Worldviews
The Newsletter of the Apologetics Resource Center
November/December 2004

ARC at the Crossroads
Those of you who received and read our October Ministry Update learned a little about our hopes and struggles. Our struggle is in financial support, which allows our ministry to function currently and to grow. I noted that in the last quarter, donations averaged $19,500 per month with average expenses at $28,000. I also noted that one staff member had not received a paycheck in four months, which coupled with an existing deficit made our overall deficit $53,800. We need to pay our debt and increase our monthly support by $10,000 in order to stay alive and grow.

Thanks to the generosity of some of you in October-November, we have reduced our overall debt from $53,800 to $40,405. This deficit still includes one staff member’s salary for now five months. We must have the Body of Christ come alongside and partner with us to 1) pay the existing deficit and 2) become monthly or periodic supporters in order for us to continue.

Now for the encouraging news…

What We Do
ARC is a unique ministry in its focus. We are here to edify, educate, exhort, and equip the Church in a significant area of neglect--apologetics, in a crucial time of the history of the Church. Remember we define apologetics wholistically as 1) knowing the truth--sound doctrine and discipleship; 2) defending the truth--answer people’s objections, questions, doubts, barriers to faith (evangelism); 3) advancing the truth--fulfilling our calling to be life-giving salt and light in the culture; and 4) being the truth--living authentically.

We are here to also minister individually--coaching, counseling and coming alongside of those who have loved ones of friends in cults or other religions, or those who have particular barriers or objections to accepting Christ. For example, this year we:

  1. Sent many free information packets on a wide rage of topics to inquirers.
  2. Conducted seminars in Tanzania, Africa to hundreds of pastors.
  3. Organized a major conference on Christian roles in government and culture.
  4. Taught our Sunday School curriculum in a number of churches.
  5. Conducted seminars in many local churches in Alabama.
  6. Taught courses in seminary and Bible colleges preparing men and women for ministry.
  7. Counseled and helped many in their personal questions and encounters with others.
  8. Produced six excellent journals for education and equipping.
  9. Approached 400 seminaries and Bible colleges about carrying our journals in their libraries.
  10. Began the process of opening two new offices in Kansas City and Anniston/Oxford.
  11. Traveled to Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Louisiana Michigan, and Missouri to teach and train in churches.
  12. Contributed scores of articles for the upcoming Baker’s Encyclopedia of Cults and World Religions.
  We could have done much more if we were not confined by a lack of resources.

ARC Opportunities for 2005
The following are wonderful possibilities, but only if the Body of Christ comes alongside to financially and prayerfully partner with us. The encouraging thing is that something is beginning to happen and we’re not yet sure about what it means. We believe God is preparing something.

One of our long-time prayer requests is for expanded office space. We are in a house which is to be torn down and cleared for an office building. With four staff, a huge research library (one of the best in existence), a file and work room, we are really cramped. One half of our resource library is still not unpacked.

Well, all of a sudden, two ministry colleagues called me within the same week, independently of each other and offered us a lot of good furniture and hundreds of resource videos on cults, evolution and creation, cultural issues, etc. The furniture includes two administrative desks, nice filing cabinets, book cases, credenzas, display racks, and four desks and chairs. Thank you Larry Taunton of Fixed-Point Ministry, Covenant Presbyterian Church, and Norris Anderson!

What does this mean (especially the number of desks!)? We now have three sharp young men who want to be interns/contingent staff with us in Birmingham. Our goal is to have five full-time staff for five leading churches locally and two additional staff to minister to churches in general. With two administrators, that equals nine desks. We now have nine desks! All we need now is the building and support. Is God moving you to help with this?

Also--
1. We are working on a singles ministry development networking several churches.
2. Clete is scheduled to minister in Mexico early next year.
3. We want to finalize formal curriculum for high school.
4. Continue to expand those things listed earlier in “What We Do.”
5. Organize a major conference addressing why there is such a large political gap between the black and white evangelical and what we can do to close the gap.
6. Procure an office building where we could combine several apologetics oriented individuals and ministries in order to have a more productive, coordinated ministry synergy.
7. A possibility of starting a new office in Pennsylvania.

