Yearly Archives: 2011

Does agnosticism work?

Can the worst of people be changed – without God?

By Spencer D Gear

In my work with abused children and abusers, I often hear statements like, “There is no hope for the paedophile. Once a molester, always a molester.” As I see it, rebellious behaviour is in plague proportions in Bundaberg. Parents say things to me like, “She’s been a difficult child from birth, a rebel all her life. She’s heading for the clink. She’s out of control. You fix her.”

6pointblue Can a leopard change its spots? Definitely not! But there is Someone who can change paedophiles into people with true love. Prostitutes are being remade. The dishonest can become people of integrity. Rebels can be turned into law-abiding citizens and cons into upright, Christian citizens. But self-effort won’t do it.

I am reminded of an event in the life of Dr Harry Ironside, an evangelist and Bible teacher of renown in the USA in the early part of the 20^th century. He was walking past a Salvation Army open-air meeting in San Francisco when he was recognised by the Salvos. They invited him to share how Christ had changed him.

As Dr. Ironside finished his testimony, a known lecturer on socialism provoked the doctor with this challenge: “Sir, I dare you to debate me. The subject will be, ‘Agnosticism versus Christianity.’ We’ll meet in the Academy of Science Hall next Sunday afternoon at 4 o’clock. I will pay all expenses.”

Dr. Ironside agreed, but on two conditions. First, the agnostic must promise to bring with him one man who was once a no-hoper. The exact nature of what wrecked his life did not matter. He could find a drunkard, criminal, sex pervert, or any other such person. That person had been changed into an upstanding citizen by becoming an agnostic. Righteousness and goodness came flooding into his life through pursuing the ideals of “I don’t know if there is a God.”

Second, Dr. Ironside asked the agnostic to promise also to bring with him one woman who was once an outcast, slave to evil passions and a victim of corrupt living. She was ruined and wretched but had been turned around. She had attended a meeting where the agnostic was proclaiming the benefits of agnosticism and was ridiculing the message of the Bible.

As she listened to him, new hope was born in her life. She concluded that the agnostic message could deliver her from her ways and she has now become an intelligent agnostic who no longer lives in her depraved lifestyle. She now lives a clean, virtuous and happy life — all because she is an agnostic.

Dr Ironside offered the challenge: “If you will promise to bring these two people with you as examples of what agnosticism can do, I will promise to meet you at the Hall of Science at 4 o’clock next Sunday. I will bring with me at the very least 100 men and women who for years lived in just such sinful degradation as I have tried to depict, but who have been gloriously saved through believing the gospel which you ridicule. I will have these men and women with me on the platform as witnesses to the miraculous saving power of Jesus Christ and as present-day proof of the truth of the Bible.”

Dr. Ironside turned to the Salvation Army officer in the open-air meeting, a woman, and asked, “Captain, have you any who could go with me to such a meeting?” The Captain offered at least 40 such people from just one Salvation Army Corps and said she would bring a brass band to lead the procession.

Dr. Ironside said that he would have no difficulty picking up the 100 radically changed people from the Salvos, other missions, gospel halls and evangelical churches. He said that the Salvation Army band would play “Onward Christian Soldiers” as they led the procession to the debate.

6pointblue The enthusiastic agnostic who wanted to big-note himself at the open-air meeting and brashly challenge Dr. Ironside to the debate, smiled wryly, waved his hand and left the meeting, as if to say, “Nothing doing!” He edged his way through the crowd as these bystanders clapped enthusiastically for Ironside and the other Christians.

The power of the living Christ is changing lives today, even the lives of the most wicked. He has done it throughout history. John Newton, the British slave trader, became a preacher of the gospel. Chuck Colson, former President Richard Nixon’s hatchet man, was sent to jail for his part in the Watergate scandal in the USA. He met the risen Christ and has been engaged in an active prison and public ministry since then.

I wish you could have met my Bundaberg friend, the late George Clarke. He’s in heaven now. This gangster was changed into a child of God and an honourable family man. Talk to his family members and they’ll verify that Jesus Christ does change lives.

The worst of people can be changed. Many Bundaberg people can confirm that. The apostle Paul, the persecutor of the early Christian church, was threatening to murder believers. Then the turning point came. He tells how it can happen for anybody: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

Visualization and Affirmation

(image courtesy sherrysnider.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Contact (May 1997) recommended visualization [which is also known as guided imagery] and affirmation for “harnessing the power of the mind toward achievement and goals.” That is not what those involved in occultism say. David Conway, in Magic: An Occult Primer, exposes some of the agenda of visualization:

By now the adept has visualized the required forms, and, it is hoped, contacted their astral equivalents. In addition the force behind these forms will have been admitted into the circle. At this point we come to the most important part of the ritual… We shall flick the switch that lets in the cosmic power….

To do so he must temporarily lose his reason, for it is reason which bars the doors of the conscious mind where the astral world lies waiting. The way to open these doors is to assume a state of unreason similar to the divine frenzy of the Bacchantes. Like their delirium the aim of such unreason will be to receive the deity that is being invoked….

At last–and he will certainly know when–the god-form will take control of him… While the power is surging into him, he forces himself to visualize the thing he wants his magic to accomplish, and wills its success” (Conway 1973, pp. 129-32).

As articulated above, these deities being invoked often have very evil ramifications. However, nowhere in Contact‘s promotion of visualization was there even a hint of people losing their reason and unreason taking over. Instead, it was the road to mental health. The research literature and personal experience of occultists confirm that visualization is sometimes associated with horrific evil. Why was there no warning in your article?

“Many new age disciplines offer various techniques of visualization as a help to contacting the spirit world” (Ankerberg & Weldon 1991, p. 148). Hunt & McMahon show where such visualization may lead:

It promotes the unrealistic attitude that, rather than face a problem in the real world, the solution is to fantasize a different illusion, which becomes one’s new `reality.’ Instead of correcting this madness, many psychologists encourage it. In fact, a growing number of today’s psychotherapies are based upon this very theory. Such therapies incorporate visualization and the acting out of fantasies, a process which encourages the idea of escaping from problems rather than confronting them and working out a real solution (1988, p. 210).

Dennis Livingston of New Age Journal understood the implications when he criticised new age guru, Shirley MacLaine

I found the implications of her philosophy basically cruel and callous. . . MacLaine’s basic truth is that we create our own reality. . .
Are you poor? You chose poverty because you need to learn certain lessons. . . Do you have cancer? . . . Did you lose a loved one? . . . You participated in creating that reality . . . nobody is a victim . . . evil is just a matter of your point of view.
It sounds like the perfect yuppie religion, a modern prime-time rerun of nineteenth-century Social Darwinism. Both blame the victim. Only now, the poor are not poor because they are ‘unfit’ . . . [but because] they want to be poor . . .
If I were a dictator, I could think of nothing better than to have a nation dedicated to following MacLaine’s agenda (1987, p. 79)

Former occultist, Johanna Michaelsen, believes that “without a doubt one of the most powerful techniques being used to initiate the next generations into the New Age religion is visualization.” She is clear about its intention to help people “look within themselves to discover and release their divinity. . . It is not a neutral technique” (1989, p. 109). Even church leaders have wrongly bought into this technique. Michaelsen said that

in personal interviews with Witches I have been told that their covens have `laughed themselves silly’ at how the church has so wholeheartedly adopted their occult techniques, thinking that as long as they tagged `Jesus’ at the end of them that they were perfectly okay. In my own earlier days I used extensive guided imagery/ visualization techniques for developing psychic powers and mediumship. . . It was a colossal shock to me to discover that virtually the same techniques I had practiced as a occultist were being used in the church” (1989, p. 110).

Yet, Contact wanted to promote visualization as a road to mental health. I appeal for an honest evaluation of the techniques being advocated.

Works consulted

John Ankerberg & John Weldon 1991, Can You Trust Your Doctor?: The Complete Guide to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.

Contact, Issue 10, May 1997, produced with assistance by the Bundaberg Consumer Advisory Group at the Office of the CDO for Mental Health, PO Box 2730, Bundaberg 4670, Australia; phone (o7) 4151 8111. The newsletter offers the disclaimer: “The opinions expressed within `Contact’ are not necessarily endorsed by those who produce, sponsor or fund this newsletter.”

David Conway 1973, Magic: An Occult Primer. New York: Bantam.

Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon 1988, America: The Sorcerer’s New Apprentice. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

Dennis Livingston 1987, “Taking on Shirley MacLaine,” New Age, November/December.

Johanna Michaelsen 1989, Like Lambs to the Slaughter, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

The dangers of Eastern meditation

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

The front page of a mental health newsletter was lauding the benefits of meditation. [1] It advocated transcendental meditation, progressive muscle relaxation, concentration, walking and standing, visualisation and affirmation, and mantras and chants. However, the writer wanted to deny any association with Eastern religion, claiming that “stereotyped images” associated meditation with “dark-skinned people of Asian or Oriental descent.”

What are the benefits of meditation? According to the newsletter’s writer, “In reality, meditation is all about relaxation, contentment and awareness. It is all about `stilling the spontaneous activity of the mind.'”

The accolades continued: “Through the deep relaxation that meditation can bring, comes an altered state of awareness. This altered state of awareness can take people from aggressive to tranquil, from fearful to confident, from doubtful to positive and from discontented to understanding.”

If this is the case, people should be flocking in droves to such a panacea. Many are, especially to the new age movement’s techniques. However, does Eastern meditation only lead to mental health? Does an altered state of consciousness only produce tranquility, confidence, a positive attitude and understanding?

Let’s get some facts straight. Meditation is Eastern religion. When Maharishi Mahesh Yogi came to the West with his promotion of transcendental meditation (TM), he made it clear that it was a Hindu religious practice whose purpose was to produce “a legendary substance called Soma in the meditator’s body so the Gods of the Hindu pantheon could be fed and awakened.” [2]

What happened to Carole is just one example, that could be replicated many times over, of how meditation can go wrong — badly wrong! She began hatha yoga lessons and received her mantra, the word of power from Swami Rama.

As he laid his hands on her head, Carole said that “currents of electrical energy began to permeate my head and went down into my body… It was as if a spell had come over me, the bliss that I felt was as if I had been touched by God. The power that had come from his hand, and simply being in his presence, drew me to him irresistibly.” [3]

As the “electrical currents” continued pulsating, she experienced wonderful, powerful forces and energies. Thoughts kept impressing her mind, “Meditate, meditate. I want to speak with you.” Carole said that “it was a miracle. I was communicating with the spirit world. I had found God. ” While sitting in the darkness of her living room, she began to repeat her mantra. “A presence seemed to fill the room. I began to see visions of being one with the universe and the magnetic thoughts were now leaving and I was hearing a voice, which identified itself as Swami Rama, saying he was communicating with me through astral travel.”

Carole explains how the love and flowers turned to disaster. “Within one week, after meditating many hours each day and still in constant communication with this spirit, forces began to come upon me and gave me powers to do yoga postures. I was floating through them, the forces giving me added breath even. . . postures that before would be very painful to do.” [4]

After two weeks of daily meditation, Carole’s world crashed. She “became engulfed in a nightmare of utter dread and terror. Voices which once claimed they were angelic turned threatening, even demonic. She was brutally assaulted, both physically and spiritually. During meditation, in the midst of being violently shaken, she could sense that the very same energy received at initiation, energy which was now felt to be personal, was attempting to remove her life-essence from her physical body.”

In her words, the energy would “literally pull the life from my shell of a body.” She sensed an overwhelming hatred directed toward her, as if “monstrosities of another world were trying to take my very soul from me, inflicting pain beyond endurance, ripping and tearing into the very depths of my being.” [5]

There was nobody to help her. The attack eventually subsided, but there was more to come. Nothing could stop the assaults as she pleaded with the spirits. They ignored her. Her husband was powerless.

Noted neurosurgeon, Dr. C. Norman Shealy, a former Harvard University professor and author of Occult Medicine Can Save Your Life, entered the picture. He was unable to help and referred Carole to spiritist, Dr. Robert Leichtman. Dr. Leichtman admitted that Carole’s situation was not uncommon among followers of Eastern gurus. He told of people dying as a result of similar psychic attacks. But he, too, was unable to help.

After admitting herself to hospital, there was still no relief. When she returned home the attacks continued with incredible torment. “Although she was terrified of death, death was now her desire.” She was wishing to take her own life but was too fearful of dying.

In desperation, she admitted herself to the hospital. Once again, she was placed in a locked ward. She felt that there she would die — alone and in torment.

Carole is alive and well today. She is free from the spirits. Even her psychiatrist is amazed at the miraculous transformation. How did it happen?

Carole attributes both her health and her life to “a living Jesus Christ who delivered her from a desperate plight.” As she reflected on her predicament, Carole “is awed that such terrible destruction could be purchased at the price of a simple, supposedly harmless form of meditation.” [6] It started with a mantra associated with yoga.

Carl was a qualified psychologist with a degree in physics. He had a personal interest in religion and parapsychology and was excited by Aldous Huxley’s Doors of Perception. He cultivated altered states of consciousness, reincarnation, research and astral travel. Gradually, Carl admitted to himself that a deep alteration was taking place inside of him. After years of research and experience, he was consumed by the forces so evil that he became an incoherent vegetable requiring exorcism and was hospitalised for 11 months. He concluded:

“Solemnly and of my own free will I wish to acknowledge that knowingly and freely I entered into possession by an evil spirit. And, although that spirit came to me under the guise of saving me, perfecting me, helping me to help others, I knew all along it was evil.” [7]

Warning signs are required on cigarette packets. Why shouldn’t people be warned of the dangers of Eastern meditation?

Endnotes:

[1] Contact, Issue 10, May 1997, “a monthly Newsletter for people interested in mental health in the Bundaberg [Qld.] district.”
[2] Art Kunkin, “Transcendental Meditation on Trial, Part Two,” Whole Life Monthly, September 1987, 14, 17, quoted in Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon, America: The Sorcerer’s New Apprentice. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1988, chapter 3.
[3] Carole’s story is told in John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Coming Darkness (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993),p. 19f.
[4] Ibid., pp. 20-21.
[5] Ibid., p. 21
[6] Ibid., pp. 22-23. These authors state that the story is “condensed and edited from material sent, May 28, 1981.”
[7] Malachi Martin, Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans. New York, NY: Bantam, 1979, p. 485, in John Ankerberg & John Weldon, Can You Trust Your Doctor?: The Complete Guide to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991, p. 153.

Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

(image courtesy, Abortion and American Holocaust)

By Spencer D Gear

“Australia faces not a population explosion. . . but a copulation explosion,” with an increasing pregnancy rate, a falling birth rate and an alarming abortion rate (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, p. 1). In the financial year 1984/85 there were 55,153 abortions. This increased to 77,551 in 1995/96. For the year 1999/2000 there were 73,699 abortions (Queensland Right to Life 2001). I spoke with one Australian federal Member of Parliament during the year 2004 and his estimate was that the current abortion rate was approaching 100,000 unborn children, killed every year in Australia. This figure was confirmed by De Costa (2007:13).

The rate of abortion in Australia was a national tragedy and society had too lax an attitude towards sexual promiscuity among teenagers, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott said yesterday.

Speaking at Adelaide University on the ethical role of a Christian politician, Mr Tony Abbott MP, a Catholic, said there were 100,000 abortions in Australia each year, which he labelled a measure of the nation’s moral health. . .
“Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy?” (‘Abortion rate a tragedy, says Abbott,’ 2004).

(photo Tony Abbott, courtesy Wikipedia)

It was not surprising that such open opposition to abortion by the former Australian Federal Minister for Health & Ageing, and former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott MP (pictured above) – and Prime Minister of Australia in 2013 – brought criticism from within the political arena, interest groups and by the general public:

Former TREASURER Peter Costello has warned his colleagues not to make abortion an “incendiary political issue” after Health Minister Tony Abbott said women were taking “the easy way out” by terminating pregnancies.

Mr Costello also insisted his cabinet colleague was making a personal statement – not signalling any change in government policy – on access and funding for abortions. “We would not want it to become one of those incendiary political issues in this country,” he told Sydney radio king John Laws. “Let’s not try and turn elections on issues like that” . . .

Federal Women’s Minister Kay Patterson distanced herself from Mr Abbott’s views yesterday. “It would never be an easy choice, but women have the right to choose,” she said.

Opposition Leader Mark Latham said women had a right to choose abortion and Mr Abbott should get off his “moral high horse”. “I believe women have a right to make a choice in their circumstances,” he said. . .

Roberto Rojas-Morales, the director of Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia, which is yet to receive confirmation of further federal funding, challenged Mr Abbott to “put his money where his mouth is” and boost funds for comprehensive sex education.

“We agree more attention and resources should be focused on lowering the abortion rate — and the best way to do that is through quality education,” he said. Australian Women’s Health Network convenor Helen Keleher said if Mr Abbott was serious, he should insist that all schools – including the Catholic system that educated him – gave full and frank contraception advice.

“We agree the rate is too high – it is a tragedy – but blaming women is not the answer,” she said. Women’s Electoral Lobby spokeswoman Sarah Maddison slammed Mr Abbott’s comments as “deeply offensive” and called on him to apologise to women who had had abortions.

Children by Choice spokeswoman Cait Calcutt said Mr Abbott could reduce the number of abortions dramatically if he agreed to fund better quality sex education (see Schubert 2004).

