Infanticide: The New Abortion

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Matthew 2:16-18 (referring to the Massacre of the Innocents, when Herod the Great ordered the slaying of all young male children in the village of Bethlehem after the birth of Christ)

A few days ago I read an article that made me literally sick to my stomach--and genuinely frightened for the future of mankind. In the early 21st century, Western "civilization" seems to be reaching levels of depravity not seen since the hideous Nazi regime of the 1930s and 40s. I didn't live in Germany back then, but I've read enough about it to understand something of the moral wasteland that produced such demented monsters as Adolf Hitler and Dr. Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz--and that it's in the process of happening again today, on a global scale.

The very title of the article, published February 23 in the Journal of Medical Ethics, makes the blood run cold: After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? The authors, medical "ethicists" Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Austrailia and Dr. Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, take the position that in circumstances in which the abortion of a fetus would be legal, what is termed "after-birth abortion" should also be permissible, even where the newborn is perfectly healthy. In other words, whenever it's all right to kill a fetus, it should be all right to kill a newborn baby. Consider this chilling explanation in the authors' own words:

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion.

[. . .]

[While] people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy . . . [n]onetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. . . . If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

The authors reason that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to that of a fetus--on which abortions in the traditional sense are performed--rather than that of an older child, because neither a fetus or a newborn can be considered a "person" in any “morally relevant sense." This is why they believe the practice they advocate is better described as "after-birth abortion" than as "infanticide."

To Giubilini and Minerva, not all human beings--which apparently they acknowledge fetuses and newborns to be, at least in a genetic sense--can be considered "persons" entitled to rights. They explain as follows:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

To the authors of this paper, an individual's own ability to understand the value of a different situation--which depends on some level of consciousness and mental development on his or her part--determines personhood. They reject any argument that as “potential persons” fetuses and newborns have a right to reach that potential, stating that such a right is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because . . . merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.” The overriding interests of "real people" likewise should control the choice of adoption, the authors suggest, stating that if the mother were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else, then "after-birth abortion" should be considered an acceptable alternative. Giubilini and Minerva therefore conclude that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Responding to widespread criticism and outrage over its publication of the article, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics stated that

[T]he novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favor of infanticide . . . but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands . . . The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.

What the editor finds disturbing is "[n]ot that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement."

It seems that the authors of this paper, as well as the editor of the journal in which it was published, have unwittingly done the pro-life movement an inestimable service. This cold, dispassionate argument for the legalization of infanticide lays bare the sterile, inhumane reasoning that leads directly from a justification for the indiscriminate termination of prenatal life to the brazen murder of newborn babies--and perhaps to the utilitarian killing of older children or even adults who, for various reasons, are incapable of forming personal "aims" or of appreciating the difference between their current life situation and any other, including death. This is the alarm that pro-life advocates have been sounding for years, and they now have this paper to show as Exhibit A in support of their position. Moreover, the journal editor's indignation at the understandable outrage prompted by a naked argument for infanticide clearly shows how twisted are his and the authors' priorities, and how morally bankrupt are those who would frankly advance such an idea.

At the core of Giubilini and Minerva's argument for infanticide, as well as that for justifications of abortion "on demand," is a concept of the universe in which there is no God by whose creation, law, and love human life is endowed with value. For adherents to this view, being genetically "human" and having the "potential" for a full and independent existence cannot be accepted as the source of value entitling one to a right to life, as that might impinge on another's freedom to terminate a pregnancy. So, a higher level of humanity--"personhood"--must be posited as the crucial point at which one gains sufficient dignity to enjoy any right to continue living (does this not echo the "human/subhuman" dichotomy upon which Nazis and slave owners rested their theories of racial superiority?) Giubilini and Minerva define personhood in this sense as the "self-consciousness" that enables an individual to appreciate life (or to distinguish it from oblivion) and to formulate and pursue personal "aims" or goals. Any other source of value, they suggest, is merely an irrational and impermissible "projection" of others' subjective values onto that individual. This is an entirely "me-centric" measurement of humanity, as it is devoid of any thought that a higher (that is, Divinely-established) set of values, transcending the individual, society, or even mankind generally, might apply. If the individual-- the first level of "me"--is incapable of self-consciousness and self-actualization, the theory goes, it has no moral significance and may be casually destroyed at the whim of its parent or the community that would otherwise be responsible for it--the next and highest level of "me." Again, in this view, life has no value beyond its usefulness to itself or to the community. This is true for both fetuses and newborns, as neither has developed the level of consciousness and independent will that constitutes "personhood."