Join Us--
  In America, we are living in an age of plenty but many souls are empty. Even the Church struggles with materialism, consumerism, hedonism, and secularism. Pluralism and relativism are dominating our culture. Cults, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism are mission fields on our doorstep. Islam has global implications.
  We are taking Romans 12:1-2 seriously as well as the Great Commission and cultural mandate. We need you, the Body of Christ to team with us. If not we will fade away. Yes, God does it, but He normally does it in and through the hearts and priorities of the Church. Prayerfully read 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 to understand this.
  May God richly bless you in 2005 with fruit in your life, your families, in personal evangelism, and ministry to those so desperately in need.

Alternative “Medicine”
Americans’ number one priority or preoccupation is personal health and fitness. In our postmodern culture (i.e. experientialism vs. science, feelings over truth) this obsession has given rise to an uncritical acceptance of much quackery in the health field.

The blind acceptance of “natural” and “holistic” remedies by many, coupled with the direct intervention of Senator Tom Haskin (who believes his hay fever was cured by bee pollen), spawned the Office of Alternative Medicine under the National Institutes of Health in 1991. In 1998 the OAM became the National Center for Complementary (the new politically correct term) and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). In the last seven years the Center has produced nothing substantial, just smoke and mirrors.

In the mid 90’s, I was involved in a major expose of scientific fraud and misconduct of a “research” on Therapeutic Touch, conducted by two new age nursing professors at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, with $355,000 of our tax dollars granted by the Department of Defense. Providentially I discovered they were manipulating the data and protocol. I made the misconduct known to the University and to the press. This caused the researchers to report that Therapeutic Touch had no healing effects. For information on Therapeutic Touch, or other “energy” medicine, homeopathy, aromatherapy or applied kinesiology, send in the form at the bottom of the newsletter.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying all so-called alternative (natural) approaches are without merit. Just most. Some herbs are beneficial as are some diets, but not all. Consult the list on our website under “Free Information Packets” to see many of the fraudulent practices. Also it would be helpful for you to get a copy of one of the books we carry concerning alternative medicine. They are also listed at the bottom of the newsletter.

In a recent Psychology Today story (March/April 2004) statistics indicated 1/2 to 2/3 of Americans have used alternative therapies, more often than conventional ones, and have spent more than $30 billion a year on them. Part of that number is chiropractors, who can be legitimate in a limited range of treatments, yet many in that field are new age practitioners.

Two of the more prominent “stealth” new age activities are transcendental meditation (TM) and yoga. Actually any type of induced altered state of meditation is problematic. We challenged, fought, and won a victory in Alabama a decade ago prompting a policy/law prohibiting their use in public schools statewide. But we continue to read increasing numbers of stories about their infiltration around the country. For an understanding of their approaches, techniques, strategy as well as an action plan to address and remove such programs, order a copy of the book I co-authored with John Ankerburg and Weldon, Public Schools: The Sorcerer’s New Apprentice? from the ARC.

Some examples:
NBC News reported (5/12/04) that Chelsea Academy (private school) in Maryland started a pilot program using TM to treat ADHD students. They believe it helped the students and now the academic head is “excited about being able to take it to all the students.” Not only is this direct indoctrination into Hinduism, but TM produces a medical condition called relaxation-induced anxiety in a significant percentage of people.

The Washington Post published a story (11/06/04) about TM’s Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment’s program being implemented “in public schools in New York, Michigan, California (no surprise), Minnesota, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and other places.” They cannot legally do this due to the Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—the so-called separation of Church and State. The 4th Circuit Appellate Court already ruled on it. Sounds like other states need to pursue legal prevention.

The Register Guard of Eugene, Oregon ran a story (10/31/04) on the mainstream growth of yoga. Yoga leader’s surmise that the growth is due to the increasing need for stress-relief in Americans. It is a $22.5 billion industry and it could only happen in America. Marketing yoga (it’s all about the money—and enlightenment) now includes tennis/yoga classes, in-flight yoga classes on some airlines, cross-training in college athletics, professional baseball, football, basketball and golf players, family yoga, teenage yoga, mother and baby yoga, yoga business training classes, wellness retreats and health clubs, and get this—disco yoga and punk rock yoga. One yoga director captures the reason yoga is booming, “You get joyful when you do it because it brings you into that place of spirit…People are really hungry. We want to feel heart-ful…You have to have an open mind. If you’re narrow-minded, you probably won’t like it.” Order a back issue copy of our Areopagus Journal on yoga to be aware of the issues. The fields are ripe for the harvest, “but the workers are few.”