Since we have reached the situation in Australia where approximately 100,000 children are aborted every year according to the Federal Health Minister in 2004, more Australians are aborted each year than died from the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima (estimated as between 70,000 – 100,000 killed). Based on information published in 1985, there is one abortion for every three live births in Australia. Abortion claims more than two in five human deaths in Australia each year. One unborn Australian child dies by abortion every seven minutes [in 2004, it is one abortion every five minutes]. For every five women having abortions, three are unmarried (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, pp. 18, 20). By comparison, in the United States in 1985 there were 1.588 million abortions and an estimate of 1.328 million in the year 2000 (National Right to Life 2004).

Although the statistics are dated, John Jefferson Davis stated that

the United States leads the world in teenage abortions, with over 500,000 per year. Some 150,000 abortions are performed in the second trimester of pregnancy, “the most grisly of all,” notes Dr. Matthew J. Bulfin, “the ones that some hardened abortionists refuse to do because the killing is so real and unmistakable” (Bulfin 1983:A22, in Davis 1985:130)

Davis cites statistics from a quarter century ago, that “of those obtaining abortions in 1981, 66 percent were under age 25 and 77 percent were unmarried” (1985:130).

It is difficult to obtain reliable figures for abortion worldwide, since many countries (especially Eastern Europe, the former Commonwealth of Independent States and China, where most of the world’s abortions take place) do not keep accurate statistics. These are proposed figures:
In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal.
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted each year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.
There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day (statistics from “Women’s Issues” 2004).

Fisher and Buckingham claimed that “the number of human lives lost by abortion each year is more than the total of all lives lost in all the wars in history put together” (1985, p. 15, emphasis in original).

Technically, abortion refers to the miscarriage of an unborn child, whether naturally or artificially caused. However, in everyday language, “abortion means deliberately bringing about a miscarriage or bringing to an end a pregnancy and the life of the unborn child involved,” surgically or with drugs. The latter definition is the one assumed in this paper. Euphemistically, abortion has been called “termination of pregnancy”, “cleaning out the uterus”, “removing the products of conception”, “interception”, “the procedure” or “interruption of pregnancy” (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, p. 5)

Partial-birth abortion procedure

( image courtesy Advocates for Life)

Is John W. Montgomery over-reacting when he titles his book, Slaughter of the Innocents? (1981) Is the title, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust by John Powell (1981) an exaggerated description?

Those who promote abortion and those who oppose abortion start from opposite positions. The pro-abortionists emphasise the rights of the mother; the right of the child is the focus of the anti abortionists. Christians who submit to the Lordship of Christ and desire to live under Christ’s authority, justice and compassion, must ask themselves what principles are involved. It is then that the key moral and theological issue emerges: what is the nature of the foetus? I “reject as totally false and utterly abhorrent the notion that the foetus is merely a lump of jelly or blob of tissue, or a growth in the mother’s womb, which may therefore be extracted and destroyed like teeth, tumours or tonsils” (Stott 1984, p. 284). However, is the unborn child a human being? Harold O.J. Brown forcefully asserts:

Of all the arguments used to support abortion, the contention that the foetus is not a human being has to be the most dishonest. No one who studies human development can pretend to be ignorant of the facts. Admittedly, there may be some dispute as to precisely when fetal life is “fully human,” but everyone knows it is long before birth (1977, p. 135).

What then is the evidence for the origin of human life?

When does human life begin?

This is the fiery issue that will call a storm in conversations if you dare to raise it.

Leading obstetrician gynaecologist and medical researcher, Dr Landrum B. Shettles, says the real core of the debate over when life begins is “the clash between an ethic that makes the sanctity of human life an absolute and a new ethic that renders that life relative and sometimes expendable” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 107).

Medical Aspects

In 1970, in the midst of the United States’ abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed “the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death” (in Davis 1985, p. 137).

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, in 1981, held hearings on when life begins. The following are samples of evidence submitted by the medical profession (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 113-114):

Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris:

When does life begin? . . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception . . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.

Dr Watson A. Bowes, Jr, of the University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception.”

Dr Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, after noting that standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception, added:

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being.

Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota): “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr McCarthy De Mere, a practising physician and a law professor at the University of Tennessee: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

The medical breakthrough came in the 1960s when Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the genetic code (DNA).

The genotype — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established in the conception process and will remain in force for the entire life of that individual. No other event in biological life is so decisive as this one . . . The genotype that is conferred at conception does not merely start life, it defines life (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 36-37).

Biologically, human life begins when the sperm merges with the ovum to form the zygote, containing the full set of 46 chromosomes necessary to create new human life. “The haploid sex cells (ova or spermatozoa) are parts of potential human life. The zygote is human life” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 40, emphasis in original). The First International Conference on Abortion in Washington D.C., 1967, declared: “We can find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of an infant at which point we can say that this in not a human life” (in Stott 1984, p. 286).

Bible Basics

The Bible does not specifically condemn abortion. Nor does it specifically deal with infanticide (killing babies) or genocide (the killing of a whole race). However, there are specific provisions against homicide (the deliberate taking of human life). Therefore,

if the developing fetus is shown to be a human being, then we do not need a specific commandment against feticide (abortion) any more than we need something specific against uxoricide (wife-killing). The general commandment against killing covers both (Brown 1977, p. 119).

Definition of a Human Being [2]

The most important clue is given in Genesis 1:27 where human beings are differentiated from animals in two significant ways: they are made (1) in God’s image and (2) by a direct divine act.

Another contrast is given in God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:3-7) where human beings are given stewardship dominion over animals and may use them for food. It is also evident that the wilful killing of innocent blood of human beings is an offence against the image of God.

Although the meaning of God’s image in human beings has been defined a number of ways, “most theologians agree that it is only because he was made in God’s image that man can relate to God” (Brown 1977, p. 126). While God takes an interest in animals (e.g. Jonah 4:11), He does not relate to them as He does to human beings. “If God relates in a personal way to a human creature, this is evidence that that creature is made in God’s image” (Brown 1977, p. 126, emphasis added). How then does God relate to us before birth?

God and Us Before Birth

Psalm 139, using poetic imagery and figurative language, states three important truths about our prenatal existence on which John Stott elaborates (1984, pp. 286-288):

(1) Creation. “You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (v. 13). “Although the Bible makes no claim to be a textbook on embryology, here is a plain affirmation that the growth of the fetus is neither haphazard nor automatic but a divine work of creative skill” (Stott 1980, p. 50). See also Job 10:8.

(2) Continuity. The psalmist refers to himself in the past (v. 1), present (vv. 2-3), future (v. 10) and pre-natal (v. 13). In all four stages, he refers to himself by the same personal pronouns “I” and “me”.

He who is thinking and writing as a grown man has the same personal identity as the foetus in the womb. He is aware of no discontinuity between his antenatal and postnatal being. On the contrary, in and out of his mother’s womb,. before and after his birth, as embryo, baby, youth and adult, he is conscious of being the same person (Stott 1984, p. 287).

(3) Communion. Psalm 139 gives the radical personal relationship of God to the individual. The “I-you” relationship between God and the psalmist is expressed in almost every line. The Creator God loved the psalmist and related to him long before he could respond in a conscious relationship with God.

What makes us a person, then, is not that we know God, but that he knows us; not that we love God but that he has set his love upon us. So each of us was already a person in our mother’s womb, because already then God knew us and loved us (Stott 1984, p. 288).

Other biblical passages speak of the prenatal and postnatal continuity (Job 31:15; Psalm 119:73). God chose Jeremiah before birth and sanctified him in his mother’s womb (Jer.1:5). David recognised his identity began with conception (Psalm 51:5).

In the New Testament, when Mary and Elizabeth met, both being pregnant, Elizabeth’s baby (John the Baptist) “leaped in her womb” in salutation of Mary’s baby, Jesus. Of special significance in Luke’s account is that he used the same word brephos (NT Greek) for an unborn child (1:41, 44), the new-born baby (2:12, 16) and the little ones brought to Jesus to bless (18:15) [Stott 1984, p. 289].

The most startling affirmation of the sanctity of prenatal life is the incarnation of Jesus Christ. His personal history on earth began, not when he was “born of the Virgin Mary”, but when he was “conceived by the Holy Spirit” (see Matt.1:18, 20) [Davis 1985, p. 150].

If Jesus (true God and true man) was present in His mother’s womb from the first moment of His conception, then it follows that other [people] must also be alive and existing as human beings from the first moments of their conceptions; for unless they are the same as Jesus in this respect of their human nature, He would not be like them in every essential human respect except for sin (Krimmel & Foley 1985-86, pp. 12-13) [See also Heb. 2:17].

Foetus as fully human: Biblical arguments [3]

1.    Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).
2.    The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13) just as God created Adam and Eve in his image (Genesis 1:27).
3.    The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death (Ex. 21:22) as that of an adult (Gen. 9:6).
4.    Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27).
5.    The image of God includes “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.
6.    Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (Ps. 51:5) and joy that are distinctive of human beings.
7.    Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children (Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matt. 1:20-21) just as any other human being.
8.    The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person (Ps. 139:15-16; Jer. 1:5).
9.    The unborn are even called by God before birth (Gen. 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15).
10.    Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the     law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9). Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9).

“Taken as a whole, these Scripture texts leave no doubt that an unborn child is just as much a person in God’s image as a little child or an adult is. They are created in God’s image from the very moment of conception, and their prenatal life is precious in God’s eyes and protected by his prohibition against murder” (Geisler 1989:148).

Exodus 21:22-25

The English Standard Version renders these verses: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Some have used this passage to support a permissive view of abortion. One interpretation of the passage is that

if a man causes a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, but no further harm comes to the woman, then capital punishment is not required for the loss of the life of the unborn child, no matter how advanced the pregnancy. According to this interpretation, Old Testament law does not consider the unborn child a soul or human life, thus implying a clear distinction between the value of the life of the unborn child and that of the mother (Davis 1985:150-151).

The “miscarriage” translation is rejected on linguistic grounds, since the verb yatza when used alone (as in this passage) refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (cf. Gen.25:25, 26; 38:28-30; Jer.1:5; 20:18). Therefore, the better translation is “premature live birth” rather than “miscarriage”. “The text actually treats the life of the mother and that of the unborn child as equally valuable” (Davis 1985:151; see Davis for a detailed explanation).

WHAT THEN IS ABORTION?

(image courtesy ClinicQuotes)

God clearly sees the unborn child as already a human being, made in His image. Killing of such a person (abortion) is MURDER.

In this abortion debate, Harold O.J. Brown argues persuasively that the burden of proof is on the advocates of a permissive position to show that the unborn child is not human.

If a hunter were to see a movement behind a bush and shoot at it, without being sure that the movement were not caused by a human being rather than by an animal, such an action would be morally irresponsible. Regarding abortion, any doubts concerning the humanity of the unborn child should be resolved in favor of developing human life (Brown 1977:119).

IS ABORTION EVER AN OPTION?

(image courtesy Amazing animations)

When the morality of abortion is analysed, there are three major options: abortion-on-demand, abortion on “indications”, and abortion only to preserve the life of the mother.

Abortion-On-Demand

This is a secular outlook on the value of human life, one of its most prominent representatives being situation ethicist and liberal churchman, Joseph Fletcher. He identified personhood according to consciousness and intelligence (minimum IQ score of 20 on the Binet scale). “Obviously a fetus cannot meet this test no matter what its stage of growth . . . The unborn child is a nonperson, and abortion would always be justifiable except in those cases where undesirable consequences for the woman would outweigh desirable ones” (Davis 1985, p. 145).

It is clear that this view rejects the biblical ideas of human beings made in the image of God and human life existing before birth. It is a non-biblical option.

Abortion on “Indications”

Norman Geisler, an evangelical Christian apologist, theologian and ethicist, makes the distinction between the “actual” life of the mother and the “potential” life of the unborn child (1971:218ff). He concludes that abortion is justified in four distinct cases:

(1) For therapeutic reasons when the option is “taking the life of the unborn baby or letting the mother die, then abortion is called for” (p. 220);
(2) For eugenic reasons “when the clear indications are that the life will be sub-human and not simply because it may be a deformed human” (p. 222);
(3) When there is “conception without consent” through rape. “A violent intrusion into a woman’s womb does not bring with it a moral birthright for the embryo” (p. 222);
(4) When conception is through incest (p. 223).

This view makes the foetus less than a full “person” or “human being”, because it lacks fully developed consciousness. I consider this to be a dangerous position to adopt, because the same argument could be used to justify infanticide after birth. Former Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, as the Director of the Centre for Bioethics at Monash University, Melbourne, and now a professor at Princeton University advocates such a conclusion (Singer 1983:128-129) [4]. “Rather than saying that the unborn represent `potential human life,’ it is more accurate to say that the unborn represent actual human life with great potential” (Davis 1985:153, emphasis in original).

The Life-of-the-Mother Position

It is widely held by conservative Protestants and represents the official pronouncements of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish religious leaders. This position states that only in rare cases where continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life, would abortion be morally justified. An example would be a tubal pregnancy. Abortion is not performed on the assumption that the foetus is without value. But, rather than letting two lives perish, the abortion is performed to save the mother’s life when the unborn child’s life is not salvageable (Davis 1985, p. 147).

The life-of-the-mother position seems to have the most support from Scripture (see Brown 1977, p. 118ff). However we need to note the paediatric experience of the former Surgeon-General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop, when he stated,

Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.
When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section.
His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature . . . The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger (Koop 1980).

Rape, Incest and Anticipated Birth Defects

Rape is a physically and emotionally traumatic experience for the woman involved, requiring a ministry of Christian compassion and assistance. However, should an abortion be performed if a pregnancy results? Pregnancy from confirmed rape cases is rare, findings ranging from zero to 2.2 percent of the victims involved (Davis 1985, p. 154).

Justice requires that the rapist be punished, not the innocent child conceived as a result of the rape. Yes, the woman has suffered an injustice, but abortion would represent a further injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right. By not having an abortion, the woman avoids the psychological and spiritual problems from the guilt of killing an innocent human life. She also avoids the risk of endangering her future reproductive capacity (Davis 1985, p. 154).

Amniocentesis and other medical techniques now allow for the detection of a growing list of genetically related conditions before birth. Should unborn children with anticipated birth defects be aborted? Dr Glanville Williams forcefully asserts:

To allow the breeding of defectives is a horrible evil, far worse than any that may be found in abortion . . . An eugenic killing by a mother [who gives birth to “a viable monster or an idiot child”], exactly paralleled by the bitch that kills her mis-shapen puppies, cannot confidently be pronounced immoral (in Stott 1984, p. 295).

The Christian conscience should recoil from such horror. Biblically, there is no justification for a “search and destroy” ethic. Birth defects can be used in God’s sovereign plan (see Exodus 4:11). Jesus Christ demonstrated God’s compassion and justice, not by destroying the sick, blind and lame, but by healing them.

It is often claimed that abortion is a more “humane” alternative for the defective, since it will spare them the agony of “lives devoid of quality and meaning”. I’ll let the handicapped speak for themselves, through a testimony that appeared in 1962 in the London Daily Telegraph in the midst of the thalidomide tragedy:

Sirs,
    We were disabled from causes other than Thalidomide, the first of us having two useless arms and hands; the second, two useless legs; and the third, the use of neither arms nor legs.
    We were fortunate … in having been allowed to live and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful we are that none took it upon themselves to destroy us as helpless cripples.
     Here at the Delarue school of spastics [Trowbridge, Kent], one of the schools of the National Spastic Society, we have found worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with confidence. Despite our disability, life still has much to offer and we are more than anxious, if only metaphorically, to reach out toward the future.
    This we hope will give comfort and hope to the parents of the Thalidomide babies, and at the same time serve to condemn those who would contemplate the destruction of even a limbless baby. [Signed by Elane Duckett, Glynn Verdon, Caryl Hodges] (in Davis 1985:156-57).

OTHER EFFECTS & ISSUES

The Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath, which many doctors swear by at the time of their graduation, says:

I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion (‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996).

There is a modern day Hippocratic Oath that states: “I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life” (also available from ‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996).

The Declaration of Geneva (1948) updated the classical Hippocratic Oath statement: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception” (‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996). Many doctors sign this oath. It is inconsistent, in my understanding, to sign this Oath and then perform abortions!

The Abortion & Breast Cancer Link

Ductal Carcinoma in situ

(image courtesy Breast Cancer)

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was formed in May of 1999 by a group of women in the Chicago, USA, area concerned about the fact that women were not being told by the National Cancer Institute, by their physicians and by anti-cancer organisations that there are now 28 out of 37 worldwide studies, published since 1957, which have linked induced abortion to breast cancer. Our purpose is to educate women and to save lives. For lots of other links showing the abortion/breast cancer association, follow this link to The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

Dr. Joel Brind (2000), wrote: “Recently I found myself arguing with the General Counsel to the New York State Department of Health about the need to follow up on the state’s study linking abortion and breast cancer. Published more than a decade ago, the study found that women who chose abortion were almost twice as likely to contract breast cancer by age 40, compared with the matched, healthy control group with no abortion history.”

A European study brought similar results: “The risk of breast cancer is double for women who have had an abortion. That startling statistic comes from a newly released analysis of breast cancer rates in Europe — and is consistent with a growing body of research” (Shepard 2001).

Big Bucks

In her article, “Confessions of an Abortionist,” former abortionist Carol Everett says: “Abortion is about helping women. Wrong. Abortion is about making money — big money. Greed, not love, is the motivating factor behind the abortion industry” (1992, p. 5)

How do you respond to such a confession? Everett cannot be speaking for all abortionists, but she is making a strong statement about her former role in the abortion industry.