This paper makes crystal clear that abortion and infanticide are barely-separated steps along one continuum of soul-less, anti-human utilitarianism. And its views actually threaten millions of lives today--indeed, in the Netherlands and Belgium, the killing of terminally ill and disabled newborns, as well as euthanasia generally (the next step along the continuum) are already practiced. If the views of Giubilini and Minerva gain traction in the American medical ethics community, such horrors could well become the norm here, and soon.

The moral shortcomings and terrible implications of this paper are almost beyond counting, but here a few of the most important:

First, the authors do not address the question of the age at which an infant should be considered a "person," nor do they suggest any way to reliably determine when a particular newborn has reached this magic moment. Are we to trust the subjective judgment of those who feel "burdened" by the child, or of those who work for them, and have a vested interest in being rid of it?

Second, not only disabled or terminally ill newborns, but also perfectly healthy babies who haven't yet developed to the point of "personhood," would come within the class of those who can be killed with impunity. In fact, the authors' definition of "personhood" would render expendable anyone, young or old, who never developed or has lost meaningful self-awareness and self-direction, including many of profoundly retarded and Down's Syndrome children, the severely brain-damaged, late-stage Alzheimer's sufferers, and persistently comatose patients. To Giubilini and Minerva they are not people and have no value or right to live, and should therefore be disposed of so as not to burden others.

Third, and especially in connection with the point just discussed above, one commentator asks:

[I]f babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life,” then why is it only their parents who are entitled to kill them? Shouldn't they be fair game for anyone? In particular, as the authors note, the state has a legitimate interest in the cost of dealing with disabilities. So does the state have a right to mandate an “after-birth abortion?” If not, why not?

If the state can promote or compel infanticide and homicide of the insensate, directly or indirectly through incentives or regulation, the practice can be used for population control, eugenics, scientific experimentation, or to ration and manage the expenses of health care and public welfare, among other government purposes--just as in Nazi Germany a few decades ago; just as in communist China today. Is this the kind of society that any feeling human being would want to live in?

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sums up the matter eloquently:

This article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is a clear signal of just how much ground has been lost to the Culture of Death. A culture that grows accustomed to death in the womb will soon contemplate killing in the nursery. The very fact that this article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an indication of the peril we face.

The only sane response to this argument is the affirmation of the objective moral status of the human being at every point of development, from fertilization until natural death. Anything less than the affirmation of full humanity puts every single human being at risk of being designated as not “a person in the morally relevant sense.”

Let us pray that "after-birth abortion" never gains acceptance and becomes another, larger-scale Massacre of the Innocents.

From Humble Beginnings . . .

Today, February 12, marks two very special anniversaries. One is of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, who held the American family together through its severest trial, and did so much to make it one again. The other is of the marriage of my parents, John and Barbara Gail (Hobbs) Fleming, who created the wonderful family in which I and my siblings were privileged to grow up.

Neither of these blessed endeavors had an auspicious beginning. Mr. Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809 in a one-room log cabin in Hardin County, Kentucky to frontier farmers Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks Lincoln. Mom and Dad eloped and were married on February 12, 1954 before a justice of the peace in the small town of Kingsland, Camden County, Georgia.

