Edith Rachel Merritt Seville Schaeffer, wife of Francis August Schaeffer, co-founder of L’Abri Fellowship and of the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation, died March 30, 2013, at her chalet home in Gryon, Switzerland. She was born Nov. 3, 1914, in Wenchau, China, and was the third daughter of Dr. George Hugh Seville and Jessie Maude (Merritt) Seville, who served with the China Inland Mission, founded by Hudson Taylor.

A funeral service for Mrs. Schaeffer was held Thursday, April 25, 2013, in St. Paul, Minnesota, at the First Covenant Church of St. Paul. Son-in-law Rev. Udo Middelmann, president of the Gryon-based Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation, delivered a three-part discourse (each part separated by music) that honored and remembered Edith Schaeffer, examined how she was able to achieve a “wider view of God’s world,” and explained how the affirmation “I will fear no evil,” including the abnormality and evil of death, is rooted in truth about reality and not in a subjective desire to find personal comfort.

In his opening prayer, Middelmann touched upon many of the themes of the day:

Our heavenly Father, Lord of the universe, our living and true God, we worship you for we know from your word how concerned you are to repair the damaged creation. How you ran after Adam to fix things, how the prophets came . . . , how your Son came to sacrifice his life for us so that our moral guilt before you will be forgiven and that one day he will return to make all things whole. And the lion and the lamb will lie down together. And then your people will not only be in your presence in spirit but as you created them -– body, mind, and soul. Thank you, Father, that when faced with tragedy of death itself, as such, and not as a part of nature, but as a real wound of what sin has created and the mess we have made . . . . you have always faithfully followed us, corrected us, and made the promise to restore us. We thank you, Father . . . as we consider your word and the creativity of human beings that honor you with their fingers, their hands, their voices, their hearts and minds. We pray, Father, that it will all be to your glory and to our wonder. And we ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Middelmann’s triptych set of remarks were framed by musical interludes featuring performances by pianist Vlamidir Horowitz playing Schumann (on CD) and classical guitarist Christopher Parkening playing Bach (on USB stick), both of whom Edith had met. New York City soloists Lauren Eberwein (mezzo-soprano) and Joe Chappel (bass) contributed selections from Mozart and Bach. Dr. Lloyd Davies on piano performed Schumann’s “Traeumerei,” (op. 15, nr. 7). A powerful rendition of Bach’s “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor” communicated the wonder of human creativity, the awesome abnormality of death, and the unending significance of a life that revolts against death and decay on behalf of beauty, truth, and love.

After the funeral service, the body of Mrs. Schaeffer was laid to rest alongside that of husband “Fran” during a gravesite ceremony at Oakwood Cemetery, some 79 miles south in Rochester, Minnesota. Francis Schaeffer died May 15, 1984, after contracting cancer, first diagnosed in 1978. The Schaeffers moved to Rochester and opened a branch of L’Abri Fellowship after Francis sought medical care at the Mayo Clinic. In 1988, four years after the death of her husband, Edith asked Udo and Debby Middelmann to join with her in starting the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation.

At the Schaeffer gravesite is an apple tree planted when Francis Schaeffer was buried, some 29 years ago. The purpose of the tree, Middelmann explained, is to provide a place where birds might come to rest and where people might have something to eat. The tree is a reminder, to this observer, of the Schaeffers’ life-long appreciation of creation and their practice of providing hospitality to those who draw near. It is their continued revolt on behalf of intelligence, love, and beauty against the ugliness and finality, but not ultimate finality, of death.

Middelmann concluded his remarks by inviting those in attendance to participate in Edith’s burial. Many of us have seen on film where family and friends of the bereaved toss handfuls of dirt upon a coffin in a grave. On this occasion, we were invited to take a shovelful of earth and pour it upon the casket. It was an honor to pay respects in this way. Those of us who have benefitted from the life and creativity of Edith Schaeffer were thereby able to participate in her burial, with the promise of enjoying a new life to come on the day of a future resurrection. That resurrection challenges materialistic beliefs, but it accords with the facts of history and affirms the only known understanding of life that adequately undergirds the significance and dignity of man. Hands that helped bury the body of Edith Schaeffer will clap with joy on that future day.

Edith Schaeffer wrote 17 books, the first of which is L’Abri, published in 1969. The book recounts how L’Abri was begun, not as a work of blind faith in an imaginary sky god but rather as a reasonable demonstration that an objective God who is a personal being actually exists, answers prayer, acts into verifiable history, and has communicated to human beings in ways that are testable and understandable in normal human language.

When I traveled to Swiss L’Abri as a 21-year-old, Francis and Edith Schaeffer and the work of L’Abri represented hope and, for many searching people, a last hope regarding the viability of Christianity. It was a hope I was ready to reject if it was fake or worked only in books. I was looking for something real, not something perfect.

In the formation of L’Abri, Edith and her husband created a setting that began to recover the Biblical insistence that people matter, ideas matter, creativity matters, and truth matters -– not as a private experience in a church building or prayer closet but as normative and factual information that is publicly actionable and applies across the whole of life. In a time when the secularized culture was fragmenting meaning and monopolizing power, and when Bible-affirming churches feared questions and avoided the Creator’s insistence on real-world applications, Edith Schaeffer and her husband challenged the status quo and said there is a better way, a more Biblical way, a more humane way. Her writings, speaking, and living declare that a renewal of humanity really is possible when based on the verifiable work, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in space and time. What is affirmed is not a religious belief system or personal values choice, but rather a comprehensive and liberating framework of truth regarding the real world.

“What most impressed me in knowing Edith when I was a student at L’Abri was her emphasis on everyday beauty,” says Nancy Pearcey, who is director of the Francis Schaeffer Center for Worldview and Culture at Houston Baptist University and who lived with Debby and Udo Middelmann while studying at L’Abri. “Arriving as a critical agnostic, I was surprised to meet Christians who actually cared about the world of ideas and the arts. It was not merely that Francis Schaeffer lectured about the arts, however. It was also that Edith thought it important for the Christian to incorporate beauty into all of life — such as simple but elegant table settings with a wildflower and a candle. Not expensive items, not conspicuous consumption. But creative (expressing your unique personality) and natural (using items and themes from nature when possible).

“Though I had grown up in the church,” Nancy explains, “I had never before met Christians who understood that our souls hunger for beauty just as much as for truth and goodness. For me, as for many others who studied at L’Abri in the days when Edith still presided, there was an apologetics of beauty that made me want Christianity to be true, at the same time that I was working through a philosophical apologetics that was persuading me intellectually that it was true. Edith described her love of everyday beauty in Hidden Art (the title was later expanded to The Hidden Art of Homemaking).”

Fran and Edith now are now side by side again, under the simplicity and wonder of an apple tree. Yes, evil is strong, but it is a lost cause. For in the total reality, the God of life creates and works and plays and resists. And wins. There are apples to eat after you die.