Abortion Photographs

Some of you may find these photographs of aborted babies offensive and emotionally disturbing. If so, please do not look further. However, for those who want to see what happens to these children in the womb, these links are provided for your educational benefit.

‘A physician tells why abortion is murder‘;
‘Late term abortions‘;

WHAT THEN SHALL WE DO?

In the medical community, some are acknowledging that abortion is the destruction of life — murder — but proceed to advocate abortion as a necessity for “social reasons”. Mary Anne Warren, a bioethicist (Dept. of Philosophy] at San Francisco State University, is a representative of this response. She dismisses most of the pro-abortion arguments as specious, claiming that the foetus is clearly a human being, but it is not worthy of protection.

Warren is willing even to sanction the killing of an eight-or-nine-month-old fetus, proclaiming that the unborn even at that age is “considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish.” Even at this stage the fetus, in her view, has no more right to life than “a new-born guppy [fish].” Consequently, she also sees nothing wrong with killing the unborn in order to make use of its tissues and organs in experimentation and transplantation. Infanticide is all right, too, in her view, if the baby is defective or there is no one who wants it (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 117).

Read Mary Anne Warren’s (1996) article, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” where she claims that “it remains true that according to my argument neither abortion nor the killing of neonates [i.e. newborn children] is properly considered a form of murder.” Why? It’s based on her definition of personhood. She suggests that the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity in a moral sense, are, very roughly, the following:

1. Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain:
2. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3. Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4. The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
5. The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both (Warren 1996).

Warren does admit that “there are apt to be a great many problems involved in formulating precise definitions of these criteria, let alone in developing universally valid behavioral criteria for deciding when they apply” (1996). She’s even aware of the outrage that her position might cause:

However modest and reasonable they may seem to some people, [they may] strike other people as morally monstrous, and that some people might even prefer to abandon their previous support for women’s right to abortion rather than accept a theory which leads to such conclusions about infanticide (1996).

She’s dead right! Morally monstrous infanticide seems like an accurate description of Warren’s view. However, this kind of view should not be surprising when it comes out of a finite human mind! We need the Lord of the universe to tell us when human life begins and how we ought to treat every human being, no matter how early or late in life. Using a human definition of personhood seems to be clutching at staws to justify abortion and infanticide.

In my view, any society which tolerates such things, even legislating for them, has ceased to be civilised. Terminal decadence has set in. If slaughtering innocent lives in the womb or as newborn children is the recommended solution for social problems, this society must be at the end of its social, economic, scientific, and spiritual resources. Can we ever forget Germany’s genocide during World War II? We must recall George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 133).

Will we be seduced by the pro-abortion movement’s publicity? Dr Bernard Nathanson, a former practising abortionist, admitted to a Canadian gathering in 1981 how the abortionists misused polls and statistics:

We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted as though they had been written in law (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983:130).

Alternatives to Abortion

For compassionate care for the prospective mother and the child, I recommend that you seek out people who promote life, support you through your pregnancy, and are there to assist following the birth of child. There are two groups of people who do this very well: Local churches and right-to-life organisations that will help you through the pregnancy and with decisions concerning the child. Do you want to keep the child? If you do, you will need lots of support, especially in the early months and years of the child’s life. If you want to make the child available for adoption (there are loving parents waiting in droves for adoptive children), these two agencies will help.

In Australia, here are some possible contacts for pro-life groups:

Right to Life, Australia, phone: 1300 737 732.

Cherish Life, Queensland, phone: (07) 3871 2445,

NSW Right to Life, phone: (02) 9299 1057

Right to Life Association of South Australia, phone: (08) 8298 8830

Pro-Life Victoria, phone: (03) 9818 6186

Human life protection society, Tasmania, phone: (03) 6224 2632
‘Pregnancy Help Australia‘.

Action

John Stott’s recommendations for action are worthy of support (1984, pp 297-98):

1. We need to repent. If Old Testament prophets were to visit us today, I am convinced they would confront us with this massive, deliberate destruction of unborn human life.

If a nation permits the slaughter of the innocent, it surely will bring God’s judgment upon itself. For Christians to stand idly by while such killings go on, especially in a democratic society where they have a voice in government, it is not tolerance; it is complicity (Brown 1977, p. 122, emphasis in original).

Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop dedicated their book and film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? “to those who were robbed of life, the unborn, the weak, the sick, the old, during the dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decades of the twentieth century are remembered” (1979, p. 5).

2. We must accept full responsibility for the effects of a tighter abortion policy, if it can be secured. This will mean providing practical help for the pregnant woman and her baby.

3. We need to support a positive educational and social campaign. This will involve educating Christians about the sacredness of human life. Almost all abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, we need to become involved in working to prevent and remedy social conditions which lead to unplanned pregnancies. This will be simultaneous with the proclamation of new life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. God is building a new community characterised by love, joy, peace, compassion, freedom and justice. A new beginning. A new power. This is the gospel of Christ.

I maintain fourth and fifth points:

4. Proclaim forgiveness from the guilt of abortion through Jesus Christ. This will require loving care and ministry towards those who have sinned through having an abortion. We, of the church, must never reject them.

5. Join a reputable, but pro-active, pro-life organisation in your city or State (for Australia, see contacts above).

This page is also dedicated “to those who were robbed of life, the unborn, the weak, the sick, the old, during the dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decades of the twentieth century are remembered” (Schaeffer & Koop).

Endnotes

2. This section is based on Brown (1977:120-127.
3. This section in its entirety is based on Geisler (1989:148).
4. Peter Singer wrote that

if we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication and anything else that can plausibly by considered morally significant. . . Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all human beings, solely because they are members of our own species, are judging along lines strikingly similar to those used by white racists who bestow superior value on the lives of other whites, merely because they are members of their own race (cited in Davis 1985:129).

His arguments are not merely hypothetical. He argues that infanticide would be acceptable for profoundly retarded newborn babies because they lack the intelligence of normal human beings. His claim is that “we can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul” (Singer 1983:129).

Works consulted

‘Abortion-breast cancer link‘.

‘Abortion rate a tragedy, says Abbott‘ (The Age, March 17, 2004)

Brown, H. O. J. 1977, Death Before Birth, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Bulfin, M. J. 1983, letter to the editor, New York Times (July 1).

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

De Costa, C 2007. RU-486: The Abortion Pill. Boolarong Press, Salisbury, Qld.

Everett, C. 1992, “Confessions of an abortionist,” New Life (8 October).

Fisher A. & Buckingham J. 1985, Abortion in Australia: Answers and Alternatives, Dove Communications, Blackburn, Vic.

Geisler, N. L. 1971, Ethics: Alternative and Issues, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Geisler, N. L. 1989, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), Leicester, England.

‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996. Ohio Right to Life, Available from: http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/hippo.htm [22 September 2004].

Koop, C. E. 1980, ‘A physician speaks about abortion’ [Online] as told to Dick Bohrer, Moody Monthly, May 1980, Available from “Pathlights” at: http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/abort08.htm [21 September 2004].

Krimmel, H. T. & Foley, M. J. 1985-86, “Abortion and human life: A Christian perspective” The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 12-13.

Montgomery, J. W. 1981, Slaughter of the Innocents, Crossway Books, Westchester, Ill.

National Right to Life (USA) 2004, ‘Over 40 Million Abortions in U.S. since 1973,’ Available from: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html [21 September 2004]. See HERE.

Powell, J. 1981, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, Argus Communications, Allen, TX.

Schaeffer, F. A. and Koop, C. E. 1979, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey.

Shettles, L. B. with D. Rorvik 1983 , Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Singer, P. 1983, “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?” Pediatrics 72.1, July.

Stott, J. R. W. 1980, “Does life begin before birth?” Christianity Today (September 5).

Stott, J. 1984, Issues Facing Christians Today, Marshalls, Basingstoke, Hants.

Warren, M. A. 1996, ‘On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,’ from Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed., eds. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, pp. 434-440. [notes not included], available from: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/warren_article.html [10th October 2004]

“Women’s Issues” 2004 [Online], Available from: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm [21 September 2004]. This article was no longer available online on 20 May 2017.

Voluntary Active Euthanasia – a Compassionate Solution to Those in Pain?

clker

DEBATE: MICHAEL MOORE, MLA (Australian Capital Territory) & REV. SPENCER GEAR. This is Spencer Gear’s presentation. [1] 8.00 pm Thursday 10 June 1993, Erindale Theatre, McBryde Cr., Wanniassa ACT, Australia

EXAMPLE

“Jennie was only forty-eight when she found the breast lump. The surgeon had been hopeful, but the pathology report showed the cancer was very aggressive and had already spread to the lymph nodes. Radiation and chemotherapy were completed.

Before long, Jennie’s cancer had spread to her spine. It galloped through her bones, liver and lungs. She lost weight very rapidly, became depressed, and required large doses of morphine. The medication only partially relieved her severe pain. Any movement was excruciating.

Eventually her husband Sam asked the doctor to give Jennie one large injection of morphine so that she won’t suffer anymore? She’s been in so much pain for so long. She just wants to get it over with… All involved were ready for Jennie to die” (Orr, et. al., Life & Death Decisions, 151-152).

IF THE LARGE INJECTION OF MORPHINE HAD CAUSED DEATH, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY ACTIVE EUTHANASIA.

DEFINITION OF EUTHANASIA

I must define my terms.

Euthanasia is “the intentional killing of a person, for compassionate motives, whether the killing is by a direct action, such as a lethal injection, or by failing to perform an action necessary to maintain life” (from “Euthanasia: killing the dying. ‘It’s OK – isn’t it?’ Foundation For Human Development, Site 4A, 32 York Street, Sydney 2000)

Voluntary active means that the person asks to be killed. It must be realised however that those who promote euthanasia do not use the word “kill”, but it is the only accurate word to describe the reality of what happens. Besides, it is the word the law uses.

People are sometimes confused by the current debate on “the legality of disconnecting mechanical life support systems for long-term comatose patients or the patients’ right to request that no extraordinary means be used to keep them alive when all hope is gone.” This is often called passive euthanasia, but it is not euthanasia

This refers to the common law right of all Australians to decide which treatments they want to have for themselves.

But I must insist that this is not euthanasia.

The Canadians got it correct in their 1983 Law Reform Commission when, following an inquiry, they concluded that “mercy killing not be made an offence separate from homicide” (in Brian Pollard, Euthanasia: Should We Kill the Dying?, p. 45).

Tonight when I use the term euthanasia, I will be referring to voluntary, active euthanasia.

OVERHEAD NO. 1

Euthanasia is not a compassionate solution to those in pain for the following reasons:

1. The first reason for not supporting voluntary active euthanasia is that: We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia. We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

a. GERMANY

In Germany in 1920, there was a publication by a lawyer, Karl Binding, and a psychiatrist, Alfred Hoche, called The Permission to Destroy Life Not Worth Living, that opened the floodgates and led to open discussion and legislation to permit euthanasia in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.

Initially, it was seen to have a beneficial social effect in dealing with the so-called “useless” sick.

Why did they do it? For the very same reasons that are being advocated today: compassion, quality of life, and to cut the cost of caring for these so-called “useless people”. They stressed the cost of caring for the handicapped, the retarded and the mentally ill. They were called “useless eaters”.

This led to experimentation on human beings and genocide. It was a small step from euthanasia to the Nazi government’s killing of 6 million Jews, and it is estimated that about 6 million others also were killed.

Dr. Leo Alexander, a Boston psychiatrist at the Nuremberg trials after World War II (in 1946 and 1947) says: “it started with the acceptance of the attitude basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived “Medical Science Under Dictatorship”, New England Journal of Medicine 241:39-47, July 14, 1949. (This was also covered in Newsweek magazine, July 9, 1973)].

It started when doctors, lawyers, legislators and even clergy–against their professional and ethical obligations to respect all human life, decided to destroy life that they considered not worth living

Michael, there is no way to control voluntary euthanasia.

We have a much more recent example in Holland.

b. HOLLAND

At St. Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra on Feb. 26, 1993, Michael, you said that your brief to the Parliamentary Council would be to give criteria (and you articulated them) similar to Holland. What is happening in Holland?

The official Dutch Government report (The Remmelink Report, 1991) gives conclusive evidence of abuse. The Dutch report shows clearly that doctors are killing without the explicit request of the patient. Doctors have violated the ‘strict medical guidelines’ provided by the Dutch courts (John Fleming, “Euthanasia, The Netherlands, and the Slippery Slopes”, Bioethics Research Notes Occasional Paper No.1, June 1992, published by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, PO Box 206, Plympton SA 5038, Australia).

OVERHEAD NO. 2

EUTHANASIA IN HOLLAND: CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS

(Although officially illegal at the time of the Remmelink Report)

1. The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely free and voluntary.

2. The patient’s request must be well considered, durable and persistent.

3. The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with no prospect of improvement.

4. Euthanasia must be a last resort. Other alternatives to alleviate the patient’s situation must have ben considered and found wanting.

5. Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.

6. The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has experience in the field.

Summarised by Mrs. Borst-Eilers, Vice-President of the Health Council (a body which provides scientific advice to the Dutch government on health issues). In I.J. Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands”, The Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 108, January 1992, p. 56]

OVERHEAD NO. 3

BUT WHAT WERE THE RESULTS IN HOLLAND?

The Dutch report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, states that “in cases of euthanasia the physician often declares that the patient died a natural death” (p. 669). This report indicates that 0.8% of the 38.0% of all deaths involving euthanasia were “life-terminating acts without explicit and persistent request” (p. 670) (Paul J. van der Maas, Johannes J.M. Delden, Loes Pijnenborg, and Caspar W.N. Looman, “Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life”,

The Lancet, 338:8768, September 14, 1991, 669).

This means that the deaths of about 1,000 Dutch people in a single year were caused by a doctor who hastened the death of a patient without the patient’s explicit request and consent.

But there is more. Another assessment is that the real number of physician assisted deaths, estimated by the Remmelink Committee Report is, in reality 25,306 which is made up of (they’re on the overhead projector for you to see):

2,300 euthanasia on request (Remmelink Report, 13),
400 assisted suicide (ibid.15),
1,000 life-ending treatments without explicit request (ibid.),
4,756 died after request for non-treatment or the cessation of treatment with the intention to accelerate the end of life. cf, ibid, 15; there were 5,800 such cases but only 82% (i.e. 4,756) of these patients actually died. cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 63ff
8,750 life prolonging treatment was withdrawn or withheld without the request of the patient either with the implicit intention (4,750) or with the explicit intention (4,000) to terminate life.[ibid., 69; There were 25,000 such cases but only 35% (i.e. 8,750) were done with the intention to terminate life.Cf ibid., 72; cf also Remmelink Report, 16),]

8,100 morphine overdose with the implicit intention (6,750) or explicit intention (1,350) to terminate life. Of these, 61% were carried out without consultation with the patient, i.e. non-voluntary euthanasia.
There were 22,500 patients who received overdoses of morphine, cf Remmelink Report, 16. 36% were done with the intention to terminate life, cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 58. See ibid., 61, Tabel 7.7 (“Besluit niet besproken”)].

THIS TOTAL OF 25,306 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATHS AMOUNTED TO 19.61% OF TOTAL DEATHS [129,000] IN THE NETHERLANDS IN 1990.[“To this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborns, sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whose lives were terminated by doctors according to the Remmelink Report” (pp. 17-19). Source: Dutch-speaking Dr. Daniel Ch Overduin, Vita, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 2-3]

clker

OVERHEAD NO. 4

(Title of Lancet article, “”Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life”)

Dr. John Keown, Director of the Centre for Health Care Law, in the Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, U.K., has completed a research project on euthanasia in Holland. He concludes:

OVERHEAD NO. 5

“It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated… It is clear from the evidence set out in Keown’s research that all that is known with certainty in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is being practised on a scale vastly exceeding the ‘known’ (truthfully reported and recorded) cases. There is little sense in which it can be said, in any of its forms, to be under control” (I.J. Keown, “The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands”, in The Law Quarterly Review, 108, January 1992, 67, 78).

Yet Michael Moore stated at St. Mark’s that he wants to follow the Dutch guidelines.

2. A second reason why euthanasia is not a compassionate solution is that there is no guarantee it will be limited to terminal illness for those in pain. The recent history of the euthanasia movement demonstrates this.

Michael has made his views clear. On the Matthew Abraham show, Radio 2CN, February 2, 1993, he was asked by:

Matthew Abraham: “What about an old married couple? Maybe in their 80s and they’ve been relatively independent in their own home, they don’t want to be of trouble to their kids, they’ve had a good life… They want to commit suicide as a couple…

Michael Moore: “I think it should be covered in the act and I think that under certain circumstances, given appropriate counselling and appropriate time to make that kind of decision.

He reinforced this at St. Mark’s National Theological Centre, Canberra on 26 Feb. 1993, I heard him say:

“I’m not just talking about the terminally ill, but also a couple, say who have been married 60 years, one of them is terminally ill and they want to die together. I would agree with that, but I don’t expect legislative support for that.”

No civilised society like ours will remain civilised if we endorse this kind or any other kind of homicide.

How can we say where to limit? Chronic illness? Mental illness? Multiple sclerosis? Those crippled with arthritis? Persons who are handicapped? What about some of the people I counsel, like a 16-year-old who is on drugs, severely depressed and suicidal?