Lincoln educated himself and labored on and about his family's small farms, as well as in various small-time jobs and enterprises, and attained no public prominence until his mid-20s. When they married Dad was an enlisted man (corpsman) in the United Stats Navy, son of a house painter and an innkeeper's daughter, Mom a policeman's daughter and a freshman student in college, which she left. They literally lacked a pot to piddle in, but struggled together and after Dad's discharge settled in western New York state (Grand Island) where Dad had grown up, and had 4 children over the next 8 years. They built much of their first house themselves, on a small lot that had been part of Dad's family's farm. Dad drove a milk truck for his uncle's dairy business; Mom stayed home--as most mothers did back then--with us kids. We probably weren't "poor," but certainly weren't "rich" or even very "comfortable." But Mom and Dad worked hard to make sure that we children never lacked for what we really needed. We never felt deprived, nor entitled to anything more than we had. We were praised when we did well, comforted when we were hurt or sad, punished when we did wrong. We were taught how to read, draw, and do basic things for ourselves before we went to kindergarten. We learned to be respectful toward adults and never to be mean to other children. We were regularly given chores to do, which we sometimes did willingly--but almost always did, like it or not. We ate meals together, around the kitchen table. We went to church, as a family, most every Sunday. We children knew we were loved and cared for, and that our parents would give their lives for us if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln went on to political greatness and national immortality. Mom and Dad never gained nor sought public prominence. But what they achieved matters even more to me and their other children. They taught us how to be decent, faithful, self-sufficient people, and good citizens. They taught us what family is all about, and showed us how to build and maintain strong ones of our own. It wasn't always easy growing up, and there were plenty of "confrontations" among us. But the glue of love and commitment that held us together, though it may have bent a little now and then, never cracked or broke. Mom and Dad saw to that. Thanks to them, all of us siblings and all of our children are devoted to them and to each other, and get along better than virtually any family I know of. I can't adequately express what a blessing that is. And we owe it, ultimately, to two humble people who tied the knot 58 years ago today, and are still around to warm us with their sunshine. Thank you Mom and Dad, and the Lord who gave blessed us with them!

Here's to the Lifers

Last week marked one of the most important "anniversaries" in America: on January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade declared unconstitutional, on "privacy" grounds, most state laws restricting the practice of abortion (here's my post from last year marking that anniversary). Every day of every year since, while the lives of millions of unborn children were being snuffed out unnecessarily, other millions of people have selflessly given of their time, energy, and money to resist this tide of death, most of them quietly and anonymously. I call them "lifers," and they all deserve a thankful salute.

Several hundred thousand of them (not so quietly!) from around the country and the world descended on the nation's capital last Monday for the March of Life 2012, to commemorate and mourn the continuing genocide of the unborn, but also to joyfully declare their devotion to life, Divine Love, and the cause of their tiny, helpless brothers and sisters. If you weren't there, you have to view photographs of the march and its participants--see some excellent galleries here and especially here--to get a sense of the high spirit and optimism of this gathering. What's especially exciting is that, from all appearances, the vast majority of those marching were YOUNG people in their 20s and even teens! This gives so much hope for a future in which NO child is thrown away, in which everyone recognizes that no matter how troublesome its life might be to its natural parents, there is a family who wants and will love and care for that child, and that the parents will get all the support they need to make that possible. That tide of hope won't be stopped by the mainstream media ignoring the movement, nor by all the hate, obscenities, and intimidation that can be hurled by "pro-choice" advocates.

Quieter and less visible, but perhaps even more heroic, are the countless thousands of people who work daily on the "front lines" of the pro-life movement in crisis pregnancy centers (sometimes called "pregnancy resource centers") around the country, counseling young parents about the realities of abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth, as well as providing pregnancy testing, sonograms, adoption information, and other supportive services. Working face-to-face with people in crisis or with chronic personal, social, and economic problems, every day, can be incredibly difficult, draining, and sometimes discouraging. But CPC workers' positive experiences with parents who have made heroic choices and turned their lives around, thanks to God and the workers' help, keeps them at this selfless task. My own beloved sister is one of them, working at the Jacksonville, Florida Women's Help Center. Please consider donating some of your own time and/or money to this noble cause.

