thought that Christ was put in the grave on Friday afternoon? Mark 15:42 states that “it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” Since the weekly Sabbath always occurred on the seventh day of the week (now called Saturday), the “Preparation Day” was normally on Friday. However, we have already seen the problem with this. The answer to the apparent dilemma is that the weekly Sabbath is not the only Sabbath mentioned in the Bible. Leviticus 23 lists seven annual holy days which occur in God’s festivals. Each of these days was considered a Sabbath (or a “rest” from normal labor). All of these Annual Sabbaths or “High Days” (except Pentecost) fell on particular calendar days rather than set days of the week.

Now the mystery can be solved by reading John 19:31. The Jews wanted to remove the crucifixion victims “because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a HIGH DAY).” Christ kept the Passover with His disciples the night before His death (Luke 22:15). He was crucified the next afternoon, which was still Passover (the 14^th of Abib or Nisan on God’s Sacred Calendar—Lev. 23:5). Leviticus 23:6-7 reports that the next day, beginning the evening after His crucifixion, was NOT a weekly Sabbath, but an Annual Sabbath—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Putting together the facts, it is clear that Christ was crucified on Passover afternoon—a Wednesday that year—and resurrected exactly three days and three nights later, at the end of the Saturday Sabbath. That’s why the women found Him already gone Sunday morning. The Bible shows Christ was NOT resurrected on Sunday. So His disciples would NEVER have observed it!

by Roderick C. Meredith

War is a reality people face daily, whether in the news headlines or in interpersonal conflicts. The March 26, 1995, San Francisco Examiner reports, "President Clinton's acceptance of an invitation to a Moscow summit May 9, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe (V E) Day, is significant.... The memory of the Red Army's triumph over Hitler's previously invulnerable war machine has been the only genuine source of patriotic pride left to the Russian people amid acute difficulties in rebuilding the nation on the ruins of communism" (p. A-22).

The Second World War exacted a staggering cost in human life and material resources. Millions of civilians and military personnel died. The toll in human misery far exceeded that of the First World War which had been labeled "the War to end all wars.” But of course, it did not end human conflict; neither did World War II.

Has humanity learned anything from these traumatic upheavals? The political mess surrounding Russia's behavior in its Chechnyan conflict has complicated President Clinton's presence at the May V-E Day ceremonies in Moscow. The ugly, unsettling scene of this big Slavic nation beating up a small, neighboring people sadly calls to mind Nazi Germany's previous behavior. The political irony is indeed painful to many in the American government: "The military's dismal showing in Chechnya, compounded by accusations that the troops there committed atrocities against civilians, threatened to...overshadow Moscow's celebration of the great victory against Nazi Germany" (p. A-22). Same song, different verse?

Notice what the San Francisco Examiner also reported, the same day the above story appeared, in a tag-along article about resurgent Russian nationalism: "More than 40 years after his death, Stalin is back. In a society crying out for heroes, the brutal Soviet dictator has become a symbol of the glories of the past.... Historians have estimated that as many as 50 million people [some say 75 million] died in Stalin's reign of terror from 1928 to 1953. Millions were slaughtered in his purges, and millions more died in his gulags and his forced collectivization campaigns. But none of that seems to matter to his growing legion of followers. To them, what matters is that Stalin brought respect to their country. Some recent polls have suggested that Stalin is more popular than most of Russia's contemporary political leaders. And as they prepare for the 50th anniversary of their victory over Nazi Germany, many Russians are awash in an ocean of nostalgia for the Stalinist era" (p. A-19).

Today's daily reality of horror, injustice and the lack of peace is overwhelming. It doesn't seem that anything has been learned!

What is the cause of these evils? The simple answer can be found in your Bible. God inspired the Apostle James to write, "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war" (James 4:1-2). Our evil human nature seeks to satisfy the self at the expense of others. This is the root of the problem. We, and the whole world with us, are enslaved to our own selfish passions. Yes, we live in a world held captive! It is captive not only to war and violence, but also to fears, anxieties, unhappiness, depression, emptiness and confusion.