This is one of Michael’s core problems–where to draw the line.

The most recent review of the need for euthanasia in Australia was the Social Development Committee of the Parliament of Victoria The report, called Options for Dying with Dignity in 1988 concluded: “It is neither desirable nor practicable for any legislative action to be taken establishing a right to die” (in Pollard, 45).

Those who start with euthanasia for the terminally ill, most often broaden their base:

One of the most blatant examples of how far euthanasia advocates will go is this (HOLD UP) Australian Human Rights Commission Occasional Paper No. 10 (published in August 1985): “Legal and Ethical Aspects of the Management of Newborns with Severe Disabilities”.

When published, this paper created quite an uproar because of what it recommended for babies with disabilities:

one of the main emphases supports euthanasia for deformed newborn babies,
Dr Helga Kuhse promotes “a quick and painless injection” (to kill) for a Down’s Syndrome infant with an intestinal obstruction (p. 4).
Yet this Human Rights Commission document also cites the United Nations “Declaration of the Rights of the Child” which states: “The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required for his particular condition” (p. 28).

You can’t have it both ways: kill off the handicapped newborn, and give the handicapped special treatment, education and care. This is a shocking report advocating the killing of the handicapped newborn, all in the name of the Human Rights Commission. I believe this is eugenics (selective breeding).

Do you really think, if we were to legalise euthanasia, that doctors and nurses would stick to the rules?

In 1988, doctors surveyed in the State of Victoria were asked, “Have you ever taken steps to bring about the death of a patient who asked you to do so?”

29% (of 369) replied “Yes”. (Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, “Doctors’ Practices and Attitudes Regarding Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Medical Journal of Australia, 148:12, June 20, 1988, 623-627).

The situation with nurses is just as alarming.

In 1992, “of those nurses who had been asked by a patient to hasten death, 5% had taken active steps to do so without having been asked by a doctor.

Almost all of the 25% who had been asked by a doctor to engage in active steps to end a patient’s life had done so” (Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, “Euthanasia: A survey of nurses’ attitudes and practices”, Australian Nurses’ Journal, 21:8, March 1992, 21-22).

With euthanasia illegal, some doctors and nurses are breaking the law. Do you honestly think they will follow, say Dutch guidelines, if they became legal?

3. The third reason: It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

According to Dr. Bob Allan, president of the ACT branch of the Australian Medical Association, “Modern palliative care ensured that patients should never have to consider euthanasia on the grounds of severe pain. Treatments are available to ensure death with dignity and without pain” (The Canberra Times, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 5).

Medical doctors, Robert D. Orr and David L. Schiedermayer, conclude:

“The hospice movement has demonstrated that physicians should be better educated about pain management and better equipped to treat pain effectively. More than ninety-five percent of cancer patients can be kept virtually pain free if given adequate doses of pain medication at appropriate intervals” (Orr, Schiedermayer, & Biebel, Life & Death Decisions, Navpress, 1990, p. 165).

Retired anaesthetist at Concord Hospital, Sydney, Dr. Brian Pollard, says:

“Most cancer pain is well within the competence of any doctor to treat effectively. It is necessary to regard unrelieved pain as a medical emergency to be dealt with as energetically as possible and to address also the emotional turmoil which is usually present” Euthanasia: Sould We Kill the Dying? Little Hills Press, Bedford, U.K. 1989, pp. 9-10, 65).

At a time when there is every reason to offer caring, compassionate palliative care to the sufferer, Michael wants to eliminate the sufferer rather than eliminate the suffering.

4. A fourth reason is that it debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

The standard form of the Hippocratic Oath that is taken by many medical doctors, dating back to the time of the Greeks, says:

“I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” (in Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, 207).

Dr Bob Allan, president of the ACT branch of the Australian Medical Association confirms this position. He stated in The Canberra Times that “the association’s position, and that of the World Medical Association, was that euthanasia, even if requested by a patient, was unethical.

“Dr Allan said doctors would have great moral difficulty in actively bringing about the end of a patient’s life.

“To actively set out to end someone’s life is an enormous break from medical standards” (The Canberra Times, “Euthanasia row fires both sides”, February 3, 1993, p. 5).

Michael Moore has stated in The Canberra Times (Feb. 3, 1993, p.5), “I’m interested in facilitating the right of people to make a decision about their own life. It is the most fundamental of human rights–the right to life and the right to death”.

Michael is fundamentally and legally wrong at this point. He is not advocating the right to die. People can do that legally now by committing suicide. Michael is advocating something much more devastating to our society. He is claiming the right for somebody to be killed on request in certain circumstances. He is also calling for the right of others to assist in the killing of others.

This right does not exist in our society and it should never be introduced if we want to maintain a country with respect for one another.

5. The fifth reason to resist voluntary active euthanasia is: There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

This compassionate care involves a competent doctor effectively treating severe pain, emotional support and caring communication from others. Empathy is needed by the doctor and others.

We need to improve the standards of care for dying patients. I commend the ACT government’s initiatives to develop a hospice. It is urgently needed.

Inter-disciplinary teams will be needed involving doctors, nurses, clergy, social workers, other professionals and caring paraprofessionals.

6. The sixth and final reason: human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

As a doctor put it to me recently: We put down dogs, why shouldn’t we offer the elderly in a vegetative state the same? The reason is that human beings are not animals. Human beings are unique, “made in the image of God”, according to the Bible.

We could find support for this proposition by referring to Noam Chomsky’s work on the uniqueness of human language, or neurosurgeon, Wilder Penfield’s, research on the difference between the brain and the mind—both affirming the difference between human beings and animals.

As God’s image bearers, each of us has the capacity to be personal, rational, volitional, emotional, and moral. Our responsibility is to reflect God’s character and purposes in all that we do.

When we reduce human beings to animals, it logically follows that a whole range of horrendous evils could eventuate.

Human life is sacred and God has forbidden that any life be murdered. To do so it indirectly an attack on God.

Any society that engages in the killing of innocent life will pay a grave price. When we do not respect life before birth, if affects our view of life after birth. If we do not respect the dying, it will affect our attitude towards the living. As the Bible puts it: “For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Romans 14:7-8).

Euthanasia is not a compassionate solution to those in pain for the following reasons:

1. We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia. We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

2. There is no guarantee it will be limited to terminal illness for those in pain. The recent history of the euthanasia movement demonstrates this.

3. It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

4. It debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

5. There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

6. Human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

SUMMING UP

I oppose voluntary active euthanasia because of:

Abuse
Error
The historical examples
Distrust
Coercion

I CONCLUDE:

The case for euthanasia is based on:

intentionally killing or assisting in the killing of innocent human beings.
repudiation of the doctor-patient relationship that is meant to promote life.
flies in the face of the medical advances made in the treatment of pain and is at odds with compassionate methods of care.
does not fully consider the historical examples that show euthanasia cannot be legislatively controlled.
rests on presuppositions that do not respect human life.
plays God.
ethically, rests on self-defeating assertions.
it is not in the patient’s or society’s best interests.
it eliminates the sufferer, rather than eliminating the suffering.

FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER & C. EVERETT KOOP dedicated their book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race,

” To those who were robbed of life,

the unborn, the weak, the sick,

the old, during the dark ages of

madness, selfishness, lust and greed

for which the last decades of the

twentieth century are remembered”(Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, p. 118).

For further study:

Tony Sheldon, Utrecht, Holland, “Being ‘tired of life’ is not grounds for euthanasia” (British Medical Journal).
“Dutch legalise euthanasia” (BBC News)
“Deadly diagnosis in the Netherlands” (Concerned Women for America)
“Dutch doctors want to kill the healthy” (Christianity Today)
Voluntary euthanasis not under control – the Netherlands.
“Dutch euthanasia law should apply to patients ‘suffering from living.” (British Medical Journal)
“Who killed Grandpa? (Chuck Colson)
“From a slippery slope to an avalanche” (Chuck Colson)
“Coming soon to a hospital near you” (Chuck Colson)
“Professor of Death: Peter Singer” (Christianity Today)
Interview with Phillip Nitschke: Australian euthanasia advocate
“Bishop Fisher & Dr. Phillip Nitschke in Sydney euthanasia debate“

Voluntary Assisted Death (VAD)

leads to

God’s Judgment

(Hebrews 9:27, “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” NIV)

The fear of God

Future Threat

(ChristArt)

Spencer D Gear

God gave A.W. Tozer the wonderful gift to get to the core of many issues for Christians. He wrote that “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us… For this reason the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself.” [2] Just think on this: What you believe about God is the most important thing about you!

Today, there is tremendous irreverence for God through blasphemy and profane use of his name by secular people around us. Jesus Christ or God seem to be as familiar to our peers as words like mate, sex and the dole.

But with some Christians, their view of God has become very familiar, downright low. I have had people speak of their heavenly Father and call Him, “Daddy.” Afterall, they say, Rom. 8:15, calls him, “Abba Father.”

That’s true. This is the very word Jesus used in the garden of Gethsemane when he was in horrible agony and unburdening his soul to God (Mark 14:36).

It is also used in Gal. 4:6, the Spirit of adoption cries out “Abba Father.” “Abba” is the Aramaic word for “father.” Yes, it is a term of “tenderness, trust, and love.” It does speak of “the intimate spiritual relationship between the believer and his God.” [3]

But “Abba” only appears three times in the entire Bible.

Is your view of God, one of his being a “daddy”? A friend, a mate or buddy? This is a shallow view of God and our relationship with him, if we want him primarily as a buddy. God is awesome and for us to relate to him as a daddy or mate, is horribly superficial and irreverent.

If we are true believers, we must relate to God in a more profound way. There’s a word that appears at least 49 times in the Book of Psalms [4], especially throughout the O.T., but also in the N.T. that defines the true believer and his/her relationship with God. [5]

It’s a view of God that is far from our lips. We rarely hear it today, even in the church. We may want to turn our backs on this kind of God and run from him. But this is the core of true Christianity. See Psalm 112!

Hallelujah. That’s how this psalm begins: “Praise the Lord.” This, along with Ps. 111, is an acrostic psalm. Instead of end words of a line rhyming, the writer here uses the letters of the Hebrew alphabet to begin each new line. Praise the Lord for what?

THE STATE OF THE TRUE BELIEVER (Psalm 112:1)

“Blessed is the [person] who fears the Lord.” The truly godly person is one who fears the Lord. This is a radically different relationship than being your daddy or mate.
If you are ever going to be blessed, you must be one who fears the Lord.

A. What does it mean to “fear the Lord”?

Some of the old time theologians used to speak of the “terror of the Lord.” [6] However, the King James Version and the modern versions I checked (NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV) speak of the true believer as the one who fears the Lord.

When we want to understand any biblical principle, we need to compare Scripture with Scripture. This is a basic rule of biblical interpretation. Many of us get into trouble with interpretation when we take just one verse in isolation.
So, what does it mean to “fear the Lord.”

1. Isaiah 8:13

“The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.” When we fear people it is radically different from the fear of Jehovah. When we fear people, we:

fear their power to hurt us–

hurt our reputation,

damage our property,

hurt those we love,

hurt us physically if they are more powerful,

may fear the power of the government over us to tax us, punish us when we break the law, take away our freedom, etc.

On the human level, we may have sound reasons for a healthy fear of people and government. However, too often we forget that human beings, Satan and his demons, can only do to us what God allows. Job is a classic example.

Jesus said to Pilate: “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (John 19:10).

Human beings are absolutely powerless against God. God can shatter any plans they have against you. God could strike them dead at any moment. Fear of human beings may cause those who are morally weak to follow the wicked. I see this with youth who get into drugs and sex. They fear their peers and what they will think of them if they don’t do these things.

Fear of human beings may cause some people to become slaves to employers, be untruthful and act as cowards. Fear of human beings may influence some not to be honest with their convictions and even applaud evil. Fear of human beings may cause us to be hypocrites, to pretend that we are Christian when we are not. It may even cause us to deny Christ, as the apostle Peter did and later repented. The fear of man is condemned in Scripture. [7] Just one example, I Peter 3:13-16:

Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. `Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened. But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Let’s return to Isa. 8:13, “The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy.” In contrast to the fear of human beings, the fear of God, according to Isa. 8:13, is based on two convictions:

First, He is “the Lord Almighty.” We fear him because of his power.
Never forget this: Human beings can only injure you as far as temporal things in this world are concerned. The most human beings can do to you is “kill your body.” God’s powers go beyond the grave. As Jesus put it: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). We fear him because of his might.

Second, Isa. 8:13 emphasises that we fear God because of His absolute holiness. “The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy.”

a. What does “holy” mean? [8]

We mostly think of the purity and righteousness of God, but that is not the primary meaning of holiness. It is more than a moral or ethical quality.

b. Holy has two distinct meanings:

(1) Primary meaning is: “apartness” or “otherness.”

“Holy” comes from an old word that meant “to cut” or “to separate.” To put it into contemporary language, we could say He is “a cut above something.” When we find some goods that are of superior quality, we say they are “a cut above the rest.” That is, when we say that God is holy we are saying, by nature, there is a profound difference between God and all creatures.

God’s transcendent majesty;

His absolute superiority;

Therefore, He is worthy of our:

Honour

Reverence or fear

Adoration

Worship

He is completely “other.” He is different from us in his glory–radically different. “When the Bible calls God holy it means primarily that God is transcendentally separate. He is so far above and beyond us that He seems almost totally foreign to us. To be holy is to be `other,’ to be different in a special way.” [9]

When the angels were calling to one another in Isa. 6:3, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory,” they were not saying “pure, pure, pure is the Lord Almighty,” but “wholly other, transcendent One, absolutely superior, is the Lord Almighty.”

(2) The secondary meaning of holy relates to God’s pure and righteous actions.

God does what is correct. He never does what is wrong. He doesn’t have a sinful nature to tempt him to evil. God always acts in a righteous way because his nature is holy. We find that difficult to comprehend–somebody who is absolutely just and correct in everything he does. But that’s our God.

Thanks to God revealing himself through the Bible, we know and can say that:

internally (by nature), God is righteous. Therefore,

externally, his actions are righteous.

Because God is holy, He is both great and good. There is no evil mixed with His goodness. Why then, according to Isa. 8:13 are we to “fear” or “dread” this Lord? This is the God of the universe who reveals Himself through the Bible. The Scriptures tell us this about God:

“How awesome is the Lord Most High, the great King over all the earth” (Ps. 47:2).

Politicians may legislate the killing of human beings through voluntary, active euthanasia, but it is the Lord Most High who is King over all the earth. He is the one who judges individuals and nations. Australians may think they can thumb their noses at almighty God, but God’s law is king. We are finally accountable to this awesome God. The superior, transcendent One.

When the Israelites were driving out the Canaanites from the Promised Land, the Bible says:

“Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God” (Deut. 7:21);

Again in Deuteronomy: “The Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow. . . Fear the Lord your God and serve Him” (Deut. 10:17-20).

“‘For I am a great king,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and my name is to be feared among the nations'” (Mal. 1:14).

What does it mean to fear God? Let’s compare another Scripture! Job gives us a summary of what it means to fear the Lord:

2. Job 23:13-17

This is the One whom he fears:

a. “He stands alone” (v. 13, NIV)

“He is unique” (NASB). Literally: “For he is in one” [10] It speaks of the unity of God, the One true God. As Deut. 6:4 puts it: “Hear. O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”
Job does not have to answer to many gods, just the One true God. Thanks to later revelation we know that this one God is in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not polytheism (many gods). The three persons in the one Godhead act totally in one accord. They are one.

He not only stands alone, but:

b. “Who can oppose him?” (v. 13)

Literally, “who can turn him?” As James 1:17 says of God the Father “who does not change like shifting shadows.”

For Job, there was the realisation that nothing could change God’s resolve to treat Job the way God did by afflicting him. We need to understand this. The Almighty God we serve is “unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” This means that God’s laws for us, this world, including the ungodly, never, ever change.

No matter how much the leaders and ordinary people of this country thumb their noses at God, scoff at His laws, this world is heading towards God’s conclusion, based on His unchanging person. Sinners don’t get away with their sin. Nations that reject God’s laws will suffer the consequences.

God’s Law is king. It is a foolish government that wants to establish laws that contradict the law of God. God’s law will always be king. We, personally, and nations, are accountable to God. We may not see the consequences in this life. But God’s unchanging consequences will be experienced.

There is no circumstance anywhere in the world or in your life or mine that can affect this absolutely perfect God. He is “the same yesterday, and today and forever.” I ask you: “Who can oppose him?” NOBODY! To Job, God emphasises it:

c. “He does whatever he pleases” (v. 13)

Literally: “And his soul desires, and he does.” [11] This sounds rather harsh, but God does what is absolutely best for this world and us. There is no favouritism with him. He always acts according to his perfect righteous nature. Surely we see this all around us in the moral world. God has told us that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. People reject that and we have sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, devastating the world.

God says it is one man for one woman for life in the covenant of marriage. We break it and we are reaping the consequences of shattered relationships, adults and children who are full of hate and are devastated. God does whatever he pleases, but it is always totally good, holy and just. We must understand what this meant in Job’s life:

There is no one on earth like Job;

He is blameless and upright;

He is a man who fears God and shuns evil (1:8);

God gave Satan permission to:

slaughter Job’s servants;

destroy his animals;

kill all of his sons and daughters;

BUT “in all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing” (1:22).

But there is more:

“Satan… afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head” (2:7).