Then there are those who organize and work for hundreds of pro-life and related advocacy organizations in this country and around the world (here is a comprehensive list of many of them), that heighten public awareness of the issues and help drive political change to promote life. You might not be aware that the fight for life is going on not just in the United States, but in many countries overseas. One organization that's caught my eye recently is Youth Defence (on the Web and Facebook), which is devoted to educating people, helping mothers, lobbying, and campaigning to keep Ireland abortion-free. The movement to protect the unborn would probably not have nearly the numbers and influence it enjoys today without the efforts of organizations like these.

How about the thousands of clergy from a host of churches and denominations that give so much of their time, energy, and guidance to parental counseling and pro-life efforts? And let's not forget the many ordinary, anonymous people who brave the elements, and even risk arrest and prosecution, to keep peaceful vigil near abortion clinics to pray for expectant mothers and encourage them to give their babies a chance.

Finally, I'd like to share with you one of the most beautiful and inspirational videos I've ever seen, called the Miracle of Life. It presents, in less than four minutes, the complete scientific case as well as the Biblical foundation for the origin of human life at conception. I guess producers of videos like this are likewise "lifers" who deserve our hearty thanks and support!

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee . . .
~ Jeremiah 1:5

Getting Off the Republican Merry-Go-Round

This past Tuesday was caucus night in Iowa, and the contest ended in a near-three-way tie between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum; Romney "won" by eight votes over Santorum, who didn't lead Paul by that much. As long as the race stays this tight, I can't be accused--if I come out for one of these or the other candidates--of merely jumping on a bandwagon or of backing a loser. So, for better or worse, and for whatever (little) it's worth, this might be a good time to declare my own preference--which is almost certain to fatally jinx whomever I endorse.

None of the contenders for the Republican Party nomination is an obvious or ideal choice. They all have some virtues and some shortcomings. At another time in history, it might be quite appropriate for people to support whichever candidate they thought was the most Simon-Pure conservative or libertarian, business leader or defense hawk, pro-lifer or policy wonk. I don't think we can afford to pick nits or indulge our fondest dreams now, with an overriding need to remove from power a Presidential administration and supporters bent on "transforming" America in ways most Americans don't want, and which is dragging this country into ruin. What we need above all is a candidate appealing to a broad cross-section of the electorate, who can win the confidence of Americans from diverse social, economic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds--not a candidate who panders to everyone, but one whose leadership most people can accept and trust on a basic level.

For me, Newt Gingrich is not that candidate. He may appeal to some conservative intellectuals, Republican Party activists, and a few pundits, but not to the average working man or woman on the street. He carries far too much baggage both morally (he's been widely characterized as a "serial adulterer") and politically (his record suggests that he is not reliably more "conservative" than Romney). He strikes many as narrow and self-absorbed, if not downright vain, and is gaffe-prone. He is intrigued with gimmicks and schemes, and has a habit of impulsively suggesting things, such as hauling federal judges before Congress to "explain" controversial rulings, that are ludicrous and irresponsible. He may talk the conservative talk as well or better than anyone (witness his vaunted debating skills) but stumbles sooner or later whenever he tries to walk the walk. Obama's hit team might not need to destroy him; his own mouth and questionable judgment would save them the trouble.

Nor is Ron Paul the candidate we need. He may have been a consistent fighter in Congress for fiscal and military restraint, but his positions on many specific issues have been too narrowly "libertarian" and outside the mainstream of American voters for him to appeal to them very broadly. His foreign policy is too rigidly isolationist, and his ambivalence--if not antipathy--toward Israel would only serve to endanger the survival of peace and the only democracy in the Middle East. He seems to be more of a cult figure than a serious Presidential contender; his most ardent supporters are often belligerent and obnoxious, if not downright unhinged.