It is 50 years, this spring, since the Allies crushed the bloody Nazis. Today, songwriters, philosophers, politicians and religious figures speak of the need for "love" as the antidote to much of what ails our world. They longingly speak of a utopian world of love and brotherhood. But fair speeches and good words have not produced a healing effect because the cause of war has not been understood; therefore, the solution, which is real love, has been rejected!

Everyday Reality, Everyday Love

An earnest woman declared to me, "I don't go to church anymore, but I just wish we could all love one another and live by the Golden Rule.” She said she had dropped out of church because so many church-goers were—as she put it—"a pack of hypocrites who go to church on Sunday morning and then lie and cheat and sleep around the rest of the week.” This woman's church was part of the problem, not the solution.

But consider her "prescription" for right conduct—to "love one another and live by the Golden Rule.” Would that solve society's problems? What it leaves unanswered is the issue of who will tell us how to love one another? Who will tell us when or if to tell a "white lie" to help someone? Who will tell us if or under what conditions we may divorce? Who will tell us when our nation should engage in "just wars" and when it is okay to kill other human beings in a time of war? How can we know how to love?

Love is the answer, but not the syrupy, sentimental "love" of songwriters or the vague emotional "love" of religionists or the feel-good, do-good "love" of politicians. The solution is the love of God which is not some vague and ethereal feeling, emotion or concept: God's love is practical, easily definable and cross-cultural.

God Defines Love

God's Word tells us that true love does not exist outside the framework of God's law: "For this is the love of God, that we KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS" (1 John 5:3). And God is love (1 John 4:8). Of course! Love, or outflowing concern for others, is God's character—His very way of life. This way of life is His law! When God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, He kept the Ten Commandments. Why? Because they express love.

The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking Him which was the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:36). He answered: "`You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (w. 37-40).

Now, did Jesus come up with these all of a sudden, as some great New Testament teaching? No! He was quoting the Old Testament (cf. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). Christ was showing that the "Law and the Prophets"—the Bible (which, at that time, was only the Old Testament)—taught the way of LOVE. Do these two commandments do away with the Ten Commandments? No, because the Ten Commandments "hang" on them! The first four display love toward God while the last six display love toward neighbor.

To keep the two Great Commandments you MUST KEEP the Ten Commandments. Romans 13:10 makes it abundantly clear: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10 NRSV). How plain! Would God do away with His own way of life? Nonsense! God's law is love. It was given to make man happy and is the only way of life that can. It is for our good. Those who claim it is a harsh yoke of bondage don't know what they are talking about!

Christ, the Lawgiver at Sinai, made clear the results of living the law of love: "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess" (Deut. 30:15-16).

Jesus Christ reiterated these principles while teaching His disciples before He was betrayed. "As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.... This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" (John 15:9-10, 12-14).

The Law of LIBERTY and Love

What all mankind needs to recognize is that God's Ten Commandments are truly a law of LOVE. The Bible tells us, "God is LOVE" (1 John 4:16). His commandments truly reflect that perfect love. That is why—as we have seen—the Bible states, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). God's love flows down the channel—or riverbed—of the Ten Commandments. These commandments tells us how to love God and how to love our neighbor. Without the guidance of the Ten Commandments, human societies—CUT OFF from God and heavily influenced by Satan the Devil (Rev. 12:9}—tend to fall into utter confusion about what is right and what is wrong.

Many complain that the Ten Commandments are too negative. They see the God who gave them as either a stern, harsh tyrant who yells "Thou Shalt Not!" at people, without any regard to their feelings, or just a big nag who harps on us with do's and don'ts—mostly don'ts. These modern freethinkers wish that God had written the law as ten positive statements. Some of them have even presumed to actually write them this way, exalting their own wisdom above God's.

Is a mother being too negative if she stops her child from touching a hot burner on the stove by saying, "Don't touch"? What about telling a child not to run out into a busy intersection? Just the same, the things that God tells us not to do are things that would bring us harm. He is not prohibiting us doing anything that's good for us. The Oxford Companion to the Bible explains this well:

"The Ten Commandments were of great value as summations of the demands of God, easily remembered by reference to the ten fingers of the hand. As negative statements, they helped shape the community's recognition of those kinds of conduct that simply ruined life in community and so could not be allowed. They were not intended to be legalistic in character or in effect; they were to ward off conduct from the community that could be its ruin. Positive law must develop in association with these pithy, negatively put demands. Rather than such `do's and don'ts' encouraging oppressive control of a society by its leaders, they are a summons to a life FREED to enjoy existence in community" (pp. 737-738).