________________
J. Richard Pearcey is associate director of the Francis Schaeffer Center for Worldview and Culture at Houston Baptist University. He is also scholar for worldview studies at HBU, as well as editor and publisher of The Pearcey Report.

Yes.

Does the Catholic Church teach that it was established by Jesus?

Yes. When Jesus said to Peter, the first pope, “You are the rock and on this rock I build my church” he was ‘ordaining’ Peter to be the leader of his Church.

To be Catholic means that one accepts all these teachings as true.

To deny that Jesus is God is to cease to be Catholic.

To deny that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus is to cease to be Catholic.

Catholic and Orthodox churches are the only ones that can claim to have a direct historical link to Jesus himself.

1. Jesus really is God, the creator of the universe and the Catholic Church is the church he established.

2. If the Catholic Church is wrong about being established by God himself then there is no reason to follow her teachings. She is likely wrong about other things too.

If, on the other hand, the Catholic Church is right about being established by God, then, since God is the God of all humans, whether they acknowledge it or not, the Church he established would logically be intended for all humanity as well.

The conclusion is that all humanity should be oriented towards the Catholic Church.

“To love another is to will what is really good for him. Such love must be based on truth. A love that sees no distinction between good and evil, but loves blindly merely for the sake of loving, is hatred, rather than love… Charity is neither weak nor blind.” – Thomas Merton (No Man is an Island)

Remember back when Dan T. Cathy stated his disagreement with same-sex marriage in an interview with a Baptist magazine? Everyone had something to say about it, especially on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It didn’t matter if they even had an opinion on the subject, because if they didn’t before, they did then. Proponents from both points of view immediately jumped out of the woodwork to man their stations after a deep slumber of indifference.

We had atheists attacking Christians for “being bible-thumping bigots” and Christians accusing atheists of being godless heathens. But perhaps the most questionable (and quite ironic) perspective on the frontlines was that of the professing Christians who reproached other Christians both within and without their sect or denomination for believing in traditional marriage. I couldn’t help but notice that those who belonged to this group were generally non-practicing, “sit at home and watch Joel Osteen late Sunday morning if I wake up on time” Christians (I’m not judging. I’m simply making an honest observation). God loves everyone… Jesus told us to love one another…We have grace and are not under the Law… etc… etc. Ah, you gotta love seasonal theologians.

What bothered me the most wasn’t that people stood up for same-sex marriage. Not at all. I am all for freedom of speech and believe that it is extremely important that we exercise it. In the words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” No, what really bothered me was that most of these people were completely ignorant of both the subject and the event, yet they spoke as if they knew exactly what was going on.

Anyway, because our culture is plagued with some sort of spiritual ADHD, their well-meaning yet misguided passion was short-lived. They soon lost interest and moved on to something else. The same thing occurred recently when all those annoying red and white equals signs popped up everywhere. Again, everyone made a big fuss for a minute then said, “I’m right. You’re wrong” simultaneously and faded back into the world of iPhones, celebrity gossip and reality TV.

Ho hum.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but voicing one’s opinion as God’s honest truth while lacking even the slightest hint of familiarity with the topic at hand is not only silly and pathetic, but it is potentially damaging.

Hearsay, heresy. It’s all the same. No good ever comes of it.

First, we must be clear that proof and evidence are two different things.  Proof is certainty, evidence is probability.  Most things in life are accepted, processed and responded to at the level of evidence rather than proof.  For example, when people consider someone to marry they are functioning based on evidence.  Is there a way to prove someone loves someone else?  Not really.  There is only evidence.  The accumulation of evidence provides an increasing degree of certainty.

Second, we have to work out what kinds of things are acceptable as evidence for the Christian faith.  There are a few areas where evidence can be found.  Philosophy can provide evidence for the logical validity of belief in God.  Theology can provide evidence for the rationality and coherence of God.  History (via archaeology and science) can provide evidence for the testimony of the Bible.  The Bible itself can provide evidence for the structure and implications of the Christian faith.

In all of these areas, the goal is not proof.  In fact, proof may not even be possible or desirable.  The goal is evidence.  Once the evidence begins to accumulate then the degree of certainty begins to rise.  Here is one example to think about:

• Philosophy provides evidence for the logical necessity of a Creator.
• Theology affirms the nature of God as benevolent and thus inclined to create.
• History – even the most basic review – assures us of the fact of Creation.  Science also demonstrates over and over again the evidence for a Creator.  Archaeology confirms the historicity of the Bible.
• The Bible itself confirms God as the Creator of the universe.

Are any of these statements proof?  No, they are certainly not.  Yet each of them is evidence for a Creator.  Taken together (especially in expanded, more detailed forms) these form a compelling case for the reality of the Creator.

This guide will be presented in two sections.  The first section covers what it will be helpful to know before you encounter Mormons, while the second section gives some suggestions on how to conduct yourself during these evangelistic encounters.  This guide is in no way intended to be exhaustive, nor can it possibly anticipate every situation you might run into when sharing the gospel with Mormons.  It will, however, give you a good starting point.  Several resources will also be recommended for those who wish to study these things further.

Before We Begin:  Basic Facts about Mormons
(from www.4truth.net/Mormons/)

Official Name of Church:  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)
Current President:  Thomas S. Monson
Scriptures / “Standard Works”: Bible (KJV), Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price
Membership: 13.2 million worldwide (162 countries), 5.7 million U.S. (all 50 states and D.C)
Total # of Missionaries (in 2007): 52,686

Section 1: Preparing to Evangelize Mormons  –  What do you need to know?

“It may surprise you that a deep understanding of Mormonism is not always necessary to have a positive dialogue. The best ingredient is having a firm grasp of what you as a Christian believe. Couple this with an understanding of how Mormons define terms and a willingness to show them that you have a sincere interest in their eternal welfare, and you can expect a challenging exchange. A few personal questions, mixed with gentleness and respect, can go a long way.” (Bill McKeever, “Don’t Let the Badge Intimidate You,” http://www.mrm.org/mormon-missionaries)

1.1. Know the gospel and be able to articulate it fully and clearly in your own words.

Being an expert on the gospel will make up for any deficiencies you may have in your understanding of Mormon doctrine.  “If we grasp the basic concepts of the gospel and rely on the Spirit for words, we’ll be able to witness to any person from any religion at any time.  We don’t need to worry about every question or word to be planned.  This allows for each conversation to be unique.”  (Eli Brayley, “How to Witness to Mormons,” http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html)

1.2. Develop meaningful relationships with Mormons.

If we intend to confront Mormons with the hard and uncomfortable truths of the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ (which we most certainly do!), it is important that they know we love and care about them as people, whether they respond positively to the gospel or not.  This, I believe, will produce a context conducive to proper reception of the gospel message.  It has been (rightly) said that we must seek to build relational bridges with the lost that are strong enough to bear the weight of the gospel.