Rick Perry is a reasonably sound, if not pure, conservative, who has successfully presided for a decade over a state as large and diverse, geographically, ethnically, and economically, as many countries on earth. But he lacks discipline and national experience, and may still be too rough-edged for that forum. His performance in the recent Republican debates reflect a man who may not be 100 percent mentally engaged in the campaign, or entirely up to its extraordinary demands.

Jon Huntsman remains a virtual non-entity in this campaign, ignored by the media. Although he has an excellent resume, with substantial executive (Utah governor) and foreign policy (Ambassador to China) experience, he's very white-bread and can't seem to find an angle to catch the public's attention or imagination. He would make a good vice-presidential choice, unless the Presidential nominee were Mitt
Romney (two Mormons on one ticket would be more than many people--not including me--could tolerate).

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are the most appealing to me personally for their social conservatism, Christian faith, and commitment to the preservation of innocent unborn life, but Bachmann is now out of the race. Santorum is soundly conservative on most other major issues, but, like Bachmann, lacks executive experience, and might not find strong support outside rural-suburban and conservative Catholic areas and the "Bible Belt." He may also be tainted by ethical questions and a free-spending record in the Senate. His purported brand of softer, more Main Street (as opposed to Wall Street) conservatism could resonate with broad sections of the electorate, but I think he would fold in a crumpled heap under an onslaught of Democrat attack ads.

Finally, there's Mitt Romney. He certainly isn't an ideologically orthodox conservative, but in the current social climate that would be helpful in the general election. I believe that his bedrock principles are sound, and that a more conservative Congress (with the Republicans winning the Senate in 2012) would effectively keep him "in line." Romney has an outstanding record as a successful businessman, enterprise leader, and state governor. He understands how the free market works. or is supposed to, and is committed to its essential preservation. I don't think he would sell out America, or Israel. He's a solid family man who seems to genuinely care about people. His moral integrity is unassailed; there's been no whiff of scandal about him, and I don't see any deep flaws in his judgment on matters of greatest concern to the country. I think he's trustworthy. If not a "uniter," I think he could at least be a reconciler as President, and would not be divisive. In contrast to Commandante Obama, I believe he would respect the Constitution and the will of the people.

My favorable view of Mitt Romney is not unqualified. His past, more liberal positions on abortion and "gay rights" are especially troublesome, but we can only take him on his word that those positions have evolved in a conservative direction after more careful study and prayer. To counter persistent charges of flip-flopping, Romney needs to hammer home the truth that while mandated health insurance may be legal in the states and supported by their citizens--as was the case in Massachusetts--it is beyond the federal government's powers under the U.S. Constitution, and is not favored by most American citizens (at least in its current form). He also needs to clarify his stance on climate change and "cap-and-trade," in which he expressed a continued belief several months ago, in light of recent evidence that that whole edifice is built on profoundly questionable science.

It's hard to picture any current candidate other than Romney gaining the support of a sufficiently large and broad segment of the electorate, and surviving the certain storm of Democrat defamation with his reputation intact, to win the general election. So, conservatives have to decide which is the greater risk: electing a capable if ideologically wavering--read "moderate" or "centrist"--individual as President, or handing four more years of federal control to an administration that is relentlessly making this country into an empty shadow of what it once was. In my view, this moment is too critical for the future of the American people to waste it on doctrinal quibbles and petty partisan infighting. For now, at least until the crisis has passed, Mitt Romney may be the best we can hope for.

At the end of the day, though, we should all remember and follow what the Bible teaches about political leaders:

It is better to trust in the LORD
than to put confidence in princes.
~ Psalm 118:9

Adios, Mi Querido Hijo

This has turned out to be one of the most bittersweet (more sweet than bitter, really) Christmas holidays I've ever had. As I write, our youngest son Colin and my wife Melany are on the road somewhere in Ohio or Kentucky, headed for Colin's new job as a box office manager at the Performing Arts Center at Lee College in Baytown, Texas, just across Galveston Bay from Houston (according to its official web site, Baytown's motto is "Where oil and water really do mix!"). I stayed behind to mind the fort and our critters (one big dog and one small cat), and so Colin could get into the car everything he has and needs to start out on his own. It's incredibly quiet here, and rather (all right, very) lonesome. I miss Colin and Melany very much already--and they've only been gone a few hours!