Then Job’s “wife said to him, `Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!'” (2:9). But there is still more.

His three friends then came to try to comfort him, but they wanted to blame him for bringing this on himself.

But in the end, “The Lord made him prosperous again and gave him twice as much as he had before… The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first” (42:10, 12).

But God made it very clear to Job that God does whatever God pleases in Job’s life. By application, whatever takes place in our lives is what God has sovereignly ordered for us in his goodness, holiness and righteousness. I trust that you can conclude with Job at the end of his life. He says to the Lord, “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted” (42:2).

d. Job 23:14

“He carries out his decree against me, and many such plans he still has in store.”

That is: God will do what he has planned for Job. From the human perspective, it does not look very nice. But this is God’s perfect will for Job. Perhaps Job was thinking that God had many more doses of affliction for him. God’s plan for the universe includes all individuals–Job, you and me.

Of sparrows, God says, “Not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matt. 10:29-30). These are God’s plans for you and me–even down to my baldness.

What is this saying? The God whom we are to fear is one who cares about the weakest saint, every sinner, as well as governments and nations. We must understand that God’s plan for Job was not exceptional. Job was a real person. However, we have in Job a revelation of the nature of God and how God operates in people’s lives.

What is Job’s response to this God?

e. Job 23:15-17

“I am terrified before him”;

“I fear him”;

“God has made [his] heart faint”;

“The Almighty has terrified [him]”;

This last verb, “terrified” (“dismayed”, NASB) is a very strong one and means that God “has filled [Job] with horror and consternation.” [12] The thought of an all-powerful God who does not change, and puts into action what he decrees against Job, caused Job to have inward fear, confusion, terror, dismay.

The effect on Job as he meditated on God’s character as an all-wise, irresistibly powerful, moral Governor, who does whatever he pleases according to His will, is not something that people think very seriously about these days.

However, if we pause for a moment to think about the power and wisdom of God in creating and sustaining this vast material universe, surely it puts us in perspective. We get a glimpse of our spiritual worthlessness and how puny we are before the eye of the majestic, awesome God. I am convinced that we don’t understand our weakness and insufficiency until we truly have contact with God. Until we begin to understand God as he is.

When faced with God’s holiness, Isaiah saw himself: “Woe is me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isa. 6:5). When Job contemplated God, he said, “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job. 42:6).

Since this is the true fear of God by one who is godly, what should the fear be for those who are rebels against God, have no peace with God, and on whom the wrath of God will be poured out in hell forever and ever??

Paul, the apostle, saw this very clearly when he said in 2 Cor. 5:11, “Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.” Many Christian people are puzzled. They don’t understand why, in God’s sovereignty, they receive difficulties, affliction, death, from God. Why are they treated with such severity?

Most of us have never experienced what Job went through. But he came through it with a fresh understanding of who God is. Too often our knowledge of God’s plan is imperfect. Our understanding of God is deficient. This causes us to think that God is against us. Like Job we don’t have genuine trust in God. Our confidence in God is lacking.

Rather than impeach God’s unchanging love towards his faithful followers and charge God with being an enemy of believers, we need to understand the nature of God.

Let me touch on two other Scriptures, briefly, to help us get a handle on what it means to “fear the Lord.”

3. Psalm 111:10

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (same as Prov. 9:10; similar to Prov. 1:7, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”) How can the “fear of the Lord” be the beginning of “wisdom” or “knowledge.” Does this mean that if you study science, agriculture, medicine, without a knowledge of God, you do not have any knowledge? That would be ridiculous logic!

It means that “the initial step or starting-point” for anybody who wants to gain true wisdom is the “fear of the Lord.” No matter what human knowledge you attain, if you do not have the knowledge of God as your foundation, it is folly. Your framework is faulty. If you want to advance in knowledge and wisdom, you must have a reverence or holy fear of God. [13]

The sense of God. The belief that He exists. That He reigns in my life, my job and over the universe, and is the Source and Sustainer of all life and blessing–that is the foundation for all wisdom, success and anything excellent in life.

This is one of the reasons why Australians are floundering these days in law-making, in seeking answers for behavioural and moral problems in our society. We do not fear God, so we do not accept his divine Word as authoritative. Instead, we look to the best of man’s flawed human wisdom.

One of my former staff members attended a public meeting in Bundaberg, Qld, Australia where the speaker was advocating that laws against incest should be abolished. It should no longer be a criminal offense for fathers and mothers to have sex with their children, he said.

When people reject the fear of God and do not seek God’s mind in dealing with moral problems in our society, the foundation for answers is shattered. And we get such nonsense as decriminalising incest. Will it be theft next? What barrier is left for laws against murder to stand?

I consider that our Australian culture is on the skids; it is almost lost. One of the finest defenders of the faith in the world today must be Ravi Zacharias. This man with an East Indian background says: “The greatest question of our time must be considered: Can man live without God? It must be answered not only by those who are avowedly antitheistic, but also by the many who functionally live as if there were no God and that His existence does not matter.” [14]

Secular historians, Will and Ariel Durant, understood that question. Their answer was, “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.” [15]

Without the “fear of the Lord” and obedience to his Word as the foundation of knowledge and wisdom, our nation will go down the skids, morally and culturally.

Someone has said, “We truly fear God just in proportion as we truly love him.”[16]

One other verse gives us another view of what it means to fear the Lord.

4. Proverbs 8:13

“To fear the Lord is to hate evil.” This is the reverse side of what I’ve been saying. When you know that your sin is forgiven, you can truly hate evil. Prov. 8:13 tells what evil the true believer is to hate: pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.”

Since God is holy, to reverentially fear Him means that we adore God’s character, his goodness. It should be natural then that we revolt against that which is opposite to God–evil. When we fear God, we need to hunger and thirst after his righteousness. We must have a passion to be Christ-like in our thoughts, actions and attitudes towards people.

This makes evil look hideous, detestable, abhorrent. We must have horrible opposition to any evil desires or actions. We must loathe evil from the bottom of our hearts. Not just evil actions, but our own evil thoughts. Yes, we practise morality because we fear God the Judge who will punish us for doing wrong. But it is far more than that. We love goodness and hate evil for God’s sake.

B. SUMMARY

A.W. Tozer said that one of the perils for the preacher is “when he loses his solemn fear in the presence of the High and Holy One.” [17] What is the fear of the Lord? One writer put it this way:

It does not mean fear in our usual sense of being afraid. It means rather to quake or tremble in the presence of a Being so holy, so morally superior, so removed from evil, that in his presence, human boasting, human pride, human arrogance vanish as we bow in speechless humility, reverence, and adoration of the One beyond understanding. [18]

This fear of God is not a dread or terror of Him in an horrific sense. It is a loving reverence of him that finds us falling on our faces before him in willing obedience to his commands. The fear of God includes trust in God, knowledge of God from creation and His Word, recognition of God’s claim on my life. It is awe of the power and holiness of God. When I fear God, I cherish the sense of His presence.

Human beings are dependent people. We depend, not on husbands or wives, not on children, bosses or government leaders. We must not depend on ourselves. We cannot act wisely if we are our own king. Dependent human beings must fear God. We have a duty to obey Him. We must carry out the plans of our Creator. Life is only ordered correctly for us when God is in charge. We depend on the Almighty One for our very existence.

II. APPLICATION

We must apply this to us in Australia and around the world in the 21st century.

1. Ps. 33:8 says, “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him.”

Why is this sense of God’s awesome holiness virtually unknown among Christians today? Why is this holy reverence and overwhelming wonder missing in our lives and churches? How can we be so blind as to treat God as a daddy, a good bloke, rather than falling on our faces before Him in holy awe?

The apostle John, according to Rev. 1:17, fell as if he were dead at the feet of God. The reason for this lack of fear of God becomes clear: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: `Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.'”

Surely, there would be profound reverence and godly fear if we suddenly found ourselves in God’s presence. In John’s words, the reason he had this holy fear was: “I saw him.” Our lack of passionate love for God. The fear of God is not among us because we are so far from our Lord. We need to seek Him. We need to see him and know him.

2. How do we obtain the fear of God?

a. Seek him.

It will not fall into your lap. It comes through perseverance and diligence in prayer in his presence. Ps. 27:8, “My heart says of you, `Seek his face! Your face, Lord, I will seek.” Ps. 105:4, “Look to the Lord and his strength; seek his face always.”

If you will seek God,

b. He will teach you to fear him.

Ps. 34:9 & 11, “Fear the Lord, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing… Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.”

God teaches us to fear Him through his word. Before Moses died, he told Israel’s kings how they were to walk in obedience to God. Deut. 17: 19 says that their king was to “read [the law of God] all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees.”

If you will feed your mind on who God is and his past dealings with the people of God through the Scriptures, you will learn how to fear the Lord. You will quickly see how Jehovah blessed the obedient.

Read the historical books of the Old Testament (the Samuels, Kings, Chronicles) and you will see that when the king did what was right in the sight of the Lord, the nation was blessed and prospered. When he did evil in God’s sight and walked according to his own ideas, the nation faltered and was judged.

We learn to fear the Lord when we meditate on his Word.

Deuteronomy 31:12-13 states:

Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, [13] and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess (ESV).

This is also a message for our day. We are seeing a generation of youth (and adults) who know nothing about responsibility, morality or the fear of God. Our children have been baptised into it through their music, television, peers and parents who know nothing of God. This generation is lost. They have little idea about God. If we, the church, do not cry out about the sins of this generation, who will do it? If we don’t teach them to fear God, who will?

The educators, counsellors and media moguls won’t do it. They are busy destroying any semblance of God. In New York City there was a tract circulating (if it’s in New York City, it won’t be long before it’s here in Australia) among 7th grade students, called “Your Rights.” It says, “You have a right to have sex with anybody of any gender, anytime you please.” The tract is sponsored by a school-related organisation. [19]

God is saying to us, the church, “Our children will not know about the Lord or about His holiness. You must teach them the fear of God–teach them the Scriptures.” How do you come to fear the Lord? Seek Him and He will teach you.

Finally,

c. Psalm 86:11

“Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth; give me an undivided heart, that I may fear your name.” You must want to seek God with “an undivided heart.” Believers, if you truly want to fear God, you have to seek him with all your heart. Wholeheartedly! No distractions. God does not give his fear to those who are spiritually lazy.

Proverbs 2:1-5 reads:

My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God (ESV).

To learn to fear the Lord, is quite simple. It starts with obedience to him in what you already know. If your heart is undivided, he will lead you one step at a time in further obedience into his holy fear. I am a Protestant. The Protestant Reformation started with God using Martin Luther in the 1500s. One of the things that marked the Reformers was an awe of the holy, majestic God. It drove them to their knees in fear and reference.

Maximilian Kolbe knew the fear of the Lord. It fueled his obedience–even to the point of pouring out his life for another. His fear of God was greater than his fear of the tyrants of Auschwitz [Nazi prison camp].

The believers of Eastern Europe knew the fear of the Lord. They chose Christ over their communist oppressors. (Now they must choose Christ over materialism or whatever else follows.) [20]

The fear of the Lord was the secret of the early church. When Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead in judgment because they lied to God (they trampled on the holy), Acts 5:11 says, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”

The contemporary, user-friendly, meeting felt-needs church is the opposite of one that fears the Lord. Today’s church wants to “portray [God] as fun, jovial, easygoing, lenient, and even permissive… Sinners hear nothing of divine wrath.”[21] Is it going to take a modern day Ananias and Sapphira to get the church back to an awesome fear of God?

The Scriptures link an awesome fear of God with a determined pursuit of holiness. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1, ESV).

Consider these words from a 19th century Scottish pastor and theologian, John Brown:

“Nothing is so well fitted to put the fear of God, which will preserve men from offending him, into the heart, as an enlightened view of the cross of Christ. There shine spotless holiness, inflexible justice, incomprehensible wisdom, omnipotent power, holy love. None of these excellencies darken or eclipse the other, but every one of them rather gives a lustre to the rest. They mingle their beams and shine with united eternal splendour: the just Judge, the merciful Father, the wise Governor. Nowhere does justice appear so awful, mercy so amiable, or wisdom so profound.” [22]

When we are overcome with our own sinfulness, the awesome majesty of the holy God, and the deep significance of the meaning of the cross of Christ, we will want to join with the hymnist and sing:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee;
Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty!
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity.

Holy, Holy, Holy! All the saints adore thee,
Casting down heir golden crowns around the glassy sea;
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before thee,
Who wert and art, and evermore shalt be.

Holy, Holy, Holy! Though the darkness hide thee,
Though the eye of sinful man they glory may not see,
Only thou art holy; there is none beside thee
Perfect in pow’r, in love, and purity.

Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!
All thy works shall praise thy Name, in earth and sky and sea;
Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty!
God in three Persons, blessed Trinity! [23]

Endnotes

2. A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1961, p.1.
3. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Romans: Chapters 1-8. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 259-60.
4. Psalm 2:11; 15:4; 19:9; 22:23, 25; 25:12, 14; 27:1; 31:19; 33:8, 18; 34:7, 9, ; 36:1; 40:3; 46:2; 52:6; 55:19; 56:4; 60:4; 61:5; 64:9; 66:6; 67:7; 72:5; 85:9; 86:11; 90:11; 96:9; 102:15; 103:11, 13, 17; 111:5, 10; 112:1; 115:11, 13; 118:4; 119:38, 63, 74, 120; 128:1, 4; 135:20; 145:19; 147:11.
5. Other verses on the “fear of God” (not comprehensive): Gen. 20:11; Deut. 6:13; 2 Chron. 6:31; Job 1:8; 24:14; 28:28; Prov. 1:7; 2:5; 3:7; 8:13; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26-27; 15:16, 23; 16:6; 19:23; 22:4; 23:17; 24:21; 29:25; Eccl. 3:14; 12:13; Isa. 33:6; Jer. 2:19; 36:16, 24; 2 Cor. 5:11; Rev. 14:7.
6. See The Practical Works of Richard Baxter: Select Treatises. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, reprinted 1981 (from 1863 edition), p. 188.
7. Ps. 35:4; 51:7; Jer. 1:8; Ezek. 3:9; Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4.
8. These two studies are based on R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992, chs. 16, 17.
9. R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1985, pp. 54-55.
10. H. D. M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell (ed.), The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 7. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n. d., p. 397.
11. Ibid., p. 398.
12. Ibid., p. 393.
13. The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 9, pp. 5-6.
14. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994, p. xvi.
15. The Lessons of History, pp. 50-51, in Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981, p. 45.
16. The Pulpit Commentary, No. 9, p. 5.
17. A.W. Tozer, God Tells the Man Who Cares. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1992, p. 92.
18. Caleb Rosado, “America the Brutal,” Christianity Today, August 15, 1994, p. 24.
19. “Love, Fear and Obedience,” David Wilkerson, 17 August, 1992.
20. Charles Colson, The Body. Milton Keynes, England:: Word Publishing, 1992, p. 383.
21. John F. MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1993, p. 63.
22. John Brown, Expository Discourses on 1 Peter, vol. 1. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1848/1975, pp. 472-473.
23. Words by Reginald Heber, 1783-1826; Music by John B. Dykes, 1861, being Hymn No. 60, The Hymnal. Rosebery, N.S.W., Australia: Aylesbury Press, 1967.

1 Peter 1:1-2, Don’t chuck it in because of who you are as the people of God.

(clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

1 Peter 1:1-2 (ESV),

‘Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

May grace and peace be multiplied to you’.

1. INTRODUCTION

Have you witnessed to your faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and experienced this kind of reaction? Comments like:

“I don’t want to listen to that nonsense. You’ve got to be joking. Just take a look at all those religious paedophiles who have sexually abused children placed in their trust.” OR

“Christian! Huh! Hypocrites, that’s all they are. Remember Jimmy Swaggart and his prostitute? Jim Bakker, high flying TV evangelist jailed for 45 years for fraud–and, of course, there was adultery? Don’t mention the church to me.” OR

How can I believe in your God of love with so much evil in the world? Hitler and your God allowed all that! Sadam Hussein & what he did to Iraq.

In the language of some of the kids I counselled in the 17 years before I retired, “Life sucks.” You may get to the point of asking yourself, “Is it worth it? I should chuck this in.”

For those who are tempted to chuck it in, this Book of I Peter has some profound things to teach, to encourage you to keep on keeping on, and NOT to give up when the going gets tough.

Before we examine this wonderful encouragement, we need to note:

2. SOME THINGS ABOUT THE BOOK OF 1 PETER [2]

First verse, it claims to be from “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). Sounds pretty straight-forward. Peter the Apostle wrote it. Yet some liberal scholars promote the view “that First Peter is a pseudonymous [false] work of the post-Apostolic Age . . . [Peter] could not have written the letter.” [3] Why do they claim this is not the apostle Peter who wrote, but a person who falsely used the name of Peter? Because these scholars want us to believe that the “persecutions mentioned in the book” are “those of the reign of [Roman Emperor] Trajan (98-117).” [4]

If we make the writing as late as during the reign of Trajan, it would be 70-90 years after the death of Christ and Peter could not have written the book, as he was probably dead. Then somebody from the early church, not the real Peter, wrote the book.

NO, NO, NO! This Peter, 1 Peter 5:1 says, was the one who was “a witness of the sufferings of Christ.” This is no fake Peter, but the apostle Peter, who was Christ’s apostle, denied him 3 times, and was there as an eyewitness of Christ’s death. Why do these liberal theologians invent such things? Here is a link to the non-canonical, apocryphal Gospel of Peter (Raymond Brown translation).