The Ten Commandments bring the real freedom and liberty of a joyous life well worth living. Notice that they are here referred to as "summations of the demands of God.” As such, they are foundational principles on which all other laws of God are based. David brings out this principle when he says that they are exceedingly broad (Ps. 119:96).

The whole Bible is required to fully understand "the law.” The whole Bible shows how the Ten Commandments statutes and judgments work hand in hand to give a complete picture of how to govern human conduct for the benefit of society and the individual.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether" (Ps. 19:7-9).

Laws Define Relationships and Every Good Thing

Thousands of years before recent scientific research, God instructed people about low-fat diets, adequate rest and sleep and positive emotions as major factors in good health (cf. Lev. 7:24-26; Ps. 127:2; Eph. 4:29-32).

God knew good marital relationships were built on love, respect and communication. He warned of the destructiveness of infidelity. God as our Maker knew what would bring peace in our lives (cf. Job 24:15-17).

God's laws, statutes and judgments are all about relationships. They require faithfulness, loyalty, trust, honesty, truth and generosity. They express God's concern for our physical, emotional and spiritual health as individuals and communities.

The Apostle James was inspired to write, "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, `Do not commit adultery,' also said, `Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty" (James 2:10-12).

It is obvious here that the "whole law" James is discussing is the Ten Commandments for he quotes some of them. And he tells us that Christians will be "judged" by these very laws. Yet he calls the Ten Commandments the "law of liberty." Observance of the Ten Commandments—especially if they were kept in the "spirit" or intent as Jesus explained in the Sermon on the Mount—would indeed give us a utopia. There would be no murder, no adultery, no disrespect to parents, no lying, no stealing and not even any covetousness! And mankind would truly worship and OBEY the Creator in the WAY He tells us to!

Again, remember that there is NOT ONE GOOD THING that is denied us by God or by His law! The deep enjoyment of family, parties, picnics, the right enjoyment of food, wine, sports, travel and romance—all of these fit perfectly into God's plan for humanity. In fact, chronologically speaking, the very first "commandment" our loving God gave humans was, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28)!

In modern language, God told this handsome young Adam and his beautiful wife, Eve, to love each other fully and have lots of kids. Be happy. Enjoy your marriage! And the Bible says, "God BLESSED them," as He gave them this loving command.

John Adams, second president of the United States and one of its foremost Founding Fathers, recognized the importance of God's law:

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Conscience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards Almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust...no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men—no man would blaspheme his maker or profane his worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopa [Utopia], what a Paradise would this region be" (Diary, Feb. 22, 1756).

Quite an analysis from that former president! And yet, it is so true that if all of us would live by God's ways and practice the Ten Commandments as a way of life, we would indeed have a Utopia!

The Law a Light, Not a Burden

Yet, an extremely clever and diabolically cunning Satan has come along and DECEIVED even most theologians into believing and teaching that the Ten Commandments are "done away" or "not necessary" for New Covenant Christians! They contrive clever arguments which say that God's magnificent "law of liberty" is somehow "burdensome" or "too difficult" or something else that is bad or impossible.

They seem to throw into the trash bin Jesus' direct statement, "If you want to enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS" (Matt. 19:17). Again, they forget the Apostle John's very clear statement at the END of the New Testament, "He who says, `I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" ( 1 John 2:4).

What they fail to fully realize is that the cause of our enslavement in a brutal, war-torn world is rejection of God's law.

Lawbreaking-Cause of Evils

All of man's problems are the result of broken law. The Bible calls this sinning: "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4 KJV). Sadly, after almost 6,000 years of deciding for himself the right way to go, mankind is still blind to this reality: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). Man has sought peace and harmony for ages, yet it has eluded his grasp: "The way of peace they have not known" (Is. 59:8). In all of man's legislating, he has not yet designed a governmental system which works apart from God's law. James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and fourth president, realized this all too well. He wrote: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God" (America's Christian Heritage: A Collection of Dates, Events, Decrees, Quotations and Proclamations, Plymouth Rock Foundation).