As you share the truth with Mormons, you are going to say a lot of things that are hard for them to hear.  It is important that you do not toss these hard statements at them like grenades from a distance and then run away while your words inflict damage from afar.  Your attempts to reveal their lostness to them must be made in the context of a meaningful relationship that can survive regardless of their current response to the gospel.

1.3. Know what to say when they ask you to pray to find out if the Book of Mormon is true.

Most encounters with Mormon missionaries end with the missionaries inviting you to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true.  After all, if the Book of Mormon is true, that means that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Mormon church is the one, true church of God on earth.  So they will appeal to Moroni 10:3-5, specifically verse 4 which reads, “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that you would ask God . . . if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”  It is not uncommon for Mormons to counter difficult questions that they either can’t or don’t want to answer by asking you to pray about the book of Mormon in the manner prescribed in Moroni 10:3-5.  In this way, they are able to sidestep the main issues.

There are at least two ways to respond to this tactic.  First, refer them to Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 (the parallel text to Moroni 10:3-5), which states, “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (my emphasis).  In this verse, a person is instructed to study Mormonism with his or her mind first, and only then should a person ask God if it is right.  Obviously, if you cannot get past step one (studying it out in your mind) because of clear contradictions with the Bible or other errors then you cannot reasonably be expected to pray about it.

Second, point out to the Mormon that there are certain things that a person simply doesn’t have to pray about.  Would you ask God if it was OK to commit adultery?  Of course you wouldn’t, because God has already revealed that it is a sin.  Similarly, since God has already revealed himself to us through the Bible, then there is no need to ask God whether a book that contradicts the Bible is true or not.  Mormons will object to your claim that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, but at that point they have the responsibility to address the discrepancies you have pointed out rather than reiterate their invitation for you to pray about the Book of Mormon.  In other words, you are relieved of your “obligation” to pray about the Book of Mormon until they have removed the theological obstacles that are preventing you from even considering it as the Word of God.  (Since the Book of Mormon directly contradicts the Bible at several points, they will never be able to remove those obstacles!)

1.4. Realize that Mormons use many theological words in different ways than Christians do.

The following Mormon definitions of common Christian theological terms are taken from the Preparing for the Adventure Bible Study (pp. 22-24), published by Truth in Love Ministries and available online at http://new.tilm.org/assets/adventure/Teachers-Guide.pdf.

Salvation – Usually equated with being resurrected. They do not believe salvation (using the Christian definition) as being a free gift.

Eternal Life – Life in heaven as a god, equivalent to exaltation. It differs from immortality. It is achieved by being worthy and valiant.

Grace – The power of God granted conditionally to the worthy to help them do what they could not do on their own. Salvation is by grace after all we can do.

Forgiveness – Mormonism stresses man’s duty to forgive each other. When it does talk about God’s forgiveness, it is something that has to be earned through the “painful process” of repentance.

Atonement – Mormons connect the Atonement with Jesus conquering physical death for them, with our resurrection. They also use it to refer to Jesus’ payment for sin (often in His bloody sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane). But underlying all such references is the idea that we have to pay Jesus back.

Faith – Faith is exercising our will to fully comply with all the commandments of the church.

1.5. Know that Mormon leaders have admitted that Mormonism is incompatible with traditional Christianity.

Former LDS President Gordon Hinckley has admitted that Mormons “do not believe in the traditional Christ. . . . The traditional Christ of whom they [mainline Christians] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages” (“Crown of Gospel is Upon Our Heads,” Church News [June 20, 1998], http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html).

1.6. Have an answer to their claim that the Bible is not completely reliable.

Mormons include the Bible as one of their “standard works” even though the other three Mormon texts (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) contradict the Bible at numerous points.  Often they will try to get around this by stating that the Bible has been corrupted over time and contains some error as we now have it.  The LDS Articles of Faith state, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”  The statement “as far as it is translated correctly” at first glance appears to be one that evangelicals would agree with, but in reality it is not the translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts into English that the LDS church is calling into question but rather the transmission (or repeated copying over time) of the original texts that is under attack.  According to Mormon belief, during the period known as the Great Apostasy, “parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost” (True to the Faith, p. 13).

Not surprisingly, the supposed unreliability of the Bible only becomes an issue when you try to demonstrate the lack of agreement between the Bible and the other Mormon texts.  LDS leaders and Mormon missionaries quote and use the Old and New Testament very frequently without raising the question of whether the particular passage they are quoting is reliable.  But you can bet that they will bring it up when you attempt to show how the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price teach doctrines that are contrary to the Bible.  A great resource to help you defend the reliability of the biblical text is The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? by F. F. Bruce.  For some free, online resources see Chapter 2 of Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock by Michael Licona (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/behold-i-stand-at-the-door-and-knock.pdf) and the 4Mormon.org article “Should We Trust the Bible?” (http://4mormon.org/images/stories/downloads/ldsarticles/mormon-view-bible.pdf).

1.7. Become familiar with key Mormon texts that teach the “impossible gospel of Mormonism.”

Refer to the appendix at the end of this document for the following key Mormon texts, along with a brief comment about each:

• Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 82:7
• D&C 58:42-43
• D&C 1:31-32
• D&C 25:15
• Moroni 10:32
• 1 Nephi 3:7
• 2 Nephi 25:23

It is very important that you learn how to effectively use these verses together to show that Mormonism cannot save a person from their sins.  Here are some further resources on the “Impossible Gospel of Mormonism” (which I strongly encourage you to read):

• The Mormon View of Salvation: A Gospel that is Truly Impossible (Witnessing with Six Verses) [http://www.mrm.org/six-verses]
• Questions for LDS on the Impossible Gospel of Mormonism: A Verse-by-Verse Presentation from LDS Scripture [http://4witness.org/images/stories/downloads/mormon/ldsquestions/qlds-gospel.pdf]
• Is Mormon Salvation Impossible? [http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/05-is-mormon-salvation-impossible.pdf]

1.8. Have some awareness of what they want to teach you.

Mormon missionaries have five specific lessons they will want to teach you.  These lessons are prescribed for them in detail in the Mormon missionary training manual Preach My Gospel (pp. 29-88, available online at http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/preach-my-gospel-guide-to-missionary-service.pdf).  These five lessons are:

• The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
• The Plan of Salvation
• The Gospel of Jesus Christ
• The Commandments
• Laws and Ordinances

When you do not express any interest in joining the LDS church, they will almost certainly not progress past the third lesson with you.  So it is the content of the first three lessons that it will be  most helpful for you to learn.  (I would still suggest learning the material from the last two lessons as well when you get a chance, since the more you know about Mormon culture, the better you will be able to witness to those caught up in it.)

1.9. Read Mormon literature and become familiar with their teachings and doctrine.

See the appendix for summaries and links to the following LDS publications:

• True to the Faith
• Gospel Principles
• Preach My Gospel
• The Miracle of Forgiveness

1.10. Be familiar with some of the significant teachings and statements from contemporary Mormon leaders.

See the appendix for some of the teachings and statements you should know.  These will help you to understand the Mormon culture and belief system.  Also, you may find it helpful to refer to them during your conversations with Mormons if they try to re-interpret some of their ‘difficult’ texts to make them more palatable.