Less than a month ago Colin casually responded to an ad for this job, hardly imagining that it would lead almost immediately to an in-person interview and then an offer. Work in his field (arts administration) being so hard to come by in this part of the country, especially for someone just out of college, that Colin felt he couldn't let the opportunity go by. The sudden and dramatic change of life for him and for us is a daunting challenge indeed.

It's always hard for a parent to "let go" so a child can find his or her own way, especially when the way takes the child far from home into unknown territory. Home is familiar and welcoming and safe (or so we try to make it), but who knows what threats lurk elsewhere? Our natural desire and habit is to protect our children and provide for their happiness as best we know how. So, when the time comes that the needs and opportunities--and dangers--of adulthood finally call the child away from the hearth, we are torn with anxiety, even dread. Yet, we must consciously pry our own fingers from our child's arm and let him go along life's road on his own, where his dreams and his best judgment take him. We can only pray for his well-being, and sometimes carefully and gently offer whatever advice we might have from the well of our own learning and experience. We mustn't project our own fears onto him, nor presume to make for him the decisions that rightfully, and prudently, he should make for himself, whatever the consequences. This is the only way for the child to learn responsibility, the sine qua non of adulthood. Now we must only encourage and offer help--but not "bail out"--if and when things go awry, and even if life leads them to endure suffering for a time (which we will inevitably share). It's perhaps the last, perhaps most important lesson we can teach our children: how to be free. That's the only way our children can flower and be all that God intended and enabled them to be. And it might be the most important lesson that we, as parents, can teach ourselves.

Last night, before retiring for perhaps the last time as a permanent resident under our roof, Colin wrote a Facebook "thank you note" to his family and friends here in New York and elsewhere. I chanced to read it a short time later, before retiring myself--and then had trouble falling asleep for the tears in my eyes. Colin wrote that he has "an amazing family that has provided me with opportunity, love, shelter and support at all times, without hesitation, the blink of an eye, or a thought of doing otherwise." I can't express what that means to us as his parents (and the same goes for his brother and sister, I'm sure). All I can say is that Colin is an amazing son and as fine a young man as there's ever been. Of course, we feel much the same way about all our children, but perhaps this moment is more poignant because Colin is the last to fly our "nest" and leave Melany and I entirely "on our own." Since he returned home from college this past May, we've been blessed to get to know him in an especially deep and personal way. We've delighted in the company of a sensitive and thoughtful person always ready to discuss (and sometimes cross swords on) any topic that occurs to us, from religion and politics to movies and food. His sense of humor is matchless! Even our disagreements on things are mutually respectful and loving. Harmony and love within our family is something that Melany and I have prayed for constantly over the years, and God has granted us this fondest wish!

Sometimes it's easier for me to understand and accept things by putting them into a historical context. In this case, I'm reminded of the countless times during the 19th century when young people packed wagons (or sometimes just bags) with all they had, kissed their grieving parents goodbye, and set off on a road or down a river toward a new beginning in the West. All knew that the risks were at least as great as the opportunities. But what if their parents had successfully discouraged all these young pioneers from braving the dangers of the journey? Humanity might never have known the blessings that this great country eventually brought them. So, I'm persuaded that God must have the most marvelous plans for Colin, to lead him that far away into such an alien world as Texas!

May he bless you abundantly each and every day, son, and fill your life with joy (and bring you back home safely for as many visits as we can all manage!)!

Colin and his beloved nephew, Liam

Perfect Peace

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." ~ Isaiah 26:3

Of all things needed and craved by mankind, none is so vital as peace: peace without, and peace within.

Because by nature we are selfish and aggressive creatures, peace among nations and neighbors is tragically elusive and, historically, seemingly impossible but for short periods and in scattered places. All too often rulers use their powers to wage war on other countries and upon their own peoples, and even the best democratic governments are incapable of preventing the mini-wars individuals make upon each other every day. Endless conflict and suffering seem to be the natural lot of human beings almost everywhere.