Why Men Reject the Law

Why, then, is God's law always under attack? It is because carnal man hates God's law and rebels against the idea of a supreme God in heaven who can COMMAND him what to do! Thus, many modern theologians wrest and pervert Scripture in a vain effort to overthrow God's commandments. The Apostle Paul was inspired to write, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7). In other words, the natural, fleshly, mind of man does NOT want any Higher Power telling it what to do. He resents the idea of a Supreme Spirit Personality COMMANDING him how to live. Most people prefer to believe in a "safe" god—a "god" way off in the sky or a "god" who is merely an idea, the essence of good, etc.

The God of the Bible commands us to love one another. "For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.... And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment" (1 John 3:11, 22-23).

However, God doesn't leave it up to our imagination to decide what love is. He tells us HOW TO LOVE! "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it" (2 John 6).

Those who seek to please Him will be sincerely practicing God's great law of love and righteousness. Peace will be the result: "Great peace have those who love Your law, and nothing causes them to stumble" (Ps. 119:165).

God's people are sensitive to the will of their Maker. Instead of excusing disobedience and blaming the law for their shortcomings, they acknowledge their sin, repent and renew their commitment to obey God's law of love (cf. Ps. 51 ).

We have had quite a number of articles in The World Ahead magazine proving that true Christians ought to be keeping the Ten Commandments as a way of life. What we now want to do is to begin a series of articles, explaining in detail, HOW to keep the Ten Commandments!

This series is projected to start in the next issue of The World Ahead magazine. We hope all of you will watch for it, really study it and so be blessed in your relationship with God and with your fellow man. We hope that all of you will come to the place you can sincerely say, along with King David, "Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation" (Ps. 119:97-99).

Top of Page     Bottom of Page

by John H. Ogwyn

Few issues have become more divisive and more politicized in the last couple of decades than the issue of abortion on demand.

Some insist it is a crime which should be prohibited by the State. Others feel it is a purely personal matter in which a woman should be able to make an uninhibited choice. They consider state restrictions on abortion to be an invasion of personal privacy. How did abortion become such a partisan political issue?

The increasing violence and threat of violence against abortion clinics and the killing of abortion providers to prevent them from performing more abortions is considered "justifiable homicide" by some pro-lifers.

What should be the attitude of those who consider themselves Christian? Some Christians deem it their responsibility to get politically involved in supporting "pro-life" candidates. A few would go to whatever lengths necessary, legal or illegal, to save the life of the unborn. On the other hand, there are those who say that Christians must promote tolerance, that a woman's right to choose is a God-given right.

How have we arrived at this heated flashpoint? What does the abortion dilemma truly portend for our nation and our world?

A "Birthday Gift" for Jesus?

Early Christmas morning in 1984 three abortion clinics in Pensacola, Florida, were fire-bombed. The four perpetrators referred to it as a "birthday gift for Jesus.” They claimed that their act was justified by the "genocide against the unborn" that was taking place in those clinics.

A little over ten years later, it is apparent that such violence wasn't a totally isolated one-time occurrence. More recently, two abortion doctors were slain in Pensacola within months of one another. Dr. David Gunn was shot in 1993, and in August 1994, his replacement, Dr. John Britton, was cut down by a 12-gauge shotgun in his clinic parking lot.

By the end of the day on which Dr. Britton was shot, President Clinton was on television calling the event "an act of domestic terrorism" and promising more federal aid to local police. Time magazine stated in an August 8, 1994, article entitled "Avenging the Unborn" that, within the first fifteen months after the 1993 death of Dr. Gunn, "...two Supreme Court rulings, an act of Congress and dozens of state and local ordinances contributed to the impression that few places on earth could be much safer than an abortion clinic"—except, of course, for the unborn! Some commentators suggest these new federal laws regarding such slayings seem to esteem abortion providers of greater worth to society than just about anyone else.