5:12, he wrote it “with the help of Silas/Silvanus . . . a faithful brother.” This is probably the Silas of Acts 15:22; 1 Thess. 1:1;

When was this book written? If you read 2 Peter 3:1, it speaks of “This is now my second letter to you.” Perhaps this is referring back to 1 Peter as the first letter. There’s a writing from the early church called I Clement (5:4-7), written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church, written about A.D. 96.[5] It speaks of Peter and Paul as suffering persecution.[6]

This probably refers to the persecution under Emperor Nero [7] of Rome following the fire that destroyed Rome in AD 64. 1 Peter “was probably written from Rome shortly before Nero’s great persecution — that is, in 62-64.” [8]

Peter says that he wrote the book from “Babylon” (5:13). This is probably “a code word for Rome” [9] if you look at verses such as Rev. 14:8; 17:5, 18.

Who received this letter? Verse 1, ” To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.” These were cities in northern Asia Minor, what is known as Turkey today. It was written to God’s people who were scattered, for some reason, across Turkey. If you read 1 Peter 4: 3-4, it suggests that these believers had probably “been converted out of paganism rather than out of Judaism.” [10]

I Peter 4:3, ” For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do–living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.”

Why did Peter write this letter?

It is a very warm pastoral letter with lots of encouragement for Christians who are scattered. I Peter 5:12, ” I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.”

These Christians shared a common faith;
But they faced common problems. Their basic problem was that they lived in a society that was ignorant of the true and living God (sounds like Australia today);
As Christians, they would be misunderstood and given some cruel treatment;
Peter wrote this epistle so that these early believers would “see their temporary sufferings in the full light of the coming eternal glory. In the midst of all their discouragements, the sovereign Lord will keep them and enable them by faith to have joy.” [11]
This is a very practical and relevant message for us in Queensland in the 21^st century.

In this passage we are considering, Peter urges his readers and he exhorts us here in Australia:

DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE AS THE PEOPLE OF GOD (vv. 1-2).
DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLE BLESSINGS YOU HAVE RECEIVED (vv. 3-5)
DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE GOD CAN TAKE THE JUNK IN YOUR LIFE AND TURN IT INTO GOLD (vv. 6-7)
DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE YOU LIVE BY A LAW THAT BAFFLES THIS WORLD. (vv. 8-9)

First, there is hope for your life no matter how bleak the circumstances. We’ll only have time to look at the first 2 verses today.

1 Peter 1:1-2 (NIV):

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

3. DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE YOU ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD (vv. 1-2)

Christian believers, don’t give up because you are:

A. GOD’S ELECT

As the church of the living God, remember who you are in Christ. Peter says you are “God’s elect” (literally, he wrote “to the chosen strangers”) [v. 1]. Not “to the chosen one” but “to the chosen ones (plural, the church). We see this also in v. 2: You have been “chosen” by God.

In fact this whole book of 1 Peter revolves around who you are in Christ and what is expected of you as believers. Chapter 2:9 addresses the believers then and us now: “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God.”

Before Peter gets to talk about who you are in the world and what things might happen to you in a hostile culture like Asia Minor and like Australia, he reminds us of our relationship to God the Father: you are “God’s elect.”

The concept of chosen or elect people comes originally from the OT. In Deut. 14:2, Moses told the tribes of Israel, “Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession.” Isaiah often spoke of Israel “whom I have chosen” (Isa. 41:8; 44:1; 45:4).

But here Peter shifts this thought to the Christian community. We, the born-again people of God–the church–are the elect. In fact, Gal. 6:16 calls the church “the Israel of God.”

How is it possible for people who were enemies of God, rebels and hostile towards Him, to be chosen by God? How could this take place?

Are you one of God’s elect? I had experience with two different funerals this month. I went to one funeral and he was preached into heaven with all Christians. I knew the fellow. He was a nice guy, but in my experience he never gave evidence of knowing the Lord Jesus personally. I left that funeral, saying to myself: “I must live so that the preacher can tell the truth at my funeral.”

The other funeral I did not attend because it was held on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. I received this information from Maranatha Christian Journal by email:

“How June Carter Cash’s faith in God impacted others was a common thread that ran through the funeral service in her honor at First Baptist Church in Hendersonville, Tenn., May 18 [2003].

“A lot of great things will be said about June today, but the greatest thing that can be said about her and about anyone is that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” said Glenn Weekley, pastor of First Baptist [Church] Hendersonville, where Cash was a member.

“I’m so thrilled to be able to stand here today, knowing that June had that personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I think she would make sure all of us know that she is in glory today not because of any deeds she did but because of the deed Jesus Christ did 2,000 years ago when He laid down His life on Calvary.” [12]

“[June Carter] Cash, a member of the [country music’s] legendary Carter Family and wife of Johnny Cash, died May 15 [2003] at age 73 following complications from heart surgery. Among the nearly 2,000 people gathered for her funeral were musicians, actors and others Cash had reached in her lifetime.” [13]

The apostle Peter wants you to remember who you are! It’s a great honour for the church to be chosen by God. But you are elected by God, not to be pompous and proud about it, but God elects you for a purpose. The teaching on election is not something to be scared about, but at times it has generated more heat than light in Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. Believers are called “God’s elect.”

Why? Because that’s who they are. But it is also to bring them comfort and to encourage them. We see in v. 6 that these Christians were going to experience “all kinds of trials.” While all true believers are God’s elect, they are also

(1) “Strangers in the world” (NIV).

The original language does not include “in the world” but the idea is there. Other translations call them & us “aliens” (NASB, REB, NJB), “exiles” (NRSV, ESV), “refugees” (GNB), “sojourners” (NAB).

The idea is this: the chosen people of God are

“Persons who belong to some other land and people, who are temporarily residing with a people to whom they do not belong. They are for a time being aliens, foreigners, strangers and not natives. They never expect to become [naturalised citizens of this world]. They do not want to be considered or treated as natives by the… people among whom they happen to be living…

“Aliens are often held in contempt by the natives among whom they dwell. To this day they may be placed under severe restrictions in times of war; they may be [thrown into prison] or even repatriated.” [14]

Yet, despite this treatment by the people living in this world, Peter exalts true believers far above the citizens of this world. You are “God’s chosen people” while the people among whom you live are nothing of the sort. “In fact, God’s election has made the Christians `foreigners’ to the rest. At one time [you] were common natives and lived on the same low level as the rest.” [15] You are not like that any longer.

We “live in the world but are no longer of the world. [We] have become like Abraham, [we] are merely sojourners in a land that is now strange to [us]. [We] look for a city which has foundations, whose designer and maker is God; heaven is [out] home and fatherland.” [16]

We are strangers here in Australia. Our desire is for a better country, a heavenly one, the city that God has prepared for us (see Heb. 11:9-16).

Don’t you feel like this sometimes? You are out of step with the direction the world is taking. You walk to the beat of a different drum. This is the way God wants it to be.

You know why there is so much crime and violence in our country. It’s not just because of a poor home environment or poverty. The Bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). In the words of Jesus: “For from within, our of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness [that’s lack of self control with sinful behaviour], envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean’” (Mark 7:21-22).

We could talk about what’s happening to the morality of the nation. As believers, our diagnosis should be radically different from the world’s. So would be your recommended treatment. Don’t be surprised if you feel like a fish out of water in this putrid age. You are.

When it seems as though the world is smothering you with its wretched solutions to the sinful dilemma. Peter encourages us: don’t chuck it in. To keep you strong and help you not to cave in and give up, Peter reminds you of this solid assurance that you, the church, were set apart by God. You are God’s elected chosen people. This is who you are. You are not an accident of history or some weirdos. You are people chosen by God for a purpose.

But this blessed doctrine of election has caused much heartburn in the church for centuries with statements like this from a leading theologian today:

“From all eternity, before we even existed, God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice–He chose some individuals to be saved into everlasting blessedness in heaven and others He chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment in hell… The elect do choose Christ, but only because they were first chosen by God… The non-elect receive justice. The elect receive mercy.” [17]

This is, I believe, an unbiblical view. It is quite popular in some quarters of the evangelical church today and mostly since the time of the Reformation. But it has caused unnecessary concern.

This view of God choosing you for salvation and damning others–the majority of the world–makes God sound like an unjust, ugly monster. Opening the door for you, by his sovereign act, but giving most of the world the flick into a hell of horror. To me this is not consistent with the attributes of the God of the Bible.

First Peter makes it clear what God has in mind when he speaks of election. Believers are chosen:

(2) “According to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (v. 2);

Pause with me a moment to look at what God means by his prognwsis, foreknowledge, omniscience. Literally, it means “knowledge beforehand.” [18]

For God, that means:

he and only he knows Himself and all other people and things.
He knows whether they are things that actually happen, will happen, or are merely possible;
God knows comprehensively and completely about people and things in the past, present and future;
God knows perfectly and from all eternity.
God knows all people and things at the same time, exhaustively and truly. [19]

Let’s look at a sample of how much God knows about you, everybody, our world, and about Himself.

Proverbs 15:3 (ESV), “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.”
Jeremiah 23:23-25 (ESV): “Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’
Hebrews 4:13 (ESV): “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”
Matthew 10:30 (ESV), “But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.” For some of us men that is a challenge, but not to God

We don’t have time to look at all of the Scriptures, but we need to note God’s foreknowledge means that:

God knows himself (the Trinity) intimately and only he knows himself (see Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:11);
God knows things that are actually existing:
The inanimate creation (Ps. 147:4);
People and all of their works (Ps. 33:13-15);
People’s thoughts and hearts (Ps. 139:1-4);
God knows your needs (Matt. 6:8, 32);

God not only knows things in the past and present, but he also knows all things that are possible:

He knew that Keilah would betray David to Saul, if he remained in that vicinity (I Sam. 23:11-12);
Jesus knew that Tyre and Sidon would have repented if they had seen the miracles that were performed in Bethsaida and Chorazin (Matt. 11:21);
Jesus knew that Sodom and Gomorrah would have been spared disaster if they had seen the works that were done in Capernaum (Matt. 11:23-24).

God’s foreknowledge means that he knows the future. But we need to understand that from a person’s “standpoint God’s knowledge of the future is foreknowledge, but not from God’s [point of view] since He knows all things by one simultaneous intuition. He foreknows:

the future in general [Isaiah 46:9-10 (ESV) remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’”

God foreknows the future in general (also Dan. 2, 7; Matt. 24-25; Acts 15:18), but he also foreknew the evil course that the nation of Israel would take (Deut. 31:20-21);

He foreknew the coming and the work of Cyrus (Isa. 44:26-45:7);

He foreknew the coming of the Messiah (Micah 5:2) and that

Wicked men would crucify him (Acts 2:23; 3:18, etc.) [20]

So, Peter’s readers were “elect/chosen” believers “according to the foreknowledge of God.” God knew beforehand what they (and we) would do with the proclamation of the Gospel. Would they respond or reject Christ? We know that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” [Romans 10:17 (ESV)]. But we can’t come to Christ unless the Holy Spirit draws us.

Remember Peter, the apostle preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius.

In Acts 10:44 (ESV), “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.”
Jesus said: John 6:44 (ESV), “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”

Let’s get back to I Peter 1:1-2.

Peter is not talking about how you as an individual person became a Christian and why others have not come to Christ. Peter is speaking to us as Christians and about God’s plan for us and how it happens. The “foreknowledge of God the Father” means that God knew ahead of time what we were like and what we would do with his gracious offer of salvation in Christ. When God pledged to make you more like Jesus, he “knew what he was letting himself in for.” [21]

You are God’s elect with a special purpose in view. Here it is

(3) “By the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (v. 2);

(4) “For obedience to Jesus Christ” (v. 2).

(5) “And for sprinkling by his blood” (v. 2)

We’ll have to wait until another time to examine God’s special purposes.

For all believers in sanctification, obedience and “sprinkling by his blood” (what could that mean?)

Let’s make some applications to you and me as I draw to a close:

Application:

Since God, in his foreknowledge, knows everything about you, what is your relationship with the king of Kings and Lord of Lords? Do you know him personally? Has the Gospel been clearly proclaimed to you and you have responded from the heart? If you DO NOT KNOW you are saved and will go to heaven immediately if you died today, please come to speak with me after the service. Where you are with God is the most important thing about you – and God knows your inner being. You can’t lie to him or fake it before him. Where are you with God?

If you know the Lord and are growing in grace, you can expect opposition. We feel like and ARE “strangers in the world.” You should not feel at home in this world. If you have more in common with the world than the people of God, there is something radically wrong in your relationship with God. And it’s not God’s fault. What are you doing to ruin your relationship with God?

Since trials and tribulations will come in this world, what incredible assurance it gives us to know that we are the “elect of God.” Chosen by God to be his sons and daughters as the blood-bought church of Jesus Christ.

God knows you and me through and through. He knows the bottom of our hearts. There are no secrets before him. What would he be pleased and displeased about you and me today?

What about the TV programs, videos, and computer games you watch?

I remember a Christian family that sat in my counselling office a few years ago and said, “We don’t allow our kids to watch much TV. But they do enjoy, “Home and Away.” Have you ever watched that program and considered all of the values that are promoted that are contrary to God’s word and holy living? I think you’d be surprised.

Would God be pleased about the content of your thought life this week? This year?

Will you allow God’s Holy Spirit to search every aspect of your being and clean out whatever is not pleasing to him?

What are you rebelling about in God’s word? Folks, we ultimately have to answer to God Himself. What will he say about your life when you face him?

If your thought life became visible before our eyes, what would you be ashamed of?

Would Christ be pleased with what you have thought about this last week?

Has your viewing been to the glory of God? I find it a very helpful question: If Jesus sat beside me, would he approve of the books and magazines I read?

What about my conversation? Has your language been pleasing to God this week? To your wife, husband, kids, the boss, other employees, the person at the store?

How have I treated other people this week? May the Lord convict you about what is not pleasing to Him and help you, starting today, to have these things sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit.

What will you be remembered for? Has God chosen you as a Christian believer? Are you one of God’s elect? Are you sure of that?

As I close, let me go back to the life and death of June Carter Cash. This was said at her funeral:

“Rosanne Cash was a stepdaughter to June Carter Cash, but she said June banished the words “stepdaughter” and “stepmother” from her vocabulary and accepted all the children as her own.

“In another testament of June’s character, Rosanne recalled how years ago she was sitting with June in the living room at home when the phone rang. June picked it up and started talking to someone, and after several minutes Rosanne wandered off to another room because it seemed she was deep in conversation. She went back 10 or 15 minutes later and June was still completely engrossed.

“I was sitting in the kitchen when she hung up a good 20 minutes later, and she had a big smile on her face, and she said, ‘I just had the nicest conversation,’” Rosanne said. “And she started telling me about this other woman’s life and her children and that she had just lost her father and where she lived and on and on. And I said, ‘Well, June, who was it?’ And she said, ‘Well, honey, it was a wrong number.’ That was June. In her eyes there were two kinds of people: those she knew and loved, and those she didn’t know and loved. She looked for the best in everyone. It was a way of life for her. . . She was forever lifting people up.”

“Rosanne Cash also said June’s great mission and passion in life were lifting up Johnny Cash. If being a wife were a corporation, she said, June would have been the CEO.

“It was her most treasured role. She began every day by saying, ‘What can I do for you, John?’ Her love filled up every room he was in, lit every path he walked, and her devotion created a sacred, exhilarating place for them to live out their married life. . .” [22]

What will the preacher say at your funeral?

From I Peter 1:1-2, Peter urges you to not chuck in your faith because of who you are in Christ:

You are God’s elect;

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father;

And strangers in the world.

Hymn: Have Thine Own Way (hymnal.net)

Endnotes:

2. These points are based on: Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, in Frank E. Gaebelein (gen. ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (vol. 12). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 210-213.

3. Ibid., pp. 210-211.

4. Ibid., p. 211. B. C. Caffin states that Peter “must have written before the outbreak of any systematic attempt to crush out Christianity, or any legalized persecution such as that under Trajan. Judgment was about to begin at the house of God (ch. iv.17)”, I Peter, The Pulpit Commentary, Spence H.D.M. & Exell, J. S. (eds.), (Vol. 22), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950, p. viii.

5. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture. Glasgow: Chapter House, 1988, p. 121, gives these details.

6. Blum, p. 212.

7. Caffin’s view is that “all this seems to point to the time of the Neronian persecution. Before that date, we gather from St. Paul’s Epistles, there was no actual persecution in Asia Minor” (p. viii).

8. Blum, p. 212.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., p. 213.

12. Erin Curry, May 19, 2003, Baptist Press, ‘June Carter Cash’s Christian faith, love for family remembered’ (Accessed 20 June 2012).

13. Ibid.

15. R.C.H. Lenski, An Interpretation of I and II Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966, p. 21.

16. Lenski, pp. 21-22.

17. Ibid., p. 22.

18. R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992, pp. 161-62.

19. Thayer states that the verbal form, progin?sk?, means “to have knowledge of beforehand; to foreknow.” For the noun form he simply defined as “forethought, pre-arrangement” [Thayer, J. H. (transl, rev., enlarged) 1962, Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 538]. Progin?sis, the noun, only appears twice in the NT at Acts 2:23 and I Peter 1:2.

20. Based on Thiessen, H. C. 1949, Introductory lectures in systematic theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 124.