Section 2: How to Conduct Yourself  –  How should you respond to them?

2.1. Make sure they know you love them.

“As for your demeanor when you speak with them, be sensitive, meek and kind, for they expect that all non-Mormons, especially Christians, are out to persecute them. You will thoroughly bewilder them if you drive the sword of truth into their conscience with meekness. It is very easy to get frustrated with Mormons because they are so blind and cannot see the blatantly obvious, but if you picture them in your mind to be wearing dark glasses and holding in their hands white canes, it will help you to not become frustrated but rather will move you to compassion.”  (Eli Brayley, “How to Witness to Mormons,” http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html, my emphasis)

2.2. Engage Mormons primarily on theological, not historical, grounds.

Consider this excerpt from Eli Brayley’s article, “How to Witness to Mormons” (http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html).

“There are basically two ways Christians witness to Mormons. One is to demolish Mormonism in an apologetic way, the other is to expose Mormonism in a theological way. The former deals with Mormon history, false prophecies, archaeology, DNA, etc. The latter deals with sin, repentance, atonement, the gospel, etc. . . . The first may make many ex-Mormons, but it doesn’t necessarily make believers. Actually, it can be counter-productive.

“Once Mormons realize Mormonism is false they typically move into atheism because it is almost impossible for them to disassociate their knowledge of God, the Bible and Jesus from their Mormon worldview. They are so wounded from having been lied to that they hesitate to trust any religious consideration afterward and default into heavy skepticism. Also, destroying the historical foundations of Mormonism isn’t preaching the gospel. The message we are called to preach is the same message for all people whether they are Mormon or not: we are called to preach Christ crucified, the only salvation for sinners. Apologetics are certainly useful in destroying people’s confidence in Mormonism as a valid historical religion, but the most important thing is that Mormons come to place their confidence in Jesus Christ as the only sufficient Savior from their sins. Often, these two goals conflict with each other. Therefore, the approach we believe is the best way to witness to Mormons is the theological approach: to elucidate the Biblical message of sin, righteousness and faith by using and challenging Mormonism on its own theological ground. People do not need correct Christian doctrine to realize that they are sinners… they need it to solve that problem! Walking Mormons through their own doctrinal system to its logical conclusions will show to the Mormons that they are sinners, and will reveal to them the impossibility of being justified before God by their works, opening the door to share with them the true gospel. Besides all this, the first approach almost always leads to an argument where the Mormon feels persecuted and attacked, making the wall go up even more.”

2.3. Do not allow them to claim that they are Christians just like you.

See Section 1.5 above.

2.4. Don’t tell them what they believe.

“Do not assume that every Mormon you meet believes the same doctrines of Mormonism. In fact, many of the strange doctrines of the LDS Church . . . have been de-emphasized in recent years. It is possible to meet a young Mormon missionary who has never heard of these doctrines or the fact that they have been taught by prominent LDS leaders in the past. So, do not tell Mormons what they believe. Rather, preface any discussion about the differences between Christianity and Mormonism with a question like:  ‘I’ve heard that the Mormon Church teaches… Is this what you believe?’” (“Questions to Ask Mormon Missionaries,” http://4witness.org/images/stories/downloads/mormon/lds-witness-door.pdf)

2.5. Use the Socratic method.  Ask questions to draw them away from their “scripted” teaching speeches.

“Probing Mormonism theologically forces the Mormon to dig deep for real answers. No petty arguments will satisfy difficult theological problems within their own “gospel”. As they dig, they discover, not only that they have no answers, but also that their spiritual condition is much worse than they thought. Few Mormons have ever thought deeply through their own theology, as their religion wisely discourages. In a friendly way, we seek to give them the opportunity.

“The means we use to go about doing this is the Socratic method: asking questions.  Mormons love talking about their religion; they want to evangelize you! So let them! Ask them what their message is, why is there a gospel, what is the problem that the gospel addresses, etc. As they respond, think of related questions to ask that will help them reflect upon their answers. Don’t worry if you aren’t very good at this at first.  Using the Socratic method will become more natural as you practice talking with Mormons on a regular basis. As well, we shouldn’t need to have a pre-packaged cookie-cutter conversation with them, because that is what they do. Mormons are trained to speak the same things as if from a script, but we should come in the opposite spirit, as Jesus taught His disciples (Luke 21:14-15).” (Eli Brayley, “How to Witness to Mormons,” http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html)

2.6. Don’t feel as if you have to refute every erroneous thing that Mormons say.

You may feel as if you are somehow being unfaithful to God if you do not refute every heretical statement made by Mormons in your conversations with them.  However, if you try to do this you will not get very far and will soon find yourself chasing a thousand rabbit trails!

Eli Brayley gives this helpful advice: “There must be a direction and a goal.  The point . . . is to bring the Mormon to the place of seeing that Mormonism’s plan of salvation does not save him.  The place of ultimate tension surrounds the atonement: this will be the climax of the conversation and it is here that the heart of the spiritual battle will be waged. . . . It is not necessary to address all the weird doctrines they hold (like the nature of God or that they believe the atonement was made in the Garden of Gethsemane) because the point is to show them how Mormonism itself, in all its weirdness, does not save.  When I am witnessing to Mormons, if they make a remark about some weird point of doctrine, I usually just say nothing, neither affirmative nor negative, but move on with the goal of the conversation.” (Eli Brayley, “How to Witness to Mormons,” http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html)

2.7. Do not assent to things you cannot agree with.

This should go without saying, but the fact is that you will be tempted to alleviate awkwardness in the conversation by saying things like “uh-huh” or “right”, or by nodding your head slightly.  These are things that we normally do in conversation to encourage a person to continue speaking, or to communicate that we are listening to what they are saying, but there is a danger in doing this when talking with a Mormon.  I said earlier that you do not need to refute every erroneous thing that Mormons say.  Along with this, you need to be careful that you do not implicitly agree with those things that you “let slide for now” by nodding or saying “right” or “uh-huh”.

It is important that you learn how to communicate nonverbally that you are paying attention without communicating agreement with the content of their statements.  This may sound odd, but I usually try to do this through the way I look at them.  Be fully aware of ways in which your facial expressions and bodily postures might communicate that you have a negative attitude toward them, and make a conscious effort not to do those things.  You might lean in towards the person who is speaking, or focus your gaze intently on them to show that you are listening, but whatever you do, do not punctuate their statements with the word “right” if what they have just said is clearly not right.  You may mean to say, “I care about you and am listening to you, not just waiting for my turn to speak.”  But what they will probably hear is, “I agree with what you are saying, and have no problem with it.”  This is obviously not something you want to communicate.  Remember Eli Brayley’s advice: “When I am witnessing to Mormons, if they make a remark about some weird point of doctrine, I usually just say nothing, neither affirmative nor negative, but move on with the goal of the conversation.”