New reports on the multi-level marketing company, Herbalife, are coming from Belgium. An investigation by officials there has determined that Herbalife was guilty of a pyramid scheme. This means that the primary method of sales is through recruitment of salesmen and selling a beginning stock of the product to them instead of selling to the public at retail.

Cult Notes

1. The International Church of Christ (originally called the Boston Church of Christ) has been an aggressive cult since the early 80’s. Their legalism, strict control of members, and their aggressive proselytizing has left a multitude of psychological-spiritual casualties over the years.
   
   Many college campuses have banned them from their activities on campus. Yet they continued to grow, especially among young adults, 130,000 worldwide. Then the legal load finally became too heavy and two of the major churches—London and Chicago—woke up and began to rebel. As criticism began to spread and boil from within, the leader, Kip McKean, resigned apologizing for “arrogance” and other sins, especially of having wayward children.
   
   Now is the time to reach out to their church members. If you know anyone in the ICOC (usually they take the name of the city they’re in, like the Birmingham Church of Christ) or of anyone in a normal Church of Christ (there are a few exceptions—COC that understands grace), call upon us to help you reach them.
   
2. Judaism—Yes, Jews still become Christians. Jews comprise only about 4% of the U.S. population. Most of those are not orthodox. Many are just secular with a cultural identification. Many Christians believe that Israel and Jews still have a special arrangement in God’s end time plan. Yet other Christians and scholars do not—based on a methodical interpretation of the Bible. In any event we should all believe that we need to evangelize the Jews.
   
   Understandably, most Jews strongly oppose such a belief. Nothing infuriates religious Jews more than an organization called Jews for Jesus. Jewish leaders are not opposed to Christians being able to evangelize, but they draw the line when Jews claim to be truly Jewish after becoming a Christian.
   
   The 31-year-old Jews for Jesus group rightfully claims that Jesus is the Messiah. They also hold the position that Christianity is Jewish. Jews for Jesus has seen about 1,000 Jews and 2900 non-Jews accept Christ in 38 cities worldwide during their Behold Your God campaign, begun in 2001. Now conservative Jewish groups are fighting back. They are holding meetings calling Jews for Jesus a cult. They even send out a counter-missionary squad, seeking to discredit those Jewish Christians trying to share their faith.
   
3. Mormonism—An extraordinary event took place at the “Mecca” of Mormonism last month, the Mormon Tabernacle on Temple Square. On November 14, the “Prophet”-President of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) Gordon Hinckley allowed Christ-apologist Ravi Zacharias to speak/preach there.
   
   This amazing opportunity, an open door, was generated out of an ongoing dialogue between a small group of Christian scholars and Mormon theological professors at BYU. Ravi also spoke to about 1,000 students at Weber State and about 1,500 students at the University of Utah on the following topics: “The Loss of Truth: The Crumbling Moral Foundation” and “The Basis for Truth: Defending Absolute Truth.” The predominantly Mormon student audiences gave Ravi a standing ovation.
   Ravi, who is the general editor of the latest (and best) release of Walter Martin’s classic, Kingdom of the Cults, had a rare opportunity to also meet with the LDS First Presidency (the “Prophet” and two “Apostle” advisors). They met for about 25 minutes in a setting which was “formal but very cordial.” Hinckley asked Ravi about RZIM and his personal ministry.
   
   On Sunday night Ravi addressed an overflow crowd of 7,500 at the Mormon Tabernacle. His topic was “Who is Truth? Defending Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Ravi specifically focused on “The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Christ.” One of the concerns among many Christian apologists addressing Mormonism was that Ravi be aware and able to penetrate the dual meanings in Mormon terminology. Mormonism uses the same words or terminology as Christianity, as well as similar concepts, but with contrary actual meanings.
   
   For example, Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, Mary, was crucified and resurrected for our sins and is coming again in final judgment. Mormonism also teaches that mankind is saved by grace through faith in the blood (sacrifice) of Jesus. But when one studies and understands the actual meaning behind those terms and concepts, (s)he discovers an entirely different god, Jesus, and gospel. To be effective in the communicative dimension of evangelism, one must 1) understand the differences, 2) clarify the differences, and 3) communicate the significance of those differences in our proclamation (2 Cor. 11:3-4, 12-15; Matt. 24:23-24; Rom. 10:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:23-26; the book of Galatians).