21. The above Scriptures are based on ibid., pp. 125-126.

22. “June Carter Cash: Remembered At Funeral,” other bibliographic details are in note 12 above.

Whytehouse Designs

How to talk to your child about alcohol and other drug use

Alcohol or drug use, particularly when it may involve a member of your family, is a very emotionally loaded issue. Thus, it is quite natural that many parents are at a loss to know how to begin to handle this problem within the family. The following guidelines were prepared by counsellors trained in working with young people to provide parents with some basic ideas for use in dealing with this issue.

1. Become informed about alcohol and drugs and their effects. Be a credible source of information for your child.

2. Make your position on alcohol and drug use clear to your children so that they know where you stand, even if you have no indications they are involved.

3. Husband and wife should try to reach agreement with each other over handling the issue. There should be consistency and mutual support in your communications with your child on this subject.

4. Be aware that the behaviour you are expecting from your children may be different from that of their peers and that peer acceptance may be of paramount importance to them. Work with them so that they understand the reasons for your expectations. Strengthen their feelings of self-confidence and independence.

5. If you suspect alcohol or drug use, avoid unproductive accusations. These often result in denial. Sit down with your children and discuss calmly any suspicions you have. Talk about your personal concern for them, as well as their wrong-doing. Try to keep discussions on a rational level. Overly emotional, angry outbursts frequently serve only to cut off parent-child communication prematurely.

6. If you see evidence of alcohol or drug use (i.e. physical or psychological symptoms or drug apparatus in their possession), restate your position and make clear the consequences you are prepared to enact. Make sure you are prepared to follow through with the consequences you set. Empty threats are meaningless to a child.

7. Avoid “labelling” or name-calling. You are not dealing with your child’s character at this stage, but with his/her behaviour. Try to remain calm and avoid saying things which tend to further alienate you from your child. The goal of communication is to help him/her understand that, although you are concerned about and disapprove of his/her behaviour, you still love him/her.

8. Try to maintain good communication with your children’s teachers. Let them know you are interested in their progress in school and would be appreciative of feedback from them regarding their academic and social behaviour. Make your child aware of this so that the children realise there exists a “parent-teacher coalition.”

9. Make it your business to get to know your child’s friends, who their parents are, where and with whom he/she is socialising, whether or not parties will be supervised by adults, and so on. Don’t be afraid to communicate with parents of your child’s friends. Introduce yourself to them in person or by telephone. As a general rule, parents have the bests interests of their children in mind and need to reach out and support each other. Make sure that your child is aware you are establishing communication with his/her friends’ parents – being secretive only breeds mistrust.

10. Don’t be afraid to seek professional help. Counsellors trained in working with children and adolescents can help by re-opening communication between parent and child, providing a neutral ground for expression of feelings, and serving to “de-fuse” the climate of tension within families which sometimes develops over issues such as alcohol and drug use.

Whytehouse Designs

Marijuana is not a soft drug: Here’s the evidence!

Image result for marijuana bush public domain

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Since 1965, over 12,500 scientific research papers on marijuana have been published. These papers have been collated on a major data base by Dr Carlton Turner of the University of Mississippi – Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences. The papers have been listed in a publication entitle, “An Annotated Bibliography of Marijuana,” Volumes 1 & 11 and supplements . None of these papers gives marijuana a clean bill of health.

Yet some want to say that the “the benefits of smoking marijuana outweigh any potential harms” (Professor Miron), but this is refuted by top medical authorities. Dr. Susan Dalterio, a University of Texas (San Antonio) senior lecturer in the Department of Biology, told a drug conference: that she feels like screaming when she hears about the alleged medical benefits of marijuana. “This is just crazy, it’s totally nuts,” she told the audience.

Marijuana has some beneficial effects on pain, she admitted, but other drugs do a better job and their safety and consistency are assured by the federal government. A synthetic version of marijuana is now available in pill form by prescription. It has been successful in treating nausea, pain and anorexia. People no longer have an excuse for smoking marijuana for medical reasons, she said (“Expert Urges Tough Fight Against Drugs,” James Hagengruber, Billings Gazette, Montana, 25 September 2003). [1]

The toxicity of a drug is not determined by debate or opinion. It is determined by research.
“Marijuana is an addicting substance with a physiological withdrawal syndrome” [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry, 4th edition (DSM-IV)]

Terminology

marijuana: (mexican) frequently referring to cannabis leaves or other crude plant material in many countries.
sinsemilla: unpollinated female plants.
hashish: resin from the flowering tops of cannabis plants.

hashish oil: (cannabis oil) is a concentrate of cannabinoids obtained by solvent extraction of the crude plant material or of the resin.
cannabis: a synonymous term with marijuana as it is derived from the plant Cannabis Sativa.

What is marijuana?

Marijuana is one derivative of the plant Cannabis Sativa. Marijuana contains 426 bioactive (biologically active) molecules, increasing to over 2000 identifiable chemicals entering the bloodstream when it is smoked. 61 of the 426 bioactive molecules are called cannabinoids.

Of these cannabinoids the most destructive is a toxin (poison) called ‘-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Marijuana accumulates in fatty tissue and is still detectable 3 months after abstinence. The THC acts like a time release capsule, constantly and steadily releasing into the blood stream, keeping the user in a state of mild yet continual sedation.

Cannabinoids are not water soluble. They are lipophilic (fat soluble) and collect in the fatty tissue of cell walls. They block the passage of nutrients into a cell and block waste products from exiting the cells. Two major areas of collection are the brain (of which 33% is fat) and the sex organs. Others are the adrenal glands, liver, kidneys and heart.
Note: The body’s waste removal system is water based and therefore not well equipped to remove fat-soluble substances.

Physical symptoms of withdrawal are mild as the THC cannot be withdrawn from the body as rapidly as in alcohol or even heroin. The body has a lingering store within the fatty tissue and saturated fat may not lose the cannabinoid for 9 months or more depending on the amount and duration of use.

Any attempt to summarise the health effects of cannabis, as with any psychoactive substance, runs the risk of over simplification. The manner in which the drug affects a person is very much individualised based on the users own makeup, quality and quantity and type of drug, duration of use, method of administration, prior experience and tolerance level as well as environmental, biological and genetic factors.

With this in mind, the following data are provided as an indication of the effects, either individually or collectively, which the user will suffer with the use of cannabis. Many of these effects however will not be seen or noticed until the damage is done. The user may state that there is no effect.

Summary of the effects or results of marijuana use

Bong Wikipedia

1. One cigarette (joint) impairs the short term memory for at least 6 weeks. There are many studies demonstrating the deterioration of short term memory in marijuana users. The definitive and best controlled of these was done in 1989 by Dr Richard Schwartz. He demonstrated persisting impairment of short term memory six weeks after supervised abstention from the drug. Just one joint is all that is needed. (Dr’s Richard Schwartz, Gruenewald, M Klitzner et al “Memory Impairment In Cannabis Dependent Adolescents”, Am, J. Dis, Child, 143:1214-19, 1989 – Georgetown Medical School – Washington DC). Take a read of this one from The New Scientist, “Natural high helps banish bad times.”

2. In a major study to investigate the effects of cannabis on motor skills, twenty four hours after one cigarette (joint), experienced pilots performed severely impaired simulator landings. These pilots reported that they felt absolutely fine, with normal mood, alertness and performance and were completely unaware of their impairment. Several major rail crashes in the USA have been associated with the use of marijuana. (Dr JA Yesavage, VO Leirer, DG Morrow, Stanford University – “Marijuana carry over effects on aircraft pilot performance” – Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 62:221-27, 1991) Marijuana use is a continuing concern to paediatricians.

What about road accidents?

Courtesy Wikipedia

“Cannabis and driving: a new perspective” by Carl J O’Kane, Douglas C Tutt and Lyndon A Bauer, warns of the influence of marijuana use on one’s ability when driving a motor vehicle [Emergency Medicine, Volume 14 Issue 3 Page 296 – September 2002]. Whilst much research exists from overseas relating to increased risk of motor vehicle accidents due to marijuana use, the following Australian data are significant.

Dr Judith Perl, pharmacologist, of the Clinical Forensic Medicine Unit – NSW Police Service released information in 1991 of a study conducted over the period 1987-90. The study involved taking blood and urine samples from accident victims in four Sydney hospitals at random. The only qualifier was that those measuring .05 BAC [blood-alcohol concentration], or known to have consumed alcohol were not tested for other drug use. The increase in positive testing for cannabis in the blood of these victims was staggering, increasing from 28% (87-88) to 68% (1990). [See also Judith Perl, “Drugs & traffic safety”, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 17:25]Mrs Kate Carnell stated in “Debates of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory” (Hansard, 9 September 1992, p. 2077) that:

“Cannabis is clearly a cause of driver impairment – a fact of which we are becoming incresasingly aware. A study conducted by Dr. Judith Perl, of the forensic unit of the New South Wales Police, shows that cannabis is the single most important source of driver impairment discovered in blood and urine samples. Cannabis constituted 68 per cent of all drug-positive urine and blood tests conducted in New South Wales during 1990. Thus the threat that cannabis poses to driving safety is not idle and it must not be ignored. We know that alcohol also affects driving ability, judgment and skill performance, but the residual effects of cannabis last much longer than those of alcohol.”

3. A 15 year research project at the Karolinska Institute and Juddinge University Hospital, Sweden, revealed a 600% increase in the incidence of schizophrenia in conscripts who had used marijuana 50 times or more in their lifetime. This study used a standardised method for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. (Longitudinal study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden – 15 year study using 45570 army conscripts – Dr Sven Andreasson, P Allerbeck, A Engstrom et al., Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal Study of Swedish Conscripts. The Lancet, 2:1483 -1485,1987).

4. A parallel study showed a 500% increase in the overall incidence of other psychiatric disorders in conscripts who were users. (Andreasson, S; Allerbeck, P; Rydberg, U., “Schizophrenia in Users and Non Users of Cannabis” Acta Psychiatr. Scan., 79:505-510, 1989) The use of cannabis in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis was examined in a New Zealand: longitudinal prospective study. It found that “early cannabis use (by age 15) confers greater risk for schizophrenia outcomes than later cannabis use (by age 18). The youngest cannabis users may be most at risk because their cannabis use becomes longstanding.” [BMJ BMJ. 2002 November 23; 325 (7374): 1212–1213] [2]. The New Scientist reports on another study confirming the “Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened“.

5. The Swedish study scientifically linked marijuana to the dramatic increase in drug-induced schizophrenoform illness and the associated increase in teenage suicide rates and other violent death (as above )

6. The so called “Amotivational syndrome” –
Apathy, poor judgement, lack of self care,
Decreased empathy (perception of others problems)
Impaired perception of past, present and future.
Difficulty with information processing.
Difficulty with sequential dialogue.
(Goodman & Gilman – “The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics” 8th Ed. 1991) For the latest edition.

Dr Robert C Gilkeson, – a teacher, paediatrician, adolescent neuropsychiatrist and brain researcher, specialising in early childhood development and learning disabilities, moved in 1987 (after some years of paediatric practice and consultancy) to devote his time to research the effects of marijuana on brain function. Up until his untimely death in 1993, he was the Director of the Center for Drug Education and Brain Research. He summarised his general findings in a paper to the US Committees of Correspondence, Drug Watch division with this quote:

“My research studies of youngsters from kindergarten through high school show previously well adjusted and intellectually endowed children falling apart academically and emotionally in the teenage years with the only new factor being that of occasional marijuana use. Marijuana use can lead to an inability to retain strong self image, and an inability to visualise and plan for the future. Using marijuana makes ‘great’ people feel average, and ‘average’ people ‘dumb’. Marijuana use is toxic to all cells, and most especially toxic to brain cells.

“In 1981, my eight year study of 90 adolescent marijuana smokers was completed. Each youths brain wave tracings (EEG) showed dysfunction (decreased activity) similar to brain wave tracings of the learning disabled. A decrease in brain cell energy causes a decline in the level and complexity of thought and behaviour. ‘Burned out’ kids with impairment to both their frontal lobe and their short term memory due to chronic intoxification of marijuana were evident.

“These impairments are the cause of the increased violent and non violent juvenile crime, truancy and school drop out, teenage runaways and vagrancy, teenage prostitution and pregnancy, venereal disease, adolescent depression and suicide, polysubstance use and adolescent psychiatric referrals. Most alarming of all is the fact that we have witnessed the appearance of a new chronic organic brain syndrome called ‘burnout’ caused by marijuana use.”

Recent research in animals has also suggested that long-term use of marijuana (THC) produces changes in the limbic system that are similar to those that occur after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse such as cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. These changes are most evident during withdrawal from THC. During withdrawal, there are increases in both the levels of a brain chemical involved in stress and certain emotions and the activity of neurons in the amygdala. These same kinds of changes also occur during withdrawal from other drugs of abuse, suggesting that there may be a common factor in the development of drug dependence (Connecticut Clearinghouse, “Marijuana: The Brain’s Response to Drugs,” 1999).

In 1992, a study assessed the acute effects of cannabis on human cognition. This study found that cannabis impaired all capabilities of learning including associated processes and psychomotor performance. (Block RI, Farinpour R & Braverman K., “Acute effects of marijuana on cognition: relationship to chronic effects and smoking techniques. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour,” 1992, 43(3):907-917). Here is a summary of that research. Also take a look at: “Marijuana use during pregnancy damages kid’s learning” (The New Scientist).

“Much recent research is showing us exactly how marijuana impairs the brain. For instance, three days or more after smoking marijuana, PET scans of chronic marijuana users show decreased metabolic activity in the brain, especially in the cerebellum, a part of the brain involved with motor coordination, learning, and memory [Volkow ND et al., Psychiatric Research Neuroimaging 67:29-38, 1996]” (quoted from, “Prof. Miron Is Wrong About Marijuana,” Janet D. Lapey, M.D., The Massachusetts News Columnist, February 2000). However, The New Scientist claims that “Controversy still rages over whether cannabis damages the brain.”

For a summary of information for teenagers see: “Tips for Teens: The Truth About Marijuana.”

7. Four times the cancer causing potential of cigarettes. Cancers of the mouth and jaw usually seen in men (over 60 ) who had been heavy smokers and drinkers for decades have been found in young users. All had been daily marijuana users but had not smoked nicotine and only used a small amount of alcohol if any. Study group was young men between 19-38 who had developed squamous cell cancers of the tongue or jaw with lymph node involvement. (PJ Donald – “Marijuana Smoking – Possible Causes of Head and Neck Carcinoma in Young Patients” Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 94:517-521, 1986 – University of California, and Hoffman, D.; Brunnermann, KD.; Gori, GB.; Wynder, EL., “On the Carcinogenicity of Marijuana Smoke”. In: Runeckles, VC., ed. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, New York: Plenium, 1975:63-81.)

The New Scientist reports on “Cannabis smoking ‘more harmful’ than tobacco.”

“Marijuana smoking is associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of head and neck cancer. . . Marijuana is a risk factor for human head and neck cancer ” (“Marijuana Use and Increased Risk Zuo-Feng Zhang, Hal Morgenstern, Margaret R. Spitz, Donald P. Tashkin, Guo-Pei Yu, James R. Marshall, T. C. Hsu and Stimson P. Schantz, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 8, 1071-1078, December 1999)

Here’s a summary of risk factors for head and neck cancer, including the use of marijuana.

Although scientists have been convinced in the past that smoking causes lung cancer, the strong statistical associations did not provide absolute proof. This paper absolutely pinpoints that mutations in lung cancer cells are caused by benzopyrene. An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this carcinogen compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine report, 1982). This potent carcinogen suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This gene, P53, is related to half of all human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.

Commentary: Clearly marijuana smoke contains more of the potent carcinogen benzopyrene than tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the technique of smoking marijuana by inhaling deeply and holding the smoke within the lungs presents a chance of much greater exposure than a conventional tobacco cigarette. (Commentary provided by William M. Bennett M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Clinical Pharmacology and Hypertension at Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. This information is from Drug Watch Oregon).

8. Depression of the immune system at both humoural (body fluids) and cell immunity levels. In fact the immune system response is lowered by up to 40%. Studies have shown for instance that young people who are users tend to be ill more frequently than non users. Dr Akira Morishima has found that marijuana more than any other drug he had studied is closely correlated with a high rate of chromosome damage or destruction particularly in relation to T- lymphocytes (white blood cells). [Friedman, H; Klein, TW; Newton, CA; Widen, R., “The Effects of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on 7-lymphocyte and B-lymphocyte Mitogen Response”. J. Immunopharmacol., 7,451,1985 Florida University – 1985 &1994 Drugs of Abuse and the Immune System; 1st International Symposium Paris 1990 & A Morishima, GG Nahas & et al].

“There is good evidence that THC and other cannabinoids can impair both cell-mediated and humoral immune system functioning, leading to decreased resistance to infection by viruses and bacteria. However, the health relevance of these findings to human marijuana use remains uncertain. Conclusive evidence for increased malignancy, or enhanced acquisition of HIV, or the development of AIDS, has not been associated with marijuana use” (National Institutes of Health – Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana, February 19-20, 1997)

For a contrary opinion, see “Marijuana and Immunity,” Leo E. Hollister M.D. (Journal of Psychoactive Drugs pp. 159-163 Vol. 24 Apr-Jun 1992).