2.8. Remember that the goal is to win the person, not the argument.

“Our primary goal is to bring a Mormon into the Christian faith. Our focus needs to be on winning the soul versus winning the argument.  [We do this] by focusing on Christ and His Word.  In all discussions with Mormons, always bring the dialog back to Jesus and what He did for us on the cross. Though we are strongly tempted to argue and debate, and in some cases this does play a role, we have found it far more effective to focus our attention on winning the soul, not the argument.” (Preparing for the Adventure Bible Study, pp.7-8)

“Remember that your goal is to win the person, not the argument. Don’t expect them to change their beliefs and accept yours right away. They [Mormon missionaries] are representatives for their Church, so even if they want to change their beliefs, they can’t without leaving their mission assignment and the LDS Church altogether. Your goal is just to plant seeds. If they understand the point you made (whether they agree with you or not), you have accomplished your goal. When you ask them some of the tough questions we are suggesting, they may not be able to answer you right away, but you must let them save face. Don’t pressure them into a corner by forcing them to say that you are right. Remember they can’t do so as long as they are representing their Church. So, if they can’t answer your question, just humbly acknowledge their struggle and let the issue rest.”  (from the article “Questions to Ask Mormon Missionaries,” http://4witness.org/images/stories/downloads/mormon/lds-witness-door.pdf)

Appendices

Appendix 1.7 – Key Texts that Teach the “Impossible Gospel of Mormonism”

Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 - And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.

This verse suggests that the guilt for sins which have previously been forgiven returns when a person commits that sin again at a later date.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:42-43 - Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.  By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

This verse defines repentance of sin as getting rid of (forsaking) that sin completely.  In other words, before your repentance is genuine (and therefore before you can receive forgiveness) you must stop the sin completely.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:31-32 - For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;  Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

This verse connects forgiveness with obedience to the commands of God (in a conditional sense).

Doctrine and Covenants 25:15 - Keep my commandments continually, and a crown of righteousness thou shalt receive. And except thou do this, where I am you cannot come.

This verse also makes forgiveness conditional upon obedience  to God’s law, but is a little stronger in its requirement that one “keep my commandments continually.”  There doesn’t seem to be any grace present in this verse, actually.  It seems to just be saying, “Be righteous, and you will receive the crown of righteousness.”

Moroni 10:32 - Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

This verse blatantly teaches a works-based righteousness with this if/then statement: “if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you.”

1 Nephi 3:7 - And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

This verse invalidates the common claim that God doesn’t really expect Mormons to be perfect because he knows that perfection isn’t actually possible.  According to this verse from the Book of Mormon, every law given to man by God is fully within man’s reach to obey completely.

2 Nephi 25:23 – …For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

This verse makes it impossible to maintain that Mormonism does not teach a works-based salvation.  Contrast this verse with Ephesians 2:8-9.

Appendix 1.9 – Mormon Literature to Be Familiar With

True to the Faith
This is a publication of the LDS Church.  From the first pages of the booklet: “This book is designed as a companion to your study of the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets.  We encourage you to refer to it as you study and apply gospel principles.  Use it as a resource when you prepare talks, teach classes, and answer questions about the Church.”  (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/true-to-the-faith.pdf)

Gospel Principles
Another publication of the LDS church.  From the Introduction: “Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual . As you study it, seeking the Spirit of the Lord, you can grow in your understanding and testimony of God the Father, Jesus Christ and His Atonement, and the Restoration of the gospel . You can find answers to life’s questions, gain an assurance of your purpose and self-worth, and face personal and family challenges with faith.”  (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2010-01-00-gospel-principles-manual-eng.pdf)

Preach My Gospel – Guide to Missionary Service
Another LDS publication.  This is essentially a training manual for Mormon missionaries.  As such, it is extremely informative and enlightening for anyone who has had or will have contact with Mormon missionaries.  (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/preach-my-gospel-guide-to-missionary-service.pdf)

The Miracle of Forgiveness
(summary taken from MormonWiki.org)
“The Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, is perhaps the bluntest literature available on the traditional Mormon gospel.  It is known by Christians who evangelize to Mormons for its perfectionism, the impossible prerequisites its gives for comprehensive forgiveness (cf. justification), and its definition of repentance as the perfect, successful abandonment of sin. Many Christian evangelists actually encourage Mormons to read this book, as it serves as a great contrast with the Epistle to the Romans.”

Appendix 1.10 – Significant Teachings and Statements Made by Contemporary Mormon Leaders

• “If we use the word salvation to mean ‘exaltation,’ it is premature for any of us to say that we have been ‘saved’ in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.” (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, ‘Have You Been Saved?’, an address at the 168th Annual General Conference of the LDS Church given on April 5, 1998, http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng)

• “To enter the celestial and obtain exaltation it is necessary that the whole law be kept…Do you desire to enter the celestial Kingdom and receive eternal life? Then be willing to keep all of the commandments.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pg. 206).

• “There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of sin. Providing that a person discontinues his sin with the right motives—because of a growing consciousness of the gravity of the sin and a willingness to comply with the laws of the Lord—he is genuinely repenting….In other words, it is not real repentance until one has abandoned the error of his way and started on a new path.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 163)

• “Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. . . . To ‘try’ is weak.  To ‘do the best I can’ is not strong.  We must always do better than we can. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 164-165)

• Forgiveness [is] cancelled on reversion to sin. . . . Those who feel that they can sin and be forgiven and then return to sin and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 169-170)

• One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 206)

• In his Sermon on the Mount [Jesus] made the command to all men: ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’  (Matt. 5:48.)  Being perfect means to triumph over sin.  This is a mandate from the Lord.  He is just and wise and kind.  God would never require anything from his children which was not for their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal. (The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 209)

Further Reading

• Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons, Mark Cares
• Preparing for the Adventure Bible Study, Truth in Love Ministries (http://new.tilm.org/assets/adventure/Teachers-Guide.pdf)
• Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock, Michael Licona (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/behold-i-stand-at-the-door-and-knock.pdf)
• “How to Witness to Mormons,” Eli Brayley (http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/how-to-witness-to-mormons.html)
• “How Christians Should Engage Latter-day Saints,” Russell Moore (http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/09/11/how-christians-should-engage-latter-day-saints/)
• “How to Witness Effectively to Mormons” (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/how-to-witness-effectively-to-mormons.pdf)
• “Questions to Ask Mormon Missionaries” (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/questions-to-ask-mormon-missionaries.pdf)
• “The Mormon View of Salvation: A Gospel that is Truly Impossible (Witnessing with Six Verses)”  (http://www.mrm.org/six-verses)
• “Questions for LDS on the Impossible Gospel of Mormonism: A Verse-by-Verse Presentation from LDS Scripture” (http://4witness.org/images/stories/downloads/mormon/ldsquestions/qlds-gospel.pdf)
• “Is Mormon Salvation Impossible?” (http://renewedinknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/05-is-mormon-salvation-impossible.pdf)

Arguing has gotten a bad rap. We tend to think of arguments as verbal fights, mean-spirited personal attacks where the louder we speak the less we hear. Arguing sounds ugly and rude; it’s not the kind of thing that respectful and decent people do in civilized society. Well I intend to demonstrate to you that we not only could stand to do a little more arguing. I want to convince you that the passionate and responsible exchange of ideas is utterly necessary to personal growth, community development, and it is the lifeblood of any free-society.