We at ARC and other experts in Mormonism were able to provide input to Ravi as he prepared his talks. We have heard from apologists present that Ravi’s content was excellent. We are hoping to hear his presentation soon on a CD set. RZIM has told us that they will be available also through his ministry (www.rzim.org).

Also speaking briefly were those Christians who have been privately meeting with BYU professors. They were Craig Hazen of Biola University, Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, Joe Tkach, leader of the former cult Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, former Mormon Greg Johnson, and Fuller Seminary president, Richard Mouw.

With all the positive possibilities of this event, one speaker evoked a challenge and possible setback for the Christian apologetics community to the Mormons. That speaker was Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller. The substance of Mouw’s unfortunate remarks were his conclusions derived from his “half dozen years,” of “lengthy, closed-door discussions” about spiritual and theological matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. Mouw announced at the Tabernacle that “I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community…we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe…setting forth over simplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.”

Christian scholars/apologists are understandably upset at those conclusions, unqualifially presented at such a highly visible event. One top Christian apologist to Mormons, Bill McKeever sums it up, “Dr. Mouw’s unqualified comments gave Mormons all they wanted to hear, which is the idea that Christian evangelicals have been lying about them all along and now an evangelical leader is admitting it” (see McKeever’s analysis at www.mrm.org).

The following is the gist of the controversy. Christian apologists, by calling, are accountable to straddle two dimensions of responsibilities. The Scripture commands that we earnestly, publicly defend the faith (Jude 3-4 and many other passages), and to engage in personal, Spirit-controlled dialogue with those outside the faith (i.e. explaining the truth, correcting their errors), yet with gentleness, kindness, and patience (2 Tim. 2:23-26; 1 Pet. 3:15).

There is an obvious tension. The Bible presents a tone and manner of a strong, blunt pronouncement to the Church and public. Paul calls the false, counterfeit teachers, “evil dogs of the circumcision” (Titus 1:10), and Jesus calls them a “brood of vipers”, “blind guides”, and “white-washed tombs” (Matt. 23). The prophet Elijah publicly confronted and challenged the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20f). This is a passage the late Walter Martin frequently used to justify his public warnings.

Yet this profile doesn’t assist us in establishing a friendly point of contact with individual Mormons, fostering productive dialogue. So individually we either have to travel out of town to engage Mormons, or make contact with those who have not heard or read anything from us or about us. Or (which is much better) we coach or train Christian laymen to “speak the truth in love,” encouraging them to build relationships with their Mormon neighbor, earning the right to be heard, and hopefully seeing a supernatural difference in their lives. The first approach helps to awaken a slumbering body of Christ many of whom have been lulled to sleep by the calculated Mormon PR machine and the effects of postmodern pluralism in our culture. The second approach, sometimes termed missilogical, fosters better evangelistic fruit.

Another problem is that most contact with Mormons comes via visits from LDS missionaries. One doesn’t have time to build much of a relationship so we must sow some seeds of doubt, which collectively may have a significant impact later. God did allow me to be a part of the conversion of an LDS missionary in the last couple of months of his mission because other Christians, a couple whom we coached, planted seeds for several months before our concluding contact.

Are there Christian workers focused on Mormons who have a shallow, caricatured understanding of Mormonism? Yes. Are some Christian missionaries and apologists unnecessarily provocative in their approach? Yes. But, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. What appears to be the mindset of Dr. Mouw and his colleagues is that they hope to reproduce what happened in the Worldwide Church of God (WWCOG). Rather than see small incidental conversions occur at the grassroot level via the traditional apologetics approach, they hope to turn the whole LDS ship around by converting the captain, navigator, helmsmen, and ship’s officers. They hope for massive conversions rather than piecemeal. Noble hopes. But the WWCOG is structurally not like the LDS church. Yet it is still worth the attempt. God’s elect will come.