Peace within ourselves is even more precious than peace in the world, because it transcends the world. One can feel desperate and hopeless even when conditions about us are peaceful. But thanks to the blessed assurance that we have from our Savior, we can be at peace within even when the world around us is rent with conflict. Through repentance, faith, and embrace of His sacrifice on the Cross, His righteousness is ours. We needn't groan and fall under the weight of our sins, no matter how heavy they are; they are laid at Jesus' feet, and in His infinite love are swept away. Because we know that in Him death is swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54), we know that we likewise shall be victorious in the end, and fear not what men can do to us.

The prophet Isaiah warned that "[m]any days and years shall ye be troubled," and that the world would become as a wilderness,

. . . Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places . . . (Isaiah 32:10, 15-18)

This is the promise of Christmas, when Jesus came down from Heaven to dwell among us and proclaim the Good News of salvation, to take the weight of our sin upon Himself, and to establish the never-ending Kingdom of Righteousness that leads all sincere believers to that inner "peace of God, which passeth all understanding . . ." (Philippians 4:7). He is indeed the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). We pray unceasingly that that peace spread among all men and women, and for the day when this world is finally and fully transformed into the quiet and beautiful Garden that our Lord always meant it to be.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” ~ Luke 2:14

May the Peace of Christ be with you and your loved ones
this Christmas and every day of your life!

NOTE: This post was adapted from one on another blog to which I contribute, Faithful Feet. Visit that site for spiritual lessons and encouragement from people all over the world, every day!

Book Review: The Miracle of Freedom

Individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are under wider assault in the West, including the USA, than at any time since at least World War II. In Europe, especially the United Kingdom (formerly known as "Great" Britain), an irresistible tide of political correctness has led to the suffocation of personal freedom under national and local laws "protecting" (read: promoting) favored interest groups such as homosexuals and atheists, as well as to a paralysis of police and the courts to deal effectively with mobs of "protesters" and a horde of immigrants demanding the adoption of "sharia law." In the United States, we have a federal administration bent on seizing and expending (directly and indirectly) unprecedented, ever-growing amounts of private wealth; requiring individual citizens to purchase products and services they do not want; extending government surveillance and control to every aspect of citizens' lives; declaring and implementing its own policies through executive order regardless of Congressional will; and going to war against the states to prevent them from dealing with critical problems of immigration, health care, environmental control, education, and threats to the family such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

These developments would be more actively resisted if citizens better appreciated how dearly bought, and how fragile and fleeting, freedom and democracy have been in history. Providing that awareness is the mission of authors Chris and Ted Stewart in their recent book The Miracle of Freedom: Seven Tipping Points That Saved the World (available from publisher Deseret Books and from Amazon.com, among other outlets). Released in June, 20011, the book has been as high as to No. 2 on Amazon's best-selling list and reached No. 11 on the New York Times' Top 25 best-selling nonfiction and e-book lists.

According to the authors, less than 5 percent of all people who have ever lived on the earth (and most of those being persons who are still alive today) have lived under conditions that today could be considered “free.” The "miracle" is that there have even been that many, given the terrible weight of flawed human nature throughout history.

The authors define "freedom and democracy" according to the following five criteria: self-government; fundamental rights; equal dignity and opportunity of persons; commitment to justice; and commitment to the rule of law. The authors then discern from the human record a series of critical events or "forks in the road" that, had they happened differently or not at all, would or could have resulted in the extinction of any hope that the ideals of freedom and self-government might be realized.