Bad Arguing
I grew up arguing. I’ve seen the good kinds of arguing and the bad kinds. I’m the youngest of three siblings, with an older brother and an older sister. And I honed my own arguing skills largely by disagreeing with them. I learned quick and efficient ways to get attention. For example: When you are losing the argument, just pull your sister’s hair. Something entertaining is bound to happen. If your sister is annoying you, just shout really loudly ‘Stop it [insert name].’ And make sure you yell loud enough till your parents wake up and promptly discipline the offending party. Again, entertaining things are bound to happen. And she’ll probably get time-out. I also learned how to get my brother and sister fighting with each other, as that was entertaining too.

All of those are examples of bad arguing. I’m no fan of bad arguing. We need less of that. I don’t want to encourage you to do any of those entertaining things that I did. No matter how entertaining they may be. No matter how much you want to belittle your opponent, embarrass them, make them feel bad. No matter how mad they may make you feel, and even if it’s your sister, that is not the kind of arguing that helps make you a better person or the world a better place. Good arguing makes both parties better. Good arguing is not between enemies, or it doesn’t have to be. Good arguing is between mutual truth-seekers, with mutual respect, and even love.

How do you know if your argument is a bad one?

It might be a bad argument if you are attacking the person. That’s called an ad hominem, literally ‘to the man.’ You are missing the claim they are making and the evidence they are offering because you are busy calling them names are attacking their character, intelligence, mother, sexual orientation, etc.

It might be a bad argument if you are just using the evidence that agrees with you and ignore the rest. This is called cherry picking or special pleading. If your position only works by ignoring the opposing evidence, then it’s not a good position. Well informed positions can account for the evidence for and against itself, and stands just fine. But a bad position only works with selective evidence and tenuous details strong together in isolation from the rest of the data.

It might be a bad argument if you have to misrepresent the opposition to make yours look better. This is called the “straw man” fallacy. Picture a prize-fight boxing match between you and . . . a scarecrow. It’s no fight at all because you don’t have a real opponent but a fabricated, easy-to-defeat, practice dummy. In the real world of ideas, there’s usually some evidence for even the weirdest most absurd ideas, and if you can’t imagine why anyone would hold to the views they do, then you probably don’t understand those views. You are likely operating on a straw-man understanding of their view. And your view is the weaker for it, since its over-inflated with confident ignorance.

It might be a bad argument if you have no evidence for your position but to restate that position. Evolution is true because evolution is true. Democrats are right because they’re never wrong. Or the Bible is true because it says its true. This is what’s called circular reasoning or petitio principi, literally, ‘begging the question.’ There are many different ways an argument can go wrong.

There are faulty appeals to authority, prestigious jargon, straw man. But I don’t want to focus on the negative here. I want to suggest that there is a responsible way to argue, without going there.
But first we have to address another alternative before we get to “good arguing.”

Non-Arguing
Somewhere, somehow, it seems that much of society has condemned all arguing as that bad-kind of arguing. One cause seems to be political correctness. There are many reasons for not being brash, foolhardy, or offensive when you don’t need to be. That is the “bad kind” of arguing. In that sense, I’m fine with being PC. But sometimes people are offended by important issues, by truth and goodness, or discussions of life-or-death ideas. Not everyone’s “Offended Meter” is tuned properly. In those cases, you might need to break custom, risk offense, and try to persuade the person to agree with you. The tendency to be PC has led a lot of people to feign agreement, when they do not. That is not resolution, it puts off problems without fixing them, and it trades truth and goodness for comfort and compromise.

Another possible cause is the educational system. There once was a time when students had to master logic, grammar and rhetoric before they could advance to ‘high-school’ subjects. Every student learned argumentation and debate. Every student had to know how to think well, write well, and speak well as these were the prerequisites for everything else. In this ‘classical model,’ classes are usually small, teachers are hands on, Q&A drives the discussion, and students swam deep in the waters of argumentation before they were even teenagers. This model is not common today. Multiple choice tests and quizzes, opinion writing, and completion grades are standard fare now. And the art of argumentation is no longer prioritized in most schools. Students have subtly replaced “argument” with “opinion,” and perhaps further, “feeling” for “thinking,” and “validity” for “truth.” A lot of people don’t argue well because they never had to learn how.

Another big cause seems to be isolation. You may come from a broken home, or have a mean or selfish person in your life. If so, there’s a good chance you saw a lot of arguments, a lot of fights, and you were never taught how to fight fair, how to argue respectfully, or how to diffuse conflict while resolving the problem, or else you were conditioned against those things through an abusive relative or mate, or just a selfish mean person in your life. Also, affiliation with organized religion is declining in the U.S., Community involvement is pretty weak. And the relationships we do have are digitally filtered. But the art of arguing is an interpersonal, complex, and sophisticated art. When you need to disagree with a person about a dangerous political theory he holds, or he is trying to join a cult, or he’s promoting some dangerous ethical position, you will find it goes over much better if he knows you love him, he trusts your judgment, and you’ve earned the right to speak into his life.

And for the love of God, don’t break up with a person via text message. All that’s good in the world dies all over again whenever that happens. Seriously though, social isolation makes those important arguments strained or impossible. Good argumentation is hard to do sometimes, and it involves risk that pays off much better if your “opponent” knows you love them and has come to trust your words.

The Art of Argumentation
We can’t fix everything but we can fix one thing. If we can find here a few tips on the art of arguing, then your life and our world can be a better place.

Pick your Battles
Not every fight is worth having. Choose your battles wisely. Some battles are important but the timing isn’t right. Other battles might be good practice, among trusted friends who likewise enjoy a fair and honest exchange–such as the classic dormroom debate over which superhero is the best. In the right settings you can practice argumentation, such as a classroom debate, or a persuasive speech. But often, the fight is not worth having, and nothing terribly important is at stake. Now don’t use this tip as an excuse to avoid conflict. Any loving couple, be it romance or friendship, will have conflicts and there needs to be a lot of practice and mutual respect in learning how to express needs and interests without escalating conflicts into fruitless fights. Sometimes we are not in the right frame of mind to express ourselves respectfully, or to listen respectfully. In that case we need some time or space to settle down. Other times, a “little thing” is the straw that broke the camels back and it is a real and important conflict that should not be swept under the rug, and needs to be addressed pronto before it gets worse. Be brave, not letting fear or cowardice push you away from conflicts that need to be resolved. But also be wise, not pressing for unnecessary conflict or poorly timed poorly handled conflict.s

Organize Your Case
State your claim. State your Argument. Offer your evidences. It is not enough to have an opinion. Everyone has opinions, so what? But when you can offer a reasonable argument and evidence for you opinion, you set yours above other opinions. You should have a reasonable, supportable, explanation for why you think what you do. Sometimes you don’t know yourself very well or you don’t know your reasoning very well. That’s normal. We all are like that. But pressing yourself for reasons, and a responsible argument to support your conclusion–that is a habit we could all stand to develop. Your thinking gets clearer, your thoughts more organized, and insights more penetrating when you’ve developed the habit of identifying (or demanding) the structures of thought. In making your case you can use all sorts of evidence in support of any number of arguments. There is no “one” structure demanded of a good thought, but make sure it’s clear, understandable, and well supported, preferably, with the kinds of evidence and argument that you opponent respects.