Those who shoot abortion providers and blow up abortion clinics represent a tiny, extreme fringe of those opposed to abortion on demand. However, as public demonstrations outside abortion clinics have become increasingly common, heightened emotions have infused the confrontations of pro- and anti-abortionists with a vitriol sometimes leading to violence. Anti-abortion demonstrators are accused by the abortion providers of harassing their clients and blocking access to their clinics. Abortion clinic demonstrations must now be conducted according to strict federal regulations which, in the eyes of some, limit an American's right of free speech.

The climate of the abortion debate in the United States has become increasingly polarized, politicized and embittered. Such a hostile atmosphere is reminiscent of the political climate extant for several decades in America before the Civil War broke out in 1861.

The Politicization of Abortion

Abortion is a fairly recent entry into the theater of American politics. Yet, it has increasingly become the litmus test for many voters. Some are unwilling to vote for anyone who advocates keeping abortion legal, while others will oppose any candidate who wishes to restrict it in any way. How did we arrive at this circumstance?

In ancient times abortion, along with infanticide, was widely practiced in many cultures. This remained common in many Eastern societies up until the advent of European influence in modern times. The view that human life has intrinsic value, not merely utilitarian value, derives from the Bible (cf. Gen. 9:6). It IS NOT a view that was shared by most pagan societies.

In the first and second centuries, as more and more people across the Roman Empire began to be influenced by the Bible and some of its teachings, public acceptance of abortion declined. Thus, in Europe, abortion came to be increasingly viewed as both sinful and criminal. This approach set the stage for American attitudes and laws which prevailed up until the latter part of this century.

Two events converged in the early 1960s that focused national attention on restrictive abortion laws and aroused sympathy for efforts to liberalize them. In 1962, it became known that the drug thalidomide, a new tranquilizer which had achieved quick popularity in Europe, could cause terrible birth defects if taken by pregnant women.

The case of an American woman who had taken thalidomide in Europe, and later learned she was pregnant, attracted much public attention. Fearful of having a deformed baby, she sought to have an abortion in her home state of Arizona but was unable to obtain one legally. Amid national publicity, she and her husband ultimately went to Sweden where she had the abortion.

Two years later, in 1964, a rubella measles epidemic swept the United States. Many pregnant women who were exposed to the epidemic became fearful of giving birth to deformed babies and sought abortions. These two incidents created a climate far more sympathetic to loosening abortion prohibitions.

At the same time, the rebellious mood of the 1960s and 1970s was like a tidal wave overturning and demolishing long-accepted standards. Popular press theologians were writing about "situational ethics." Civil rights and anti-war marches threatened to tear apart the existing social fabric in the name of personal freedom. The list of what constituted civil rights seemed to endlessly expand.

At the Berkeley campus of the University of California the Free Speech Movement quickly degenerated into the dirty speech movement. Rock music, drugs, and "free love" became increasingly common among young people. It was the time of hippies, "do your own thing," and the Woodstock generation.

In such a confrontational context, the radical feminist movement emerged. Abortion upon demand was presented under the guise of a civil rights issue for women. On January 22, 1973, by a seven to two margin, the United States Supreme Court in the Roe versus Wade case, overturned virtually all laws restricting abortion in the United States. A mad scramble ensued in Congress and in state legislatures to pass new laws to replace those overturned by the Court. At this point, abortion entered full tilt into the realm of partisan politics. Why did the abortion debate become so increasingly bitter and divisive? The answer lies in a fact that has profound implications!

The Collapse of America's Moral Consensus

The 1960s witnessed the dramatic erosion of moral consensus in the United States and, indeed, in much of the rest of the Western world. A general acceptance of certain clear-cut, Judeo-Christian moral teachings which were rooted in the Bible had been a hallmark of Western civilization for centuries. The 1960s simply represented the culmination of a long string of events which had set the stage for collapse of this general consensus.