• The defeat of the Assyrians in their quest to destroy the kingdom of Judah
• The victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Thermopylae and Salamis
• Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity
• The defeat of the armies of Islam at Poitiers
• The failure of the Mongols in their effort to conquer Europe
• The discovery of the New World
• The Battle of Britain in World War II

The book describes and analyzes these events, each chapter accompanied by a fictionalized but well-written and engaging "you are there" portrait of individuals at the time--most of them common people--who might have participated in or been immediately affected by these events. In addition to a concise narration of what transpired, each chapter explores what led up to and resulted from the event, and how the future of human liberty would have been changed--or snuffed out altogether--had the outcome been different. Some of these positive outcomes were fantastically improbable, such as the survival of Judah against the Assyrian onslaught, the Greeks' defeat of the Persian hosts at Thermopylae and Salamis, and even Britain's triumph against the mighty Luftwaffe in 1941-1942. As the authors observe, "Many of these critical forks in the road occurred thousands of years before the event would bear the fruit of freedom. Some have happened in modern day. All of them were necessary for the world to enjoy the sudden expansion of free governments that we see today."

Chris and Ted Stewart

The authors' selection of these historical "tipping points" seems driven by the correct premise that the concepts of freedom and democracy--as they came down to us over the generations and as we understand and enjoy them today--sprang from the marriage of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy. Thus, the extinction of those early civilizations or of their successors in Europe would have prevented the survival and realization of these ideals in modern times. Inevitably, minds clouded by conventional and politically-correct views will complain that historical Judaism and Christianity bred regimes that made endless war and often cruelly oppressed, rather than liberated, individuals (free-thinkers, women, and homosexuals, for example) and colonial peoples as well as their own. The authors of Miracle of Freedom do not dispute the guilt of those Western "leaders" who perverted Judeo-Christian principles to serve selfish ends, but stress that the fault lay not with the principles themselves, or with the cultures that spawned them, but with the inescapable flaws of human nature:

[T]hough they may seek to represent the ideal, no nation or institution is ever pefect. All cultures and religious institutions are occupied by mere mortals, making them subject to all the frailties of men. And the simple fact that they do seek the ideal, ironically, opens them up to charges of hypocrisy and scorn. Second, often these are not only multigenerational but multimillenial institutions. Their stories may stretch over thousands of years. During the passing of so many centuries, every nation or institution will have its ups and downs, experiencing high points of moral leadership, but low points of decadence as well.

This being the case, wouldn't it be unfair--and historically inaccurate--to judge a nation or institution on only one episode in its history or during one particular span of time?

In our story, we also have to recognize the difference between the leaders or members of the Christian faith and Christian doctrine. The shortcomings of one may not accurately reflect the value of the other. Indeed, history shows that there have been times when the teachings of Christianity remained an ally to the development of freedom even when the Christian church did not.

Reading The Miracle of Freedom, one is struck by how improbable was the birth, survival, and eventual flourishing of freedom and self-government; how long that process took; how much it owed to the heroism and self-sacrifice of a relative few individuals; and how fragile those ideals are in a world ever tending to corruption and madness. As Mssrs. Stewart point out:

[D]emocracy and freedom are very fleeting—they can be possessed and then lost. A nation might be democratic for a period of time and then, through spasms of internal strife or war, revert to despotism. Over the past 225 years this has been shown again and again to be true, the tides of democracy causing many nations to sample and then lose the great gifts of freedom and democracy. The experience of Germany prior to World War I, immediately thereafter, and then during the reign of Hitler is a graphic example of this truth.
****
For those of us living in the United States, a nation that has experienced more than two hundred years of unparalleled liberty, it is easy to take for granted the extraordinary gifts we have been given. And for most of us, it is much easier to become lackadaisical about these gifts than it is for the inhabitants of other nations who are forced to struggle every day in their battle for liberty. In fact, unless we are serious students of world history, or have traveled extensively, we might not recognize how unique the blessings of liberty actually are.

We should all remember this lesson, in this time of grave peril to liberty here in the USA and around the world.

The Miracle of Freedom is written with the common person, not the professional historian, in mind (though it certainly can appeal to the latter). Most of it reads more like a historical novel than an analytical text. It is an absorbing and highly informative work, and would make an excellent Christmas or Hanukkah gift.