Address the Person
We are not talking about a feud you had with your laptop last night, but a disagreement with a person. Keep your argument and evidence relevant to the person you’re speaking with. Maintain civility just as if you were addressing this debate to the most important person in the world. Put another way, you can’t understand the question without understanding the questioner.

Be a learner
Approach arguments with the humility and courage to learn from the exchange. There is no learning till you admit you didn’t already know it, and you are courageous enough to face it. Argumentation is a great way to correct errors in your own perspective or frame of thought. And if you have that motive you don’t have to come off as a pushy know-it-all.

Fight Fair
This is a sophisticated point, but the gist is not hard to grasp. I like the way the Bible describes it: “Always let your conversations be full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Be ethical, well-meaning, gracious and so on. Don’t pick at emotional scabs. Don’t escalate the tone. Wait till you both have cooled down. Drench your words with encouragement. Focus on points of agreement first. If they need to take a break, let them. If you are not in a healthy or collected mood, then save the debate for later. But always plan a time to get back to these important disagreements that need to happen.

Why We Must Fight
Coming to the end of all this, what does it really matter? So what? If we never learn how to argue well, what have we really lost? I think we’ve lost a whole lot, a lot of ourselves, a lot of our future, and a lot of good in the world.

Argumentation Can Discern Truth
Take the simple innocuous phrase, “Open mind” for example. We are encouraged all around to be “open minded.” There’s good to this. We should not be preemptively judgmental or closed off to truth, goodness or beauty that may come from new or unexpected sources. But why should we be open-minded? Are our minds supposed to be so indiscriminately inviting that they are open sewers? Collecting whatever waste-water, excrement, or refuse dribbles down into it? Surely that’s not what open minds are fore? An open mind is mere liability if it cannot also clamp down on truth or otherwise filter out lies. Argumentation is one of the chief filters for truth where we can test our ideas against those of other people’s. We can learn from their perspective and they can learn from ours. We can pit ideas against each other to see which have better evidence and support and which better reflect reality. Sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are right. But we need that passionate exchange of ideas precisely because opinions aren’t always true, or good, or beautiful. Some ideas are downright deadly and we’d never know it except for they brave soul who risks telling us what they can see in our blind spot. Where we are in error, we lack a major means of correction. Truth is sometimes hard to come by.

Argumentation Can Correct Errors
Sometimes we are firmly entrenched in a bad or wrong idea. If we only engage in bad argumentation we are liable to drive people off and calcify our misguided commitment to that bad idea. But good argumention is an invitation to correction. Good argument invites a clear and well-supported counterpoint. sometimes we will never let go our bad ideas until we clearly see a better idea. If we are humble enough to admit when we’re wrong–a life-skill if I’ve ever seen one–then a healthy argument can help us see the truth in a better light and persuade us away from our bad ideas.

Argumentation Can Polish Good Ideas
Sometimes we do not so much have a “bad” idea as we have a bad grasp of a good idea. With some argumentation skill, we can refine and filter good ideas, distilling or polishing them till we have a good understanding of their depth, implications and applications.

Argumentation Fosters The Vital Courage of Conviction
To conclude, and what might be the most ferociously important cause for argumentation is that is a vital instrument for regaining the courage of our convictions. It has been say that there is one thing that the reigning teachers of tolerance cannot stand, they cannot stand conviction. I tend to agree, since the only way to get everyone to “agree” seems to be by either rigging the system (so no one has access to contrary evidence) or by watering down our convictions till no one believes much of anything strongly, all ideas seem equally valid, objective truth is replaced by relative usefulness, and the former realm of convictions is hedged in by shouting school mams pleading for careful agreeable dispassion. I don’t want this rant to sound like a Pink Floyd video but you get my point. There is a vital role for courageous convictions within a free-society. Robust democracy requires that people have convictions about truth–lest they not contribute their part of it to the world. We would not need a democracy if all the good ideas were properly found and suitably managed among aristocrats or kings. But our democratic republic turns heavily on the belief that individuals have something to share, something that would be lost if they were all pressed into agreement with the powers that be. For these reasons it is absolutely vital that we learn the art of arguing, that we have safe-havens for the free-exchange of ideas, and that we as concerned citizens and family members are finding ways to engage in and submit to healthy argumentation. We have ideas that need to be shared, and we need other ideas we haven’t heard yet.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I have argued that the passionate and responsible exchange of ideas in the form of an argument is utterly necessary to personal growth, community development, and it is the lifeblood of a free-society. If you disagree with me, then lets hear it. The comment sections are below. If you agree with me, then go out and start arguing!

Kermit Gosnell, 72, who operated as the chief surgeon at the “Women’s Medical Society” Clinic in Philadelphia PA is currently standing trial for 8 counts of first-degree murder and various health code violations and patient endangerment. I wince at reporting the allegations of what went on in his clinic. Suffice it to say he conducated a cash-for-abortion clinic which exposed many women to nonsterile equipment, spread venereal diseases, induced live birth on late term pregnancies and conducted the “abortions” outside of the womb, all despite the PA law prohibiting late-term (after 24 weeks) abortions. You can read more here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

This trial is not strictly a pro-choice or pro-life trial. It has the potential to be politically charged but I think we need to approach it with humane diplomacy. No pro-choicer in their right mind would stand beside this doctor right now in broad affirmation of his methods. Obviously, if the allegations are true, then he broke the law, needlessly endangered many women, running an unlicensed and health-code-failing clinic, and brought the practice of abortive therapy back about 45 years. Moreover, many pro-choicers sympathize with the pro-life cause but just don’t think a general ban on abortion would be wise or safe for at least some 1st or 2nd trimester cases or some medically risky late-term cases. No one, generally speaking, is supporting willful conscientious murder. Pro-lifers oppose abortion seeing it as murder; Pro-choicers generally oppose abortion, but think it should still be legal, relatively safe, and relatively infrequent such that it isn’t really murder. I won’t quibble about that point now. If you’ve read my blog you know my views on that.