What Mouw made was a blanket statement lumping everyone into one. Another problem is that the BYU professors are demonstratively hypocritical in what they say to their Christian “counterparts” and in what they say to the LDS audience both in person and in print. Another issue is that most Mormons do not understand or even really know their own theology (the same unfortunately can be said of too many Christians), so often it is necessary to ask Mormons what they believe first, and then help them see and understand the bizarre, unjustified official LDS doctrine before we can share the true Jesus, gospel, and authority.

The biggest problem with Mouw’s approach is that BYU academics and their personal interpretations do not necessarily represent official LDS doctrine. Only the top general authorities can do that through four “standard works” (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price), and official pronouncements from the first presidency via church publications and general conferences. Another important point to factor in is that the 12 Apostles (general authorities) write books published by the church or other Mormon entities and allowed to circulate by the Prophet, which contains doctrinal teachings. Officially the LDS church recognized these publications as “authoritative” but not necessarily canon or Scripture. This distinction is problematic and practically insufficient.

Christian apologists are addressing the unfortunate remarks made by Mouw and others of his frame of mind. I hope that we will do it with balance, from a good knowledge base, and charitably as we are called to do in the Body of Christ. I will conclude by stating that this is not an either/or dilemma. Both approaches are good and right. We need to address Mormons and Mormonism both from the bottom up and from the top down. We must communicate, encourage and cross-pollinate with one another. For a proper and practical understanding of both Mormonism and how to witness to Mormons, order our recent Areogpagus Journal on Mormonism at the end of the newsletter.

Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
One of the watershed issues for 2005 will be same-sex marriage and civil unions. These two issues surfaced, much to the Democrat’s chagrin, in 2004. Christians who have any knowledge of their faith are adamantly against these practices on a moral level. But we are not so unanimous on the issue of establishing laws governing the marriage institution. We must apply the Scriptures intelligently as we think through the issues so that we can respond on point with those who disagree.

In a growing pluralistic, postmodern, relativistic culture, the common/natural law, Christian tradition-formed conscience of the older generation was rapidly evolving into a permissive one in the younger generation. The majority of people actually were buying into the theory that homosexuality was “normal.” A major barrier tumbled in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association changed their “bible”, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, to state that homosexuality was no longer considered abnormal.

Indeed, before the laws against homosexual marriage began to be challenged in California and Massachusetts, and before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, half of Americans believed that homosexual relations should be legal, and that same percentage either believed that homosexuals are born that way or were not sure. Even 1/3 of “born-again” Christians felt that way! Yet, then the reality of the implications came to bear with the same-sex marriage issue. People were forced to focus more seriously on it. The views began to change.

Barna’s 2004 research demonstrates that now 30% of all Americans believe that homosexuality is completely acceptable. It is significant (eye-opening) to note the breakdown by generation of that 30%. The “elders” (65+) comprise 14%, boomers (50-65) comprise 32%, Busters (35-50) comprise 41%, and Mosaics (20-35) comprise 40%. This gradual slide is due partly to the Church’s retreat, lack of absorbing a Biblical worldview, and subsequent accommodation to the culture sliding into paganism.

So what about Federal and State legislation? Remember the sentiments of Roman Catholic liberal John Kerry who said regarding abortion, “I am personally opposed to abortion but I don’t want to impose my religious beliefs on the country.” And he wanted us to trust our country’s welfare and future to such irrational and disingenuous thinking? Kerry is saying that religious-born values have no place in the market of ideas. So what is the basis, moral or otherwise, of anyone’s values? All legislation is someone’s values/morality. And everyone has a basis for their values/morality. Kerry must have had the same logic for homosexual marriage, as he was only one of 14 senators who voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

But when Republicans moved to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution this past July, they failed to even get it to the floor, with a 48-50 vote. Again, not every self-identified born-again Christian is sure that his/her view of marriage should become a federal law. Why is that? What is their concern?

Indeed the public is divided on the marriage amendment. Many are naive or complacent. Barna’s research (6/21/04) demonstrated that 37% of voting age adults had never heard of the amendment. When the amendment was described, 46% of all adults favored it, while 44% opposed it, and 10 % had no opinion. So what are the arguments against laws prohibiting same-sex marriage? The old saying, “The one who gets to frame the question wins the debate” is relevant here. Homosexual activists have had an impact trying to frame the issue as one on human or civil rights. Of course, their premise is that such laws are discriminating against genders or genetic predisposition.