9. Fertility and other sexual development problems in males and females.

Males: sperm production is reduced, sperm motility reduced, production of testosterone and other hormones are reduced or delayed, which inhibits normal sexual development in males. Studies indicate that sometimes this sexual developmental delay leads to lack of interest in females and normal copulatory behaviour. Another side effect is the chromosomal damage (up to three times the normal rate) giving rise to the inability to produce normal pregnancy.

Females: marijuana can cause defective menstrual cycles, damage the ovum, cause production of high levels of testosterone, and significantly reduce levels of prolactin, which is required for milk production. Additionally females who use during pregnancy or who have residual levels of THC still present in their bodies are shown to produce lower than normal birthweight babies and, especially males with a higher than normal mortality rate. (Dr Wylie Hambree et al Columbia University; Dr Susan Dalterio University of Texas; Mendelsen JH et al Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 1978, 207:611-617; Dr Ethel Sassanrath, University of California; Hingson et al ‘Paediatrics’, vol 70 Oct 92 – Marijuana Alert. Hatch, E; Bracken, M., “Effect of Marijuana Use on Foetal Growth.” Am. J. Epidemiol. 124, 986, 1986. Fried, P; Watkinson, B; Willan, A., “Marijuana Use in Pregnancy and Decreased Length of Gestation.” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 105, 23, 1984)

A new study at the University of Buffalo, USA, has found: “Men who smoke marijuana frequently have significantly less seminal fluid, a lower total sperm count and their sperm behave abnormally, all of which may affect fertility adversely, a new study in reproductive physiology at the University of Buffalo has shown” (University of Buffalo Reporter, October 23, 2003).

Researcher Peter Fried, a psychologist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, “told New Scientist (25 March 2003) that as well as affecting memory and learning, exposure to marijuana during pregnancy has a strong effect on visual mapping and analysis in human children.”

10. DNA metabolism is inhibited thus interfering with cell function and replication. The blockage of this process results in slowing down the manufacture of DNA, RNA and proteins in the cell nucleus – a process essential for cell life. (B. Desoize; G Nahas; C Latour; R Vistelle, University of Champagne – Ardenne, “In Vivo Inhibition of Enterocyte Metabolism by Delta-9-THC” Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 181, pp. 512-516, 1986)

11. Associated with the above the THC enlarges the area between each cell, resulting in poor transmission of nerve impulses. This can lead to impaired speech and comprehension of complex ideas, loss of memory, difficulty in concentrating, insomnia, lack of body coordination and loss of muscle strength, impaired vision and unexpected mood changes. (RG Heath et al – “Chronic Marijuana Smoking – its effect on the Function and Structure of the Primate Brain”.)
Again associated with the issue of DNA, RNA, cell function and replication is the issue of birth abnormalities being produced in the offspring of parents who have used or are still using marijuana. These abnormalities closely resemble those of thalidomide babies although where thalidomide produced such abnormalities called phecomelia – in place of hands and feet, new borns had seal-like flippers.

Marijuana is responsible for defects such as non-existent limbs, phocomelia, syndactyly (fingers are fused together rendering them useless), missing hands and forearms, webbing of the hands, lack of nails, club feet and hydrocephalus (so called water on the brain). Dr Virchel E Wood, Orthopedic Surgeon & Associate Professor of the School of Medicine – Dept of Orthopedic Surgery – Loma Linda University (USA) has indicated that abnormalities can occur in the young of one or both parents who have been shown to have used marijuana. People who use marijuana and other drugs have 18 times more birth defects than non users.

n research reported in 2003, Drs Kenneth L. Audus, and Michael J. Soares of the Institute of Maternal-Fetal Biology concluded that “illicit drugs (e.g. cocaine, marijuana, etc) taken by the mother at virtually any time during gestation have the potential to adversely affect the outcome of pregnancy, resulting in severe complications for the mother, pre-term birth, abnormalities in fetal development and increased health risks as the newborn grows into adulthood” [” Dr. Audus is an internationally recognized expert on drug metabolism and drug transport by the placenta, while Dr. Soares’ expertise resides in understanding mechanisms controlling the growth and development of the placenta”] (News Release, September 1, 2003).
Dr Susan Dalterio of the University of Texas (San Antonio) has noted in extensive studies that genetic mutations have passed through to the second generation of offspring of marijuana users.

Such warnings [about marijuana use linked to psychoses] should not surprise the scientists who have for many years maintained that the THC contained in marijuana is dangerous. First, in the late 1960’s Dr. Robert Heath, then chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane Medical School, found that marijuana affects brain waves and destroys brain cells. [3] Second, a study conducted by Dr. Ethel Sassenrath at the University of California at Davis between 1974 and 1978 found that THC increased the rate of fetal loss (in utero, fetal death) in monkeys by over 300%, while at the same time decreasing the birth weights in those babies born alive. [4] Third, a study by Dr. Susan Dalterio, at the University of Texas found that marijuana decreased testosterone and impaired sexual development in male mice. [5] Finally, a study by Dr. Albert Munson found that injections of THC suppressed the immune systems of mice and made them 96 times more susceptible to the herpes virus. [6] (Schaffer Library of Drug Policy)

12. 1100% increase in the incidence of acute non lymphoblastic leukaemia in the offspring of mothers who used while pregnant or just prior to conception. The research also indicated that that these children developed the leukaemia earlier – 19 months instead of the usual 93 months. (Professor Neglia et al Minnesota University – reported 1990 and Robson et al Children’s Cancer Study Group – reported in “Cancer” 63:1904-1910, 1989)

13. Marijuana prevents liver enzyme CP450 from breaking down anti-depressant medication thus causing an accumulation of the anti-depressant in the body which can result in death (Dr John Anderson – Neuro Scientist, Consultant, Psychophysiologist – Neuroscience Psychological Services Centre, Westmead, Sydney NSW). It is tragic for the scientific cause of the investigation of the impact of marijuana and anti-depressants that Dr. Anderson died in 2002.

I would like to see in-depth research conducted to follow-up Dr. Anderson’s pioneering work. Here is a summary of Dr. John Anderson’s preliminary research. Further, Dr. Anderson contended:

Statistics suggest that 40% of ADHD children are predisposed to substance abuse during adolescence or adulthood. Of the ADHD population who are poly substance users, 67% smoke marijuana. Many behavioural changes are similar to those of ADHD: academic ability decreases; sniffles, colds, trivial illness, especially respiratory system; concentration levels decrease; depersonalisation; increased levels of anxiety; increased depression; reaction times slows; short-term memory difficulties; a lack of motivation or interest in things previously enjoyed; increased impulsivity; space and time distortion; may increase appetite. (A summary of a talk presented by John Anderson to ADDult, NSW, Australia)

14. Marijuana use and its link to other illicit drugs, is not genetic according to Michael Lynskey, at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, and his team [who] found that the early user [of marijuana] was two to five times more likely to go on to use harder drugs or become dependent on alcohol – regardless of whether they were an identical twin or not.

The fact that identical twins, who share all their genes, did not differ from non-identical twins, who share half, suggests that the progression is not the product of genes. (The New Scientist, 21 January 2003, based on an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 289, pp. 427, 482).

15. Yet, there is a rising swell of support for marijuana use across Europe and Canada, according to The New Scientist.

For further marijuana research summaries, see the Drug Watch Oregon website. See “Marijuana: Facts for Teens.”

Here’s another summary of the dangers of marijuana use.
Here’s a short summary of the effects of marijuana (a summary of this article).

Notes:

1. Susan Dalterio is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her email contact is: [email protected]

2. Copyright © 2002, BMJ BMJ. 2002 November 23; 325 (7374): 1212–1213, “Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study, ” Louise Arseneault, lecturer, Mary Cannon, Wellcome Trust advanced fellow, Richie Poulton, director, Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study, Robin Murray, professor, Avshalom Caspi, professor, Terrie E Moffitt, professor.

SGDP Research Centre, King’s College, London SE5 8AF, Division of Psychological Medicine, King’s College, Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Correspondence to: T E Moffitt [email protected].

3. Robert G. Health, “Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function,” Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 15, No. 5, 1980.

4. Government’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum Re: Health Effects of Marijuana, U.S. v. Greyshock, United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, 1988.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

Whytehouse Designs

More Fluoride Spin

Examples of dental fluorosis in 8- and 9-year old children who grew up in fluoridated Auckland, New Zealand

By Spencer D Gear

It is interesting to observe what one professional did to support the status quo in dentistry in promoting the addition of fluoride to a city’s water supply. Take a read of this Australian dental professional’s letter to my local newspaper.

Dental President’s push for fluoride

This letter-to-the-editor appeared in the Bundaberg NewsMail (Queensland, Australia), Wednesday, October 26, 2005, p. 6.

False claims on fluoride
I was horrified to read the arguments against fluoridation recently printed in the NewsMail.

They falsely claimed or implied that water fluoridation caused a whole range of diseases and medical problems.

Would the World Health Organisation, US-based Centres for Disease Control, the UK Medical Research Council, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and more than 100 of the world’s leading health and
scientific authorities endorse water fluoridation if it cased (sic) health problems?

Of course not; the suggestion is ludicrous.

An independent 2002 cost benefit analysis showed that the state would save more than $1 billion over the next 30 years if Queensland’s larger towns were fluoridated.

That’s in 2002 dollars and takes into account all capital and ongoing costs.
Rather than costing money, water fluoridation has a massive cost benefit.

Why do we put up with the worst teeth in the country and the most expensive public dental system in the country?

Why are more than 140,000 Queenslanders (more than all the surgical and “secret” waiting lists combined) on public dental waiting lists?

Why do our pensioners and low income earners have to wait for years for a dental check up?

Every other state and territory fluoridated their drinking water decades ago and they have reaped the financial and health benefits ever since.

The Australian Dental Association and other health authorities look forward to working with state and local government bodies to implement what was recently described by the US Centres for Disease Control as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

DR MICHAEL FOLEY
President
Australian Dental Association
Queensland Branch

My response to the Bundaberg News-Mail

How does one respond to a dental professional who seems to have the dental status quo on his side? After all, he wrote: “Would the World Health Organisation, US-based Centres for Disease Control, the UK Medical Research Council, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and more than 100 of the world’s leading health and scientific authorities endorse water fluoridation if it cased (sic) health problems?”

Dear Editor,

Dr Michael Foley, as President of the Australian Dental Association (Qld.), is lauding the benefits, especially the cost benefits, of adding a toxin (fluoride) to our water supply [2]. He quotes the authorities that he wants but ignores others.

He omitted telling us that 98% of Europe does not drink fluoridated water. Apart from 10% of the UK and 3% of Spain, virtually every European country has either ceased or rejected outright water fluoridation as a health program. [3]

Dr. Hardy Limeback is no dummy in dentistry, as head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, Canada, and was once an ardent supporter of the benefits of fluoride – but no more.

He says that “mass medicating” the public through the water supply is dangerous and unnecessary, stating that the benefits are “exaggerated” and there is growing evidence of the results of overexposure from fluoridated toothpaste and other sources.

He wrote, “On the risk side, so many people will end up with ruined teeth, fragile bones, acute sensitivities, thyroid problems and an increased risk for cancer, all in the name of preventive dentistry.”

He admits, “I am ashamed for my profession and can no longer take part in the charade.” [4]

Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlson of Sweden wrote: “I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history.” [5]

Why is it that The Harvard School of Dental Medicine announced in July 2005 that it would investigate the work of one of its faculty members after an environmental watchdog group accused the professor of ignoring research conducted by one of his own students that linked fluoride to bone cancer in boys? [6]

But Dr. Foley is “horrified” about the anti-fluoride letters in the NewsMail and claims the link with diseases and medical problems is false. Try telling that to the Harvard University dental researcher and the European countries that contradict Foley’s claims.
Sincerely,
Spencer Gear

P. S. A very abbreviated version of my letter was published.

Various levels of fluorosis (Fluoride Action Network)

My Response to the Fraser Coast Chronicle

I responded to a letter from Maryborough, Qld., medical practitioner, Dr. Cotton. I am not aware that this letter was published.

19 April 2006

Dear Editor,

I applaud Dr. Cotton’s (Forum, 15 April 2006) call: “What we need is leadership on the issue [of fluoridation].” But it must be truthful leadership about fluoride’s effects.

Dr. Hardy Limeback is no dummy in dentistry. He’s Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Canada. He used to be a leading advocate for fluoride and pushed for it in Ontario. Now he is opposed.

This is the leadership needed on the Fraser Coast. A study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback’s worst fears. “Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones.”

Skeletal fluorosis is a severe condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. What are the earliest symptoms?

According to Dr. Limeback, they are mottled and brittle teeth. He said that in Canada they were now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than on treating cavities. And that includes his own dental practice.

Dr. Limeback compares two Canadian cities. “Here in Toronto we’ve been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver, which has never fluoridated, has a cavity rate lower than Toronto’s.”

This is the type of leadership needed!

Yours sincerely,
Spencer Gear
Bundaberg

It’s time that we got the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the fluoride debate.

LINKS

1. “Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation,” by John Colquhoun, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997, available from: http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm (John Colquhoun was from the School of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand).

2. Dr. Hardy Limeback, “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water,” available from the Fluoride Action Network at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm [14th August 2004]. Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5G-1G6. E-mail: [email protected].

3. I highly recommend the Fluoride Action Network and its range of articles, reports on scientific research, to provide information about the status of fluoride that you will not find in conventional medical or dental circles.

Notes

2.    Bundaberg NewsMail, 26 Oct., 2005, p. 6.
3.   “Why is the Media Finally Paying Attention to Fluoridation?” 14 March 2001, Canton, New York. Fluoride Action Network, available from PR-Archive.com at: http://public-utilities.pr-archive.com/en/pr42418.htm (Accessed 26 October 2005).
4.    Ken Macqueen, “Biting Back Against Fluoride: The long campaign against treated water is gaining new adherents,” Macleans, November 25, 2002, available from the Canadian Encyclopedia at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012369 (Accessed 26 October 2005).
5.    “Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine (2000), Opposes Fluoridation,” Available from the Fluoride Action
Network at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson.htm (Accessed 14th August 2004).
6.    Brendan R. Linn, Crimson Staff Writer, “Dental School Begins Investigation of Prof: School probes accusations that Douglass misreported findings of cancer study Published on Friday, July 01, 2005, Harvard Crimson, Harvard University’s newspaper, Available from: http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article508199.html (Accessed 2 July 2005).

Can the worst of people be changed – without God?

Works consulted

Endnotes:

When does human life begin?

Medical Aspects

Bible Basics

Definition of a Human Being [2]

God and Us Before Birth

Foetus as fully human: Biblical arguments [3]

Exodus 21:22-25

IS ABORTION EVER AN OPTION?

Abortion-On-Demand

Abortion on “Indications”

The Life-of-the-Mother Position

Rape, Incest and Anticipated Birth Defects

OTHER EFFECTS & ISSUES

The Hippocratic Oath

The Abortion & Breast Cancer Link

Big Bucks

Abortion Photographs

WHAT THEN SHALL WE DO?

Alternatives to Abortion

Action

Endnotes

Works consulted

EXAMPLE

DEFINITION OF EUTHANASIA

OVERHEAD NO. 1

Euthanasia is not a compassionate solution to those in pain for the following reasons:

1. The first reason for not supporting voluntary active euthanasia is that: We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia. We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

a. GERMANY

b. HOLLAND

OVERHEAD NO. 2

OVERHEAD NO. 3

OVERHEAD NO. 4

OVERHEAD NO. 5

3. The third reason: It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

4. A fourth reason is that it debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

5. The fifth reason to resist voluntary active euthanasia is: There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

6. The sixth and final reason: human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

1. We already know the consequences of a permissive approach to euthanasia. We have glaring examples before us of where permissive euthanasia laws will lead us.

2. There is no guarantee it will be limited to terminal illness for those in pain. The recent history of the euthanasia movement demonstrates this.

3. It is a strange paradox that euthanasia is being strongly promoted at a time when the medical profession has made great advances in the treatment of pain. This is not the time to recommend assistance in the killing of the terminally ill or others.

4. It debases the medical profession and has harmful effects on the doctor/patient relationship.

5. There is a better alternative: promote life and become actively involved in compassionate care for the dying, persons who are handicapped, and other sufferers in our society.

6. Human beings are not animals, but unique beings made “in the image of God”.

SUMMING UP

I CONCLUDE:

” To those who were robbed of life,

the unborn, the weak, the sick,

the old, during the dark ages of

madness, selfishness, lust and greed

for which the last decades of the

twentieth century are remembered”(Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, p. 118).

For further study:

Voluntary Assisted Death (VAD)

leads to

God’s Judgment

THE STATE OF THE TRUE BELIEVER (Psalm 112:1)

A. What does it mean to “fear the Lord”?

1. Isaiah 8:13

a. What does “holy” mean? [8]

b. Holy has two distinct meanings:

(1) Primary meaning is: “apartness” or “otherness.”

(2) The secondary meaning of holy relates to God’s pure and righteous actions.

2. Job 23:13-17

a. “He stands alone” (v. 13, NIV)

b. “Who can oppose him?” (v. 13)

c. “He does whatever he pleases” (v. 13)

d. Job 23:14

e. Job 23:15-17

3. Psalm 111:10

4. Proverbs 8:13

B. SUMMARY

II. APPLICATION

Endnotes

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SOME THINGS ABOUT THE BOOK OF 1 PETER [2]

3. DON’T CHUCK IT IN BECAUSE YOU ARE THE PEOPLE OF GOD (vv. 1-2)

A. GOD’S ELECT