This century's first crisis in moral values was engendered by World War I and its aftermath. But this social confusion was felt more in Europe with its cabarets, defeatist attitudes and rising sexual immorality. In America, the excesses of the Roaring Twenties were soon checked by the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In the 1960s, however, individualistic freedom increasingly became the watchword. The problem was that when viewed apart from moral law, freedom became confused with anarchy. Liberal Protestant theologians provided an ideological framework for the hippies by claiming that love somehow replaced law. These religious authorities did not understand the biblical teaching that love is fulfilling the law (Rom. 13:10). If there is not a spiritual law that sets moral absolutes, a person can rationalize virtually any action as being "the most loving thing under the circumstances.” Situational ethics flourished and "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

Heart-rending stories of terrible deformities, rape and incest were often recounted by abortion proponents in an effort to capture the moral high ground in the media during the abortion debate. Statistically small in number, these problem incidents had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with usual reasons the average woman chose to have an abortion under the newly liberalized laws. Abortion quickly became the most common surgical procedure performed in America. About ninety-nine percent of abortions are performed for purely social and economic convenience reasons, not because of any grave danger to the mother's health. Abortion has far more to do with the permissive, self-indulgent moral climate in our land today than it does with rape or danger to the mother's life.

The opinion of the Supreme Court's most liberal member at the time of its 1974 abortion decision, William O. Douglas, demonstrated the equation of freedom with moral anarchy. Justice Douglas wrote that childbirth "...may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future" (Donald DeMarco, Abortion in Perspective). The opinion of Justice Douglas crystallized the real spirit behind the pro-abortion position advocated by the feminist movement.

As the moral consensus about everything from abortion to capital punishment evaporated in this country, tolerance became the watchword. About the only thing the politically correct wouldn't tolerate was the idea that all values aren't created equal. If your ethics were rooted in moral certainties based upon the law of God, you were viewed as narrow-minded and, well, downright intolerant!

Is God Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

The advocates of abortion on demand and the violent anti-abortionists have one major thing in common. They are both guilty of moral anarchy. Going all the way back to the Garden of Eden, when our first parents took of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, human beings have wanted to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. It is not up to man to decide what is good and what is evil. God has already established His absolute laws which define sin ( 1 John 3:4). Man's only choice rests not in defining WHAT is right and wrong, but WHETHER he will DO right or wrong.

The Prophet Jeremiah understood this concept when he wrote, "O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jer. 10:23).

The millions of illegitimate children raised in the poverty of single parent homes, the millions of tiny human beings sucked dismembered from their mothers' wombs in abortion clinics, and the millions of abused and unwanted children passionately contradict the 1960's slogan, "free love."

The idea that immorality is a "victimless crime" has sounded good to millions, but its hollow ring is apparent when the consequences to our society are examined. Selfish rejection of moral restraint and obligation threaten the dissolution of our society and clearly invite the judgment of Almighty God.

What should be the response of Christians in today's world? When Jesus Christ of Nazareth was on trial for His life before Pontius Pilate, He stated, "My kingdom is hot of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight" (John 18:36). The true servants of God are not going to be out fighting and warring to straighten out the evils of this world, any more than Christ Himself did when He walked the earth as a human almost 2000 years ago. The Roman Empire was full of injustice, immorality and oppression. But Christ didn't command His followers to go out and kill the local Roman ruler who was enacting Caesar's laws. On the other hand, Christians will not selfishly insist on their personal freedom to pursue their preferred lifestyle at the expense of others (Phil. 2:3-4).

Rather, the true followers of Christ will do as Jesus did, and be about our Father's business of proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the whole world as a witness (Matt. 24:14). God's saints, presently without civil authority, are now to shine as lights of a higher moral standard, reflected in selfless service to the welfare of others (Phil. 2:15-16).

In the context of today's debate, is God "pro-choice" or "pro-life"? Well, it is true that God gives to all of us a choice. Nowhere are we told, however, that one choice is as good as another. God gave to ancient Israel His laws. He said "You shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you" (Deut. 5:33). In Deuteronomy 30:19, God told the nation, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" (KJV). God indeed gives us a choice, but He also tells us that there is only one RIGHT choice! That right choice is one of obedience to God's law. It is not the choice to murder (Ex. 20:13). It is the choice of life!

Top of Page

WA Home Page

Magazine Home Page     Denver Home Page