The genetic argument has not been supported by scientific evidence, including the twin studies. Another false rhetorical argument is that such a large segment of the population (10%) are homosexuals. Again, this is based on a skewed, flawed Kinsey-prison inmate study. All other significant research has come up with a 3-4% number instead.
An alternative proposed to homosexual marriage is civil unions, not a legal marriage, but another category. For example, in civil unions, one doesn’t need to have a divorce decree to split. And the argument goes, it provides a way for homosexual couples to share insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, tax advantages, and other marriage perks. They point to the fact that much of Europe allows civil unions, as does Canada. Vermont allows them as do some large American cities.

As far as public opinion goes, 64% are against homosexual marriage and 54% are against civil unions. But public opinion is fluid. It often goes with the ability to spin the views, TV and news coverage, the rhetoric—not out of reasoned convictions. The liberals, libertarians and homosexual community argue that the case for allowing homosexuals to marry begins with equal rights. Why should one set of loving adults be denied a right that two others enjoy? They claim such a union does no damage to anyone else. They point to the fact that until the 60’s, some states prohibited blacks from marrying whites, and few people today would try to argue the perpetuation of that based on “tradition.” They argue that allowing homosexual marriages will increase social stability as it would increase the number of couples that take on committed rather than passing relationships.

But it is not only liberals and homosexuals who resist a traditional marriage amendment. In the October 2004 issue of Christianity Today, we find an article by a Christian and law professor Daniel Crane subtitled, “Do we really want to be known as the generation who gave marriage over to the government?” He argues that while he is against same-sex marriage, an amendment or even state statutes would “reinforce the status of government as the custodian of the institution of marriage…owing its legitimacy to the state’s approval. He believes that equating or merging civil/legal institutions (Caesar's) with spiritual practices (God’s), is dangerous and unbiblical. For example, when no-fault divorce became the rule, then Christians found it easier to break their marriage vows.

Crane argues that Jesus made that point in Matthew 19 when the Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” They had heard Jesus condemn divorce yet the law of Moses allowed for divorce without enumerating a list of permissible reasons.

Crane believes Jesus avoided the trap differentiating between God’s original plan in Genesis, and a human institution. He argues that Moses allowed the altercation because of the hardness of their hearts, thus becoming more of a secular institution. The legal institution accommodates man’s sinful faults while the spiritual transcends them.
While Crane does have a point, I believe he has left out an important perspective in the equation. Clearly Scripture teaches God’s design and thus our responsibility is not to push for a theocracy. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. But we must understand the paradox in “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Is this just for the Church’s inner life? I think not. All legislation/law is someone’s morality and “truth”. Law, even God’s law, is designed to restrain evil. It is part of God’s common grace (Rom. 1:20f). Do we legislate morality? Yes, all legislation is someone’s morality but legislation cannot change or regenerate someone’s heart—it only restrains and convicts sin.

Because we believe that one should not work unnecessarily on the Sabbath, should we pass law prohibiting working then? What about gluttony, taking the Lord’s name in vain, fornication? Are there laws against going back to the buffet line ten times? In a pluralistic culture should we respect a latitude of freedom for choice? Some Christians believe that we should legislate only against practices that pose serious threats to the fundamental rights of other human beings. For example, it is reasonable to favor having the state declare a minor Jehovah’s Witness a ward of the court in order to administer a blood transfusion to save his life. But what about the parent? Should it be illegal to refuse a transfusion if it was his sincerely held religious conviction?

Well then, what about plural marriage (polygamy), bestiality, adultery if those practices were just part of a religious conviction? You see, I believe that all of those practices including same-sex marriage can be shown to pose a significant threat to the social fabric and thus the well being of individuals.

For a solid presentation on the issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage, order our free packets on those topics or order the books listed on the order form.

Letters
Dear ARC,
Thank you so much for coming to our Bible study and sharing your passion for God’s truth--apologetics! Each of us was taken further in our knowledge of this field. Thank you for giving so much time to be with us. I’ve heard many positive remarks from the group. I personally enjoyed and profited a lot!
Birmingham, AL

Dear ARC Staff,
Enclosed please find a donation. The ministry which you have started is so valuable to the Church. It is my prayer that you will expand to my very liberal state of New York.

(top)