How then can we learn from the case of Kermit Gosnell? Let me suggest a few challenge points to be gleaned from this horrific case study.

1) Gosnell is a human being–monstrous maybe, but he’s not a demon, or some mere nutcase. We want to distance ourselves from the barbarism done by man, by treating wicked men as if they weren’t even human, or whatever they are, they just aren’t like us. But that distancing effort fails to forewarn of the evil in all of us. Gosnell is a person, a human being, a criminal maybe, but we are not terribly unlike him if we imbibe the same ideas, the same worldview, the same habits, or the same beliefs. In particular, he’s oddly consistent with the pro-choice ideals of empowering women of all economic classes and racial or ethnic groups to do what they want with their body. He went about it in illegal ways, but if human life is not sacred till it’s 9 months gestated, then he was merely messy, not a murderer.

2) Late term Abortions are Infanticide–I do not say that lightly. One must remember that the photos of the Gosnell killings represent a quick and relatively painless method of killing the baby. The normal methods of conducting late-term abortions, where they are/were legal, cause much more pain to the fetus. These methods vary from dilation and extraction (that is, D&E, which tears the squirming baby apart limb from limb), to partial-birth abortion (delivering the baby but leaving the head in the womb, then inserting scissors into the base of the head, opening them to puncture the skull, and suctioning out the brain). Various states have restricted late term abortions or prohibited them, except in cases of medical threats to the mother. Even many pro-choicers sense this truth since late-term abortions constitute viable children where the mother’s is merely the means of food and shelter for growing child. The child would survive outside the women with blankets and a bottle.

3) Inside-the-womb and Outside-the-womb is not a big difference–much of Gosnell’s reported barbarism is identical or milder than what is currently legal in different states in our country, but because he induced birth first, abortion became infanticide, and “Women’s Rights” becomes “Murder.”

None of these conclusions bode well for the pro-choice camp. So it is not surprising how poor the major media coverage has been, where liberal and left-leaning opinions have tended to congregate over the years. I’m not accusing anyone of any major conspiracy, but rather a blind spot in major media today. One cannot know what one is missing if all the peers and professionals around agree. Facing the same way they all have the same blind spot. Kermit Gosnell has, allegedly, been exploiting that blind spot for decades and this trial brings to light what never should have been allowed in the shadows in the first place.

1) the baby is a girl?

2) the baby will be gay?

3) the baby will be black or hispanic?

4) the baby will be mentally handicapped?

5) the baby will be physically handicapped?

6) the baby will be ugly?

Current abortion legislation permits all of these reasons since “abortion on demand” is about the mother’s privacy, autonomy, and body and not about the status of the yet unborn.

               Looking back on the difficult times in my life since I became a Christian I can say that I am profoundly grateful for the community that has surrounded me. Not least because even amidst my failures someone has always been there to tell me ‘God still loves you’. I consider myself a pretty atrocious Christian. I’m sinning all the time, doing dumb stuff, and neglecting relationships because, well, if I don’t write a mediocre blog about being a Christian, who will? Yet, I’m still loved. I’m like the third string quarterback of Christianity who’s only on the team in case some freak accident simultaneously takes out the two guys in front of me. But I’m still here.

            At the same time I can look back at the highpoints in life since becoming a Christian. Those include moments when I finally did something I was supposed to do and someone walked away feeling a little closer to Jesus because of it. Those are the moments where I feel like I finally made it to the big time, and with four seconds left in the Super Bowl threw the game winning pass to crush Satan’s puny demonic football team and strike a blow for the Kingdom of God. I am also grateful that in those moments, and other moments of personal breakthrough, someone has been there to tell me that God still loves me.

            The common denominator in the good times and bad is that God still loves me, just the same as He still loves you. Yet God has emotions in the Bible. He gets angry, feels compassion and delight, and even cries (Deut. 32.21; Matt. 14.14; Ps. 149.4; Jn. 11.35). So if God loves justice, how can He also love us (Isa. 61.8)? We’re dirty and sin constantly. Perhaps a more important question is if God loves us even when we’re screwing up, does He even care at all about things like apartheid, rape, and murder, or is He just a mindless drone set to love?

            I think the answers lays in what our definition of love is. Contrary to popular belief, love isn’t just a chemical reaction in our brains that makes our gut feel like a thousand butterflies are fluttering around in our upper intestines. That feeling is perhaps inspired by love, but it is not love in itself. Love is far more permanent, it is something that lasts. Jerry Cook, a former pastor of East Hill Church in Oregon, writes that “love first exists and then it affects the emotions” (12, emphasis mine). This is critical. First comes love, and then comes the butterflies. Love is not the butterflies.

            The word in ancient Greek which we translate as love is agape. To piggyback off of Jerry Cook again, agape love always results in action which “involves the type of giving which cannot be compensated” (13). For example, John 3.16 says “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” (NASB, emphasis mine). Which came first, love or unrepayable action? Obviously, love did. Agape always leads to action because it is a setting of the will towards someone in affection with their best intentions in mind (Rom. 13.10).

            When Jesus tells us to love our enemies He doesn’t mean we need to experience a hormonal reaction to them that makes us feel dandy inside. He wants us to set our wills toward them in affection with their best interests in mind despite the fact that we’ve been hurt by them. Emotions do not dictate to love, rather love dictates to emotions. Jesus didn’t want to be crucified, but for love’s sake He bore the cross (Rom. 5.8, Matt. 26.39).  This is important because it means that atrocities like the Boston bombing hurt God. It means that our actions affect Him, but instead of responding in anger He responds in love.

            Love looks more like a life of sacrifice for another’s good than a Hallmark movie (Jn. 14.15, 15.13). However, that doesn’t mean the butterflies aren’t real–they’re just another emotion dictated by love. “The LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love” (Ps. 147.11 NIV). Our actions have the ability to move God positively in the same way they can move Him negatively. Like any relationship, how we behave affects our partner. Love is His presiding motivation whether we’re making every prayer meeting or haven’t been to church in a year. But when we seek after Him and abide in His love we delight Him. In fact, I’m pretty sure we give God butterflies. 

References

 Cook, Jerry. “Love, Acceptance, and Forgiveness”. Ventura : Regal Books, 1979. Print.

Now factor in the evidence of the Kermit Gosnell story. This malpracticing abortion “doctor” has been, allegedly, facilitating live births of barely viable fetuses and then snipping the back of their necks instantly killing them. Among the horrors described of his clinic there are babies swimming around in toilets, snatched up, and killed; botched abortions where maimed babies are on the shelf crying, surrounded by other dead babies, and many other atrocities. We hear the defense lawyer describing LEGAL abortions where 2nd trimester children dodge and avoid the forceps but can still be extracted limb by limb in the abortion.

Now putting these two scenes beside each other we have the following: The preborn child is really just a tumor, lets say up through the 2nd trimester where abortion is still legal in most states. But in the Gosnell trial we are reminded how barely viable and late term abortions deal with very mobile, squirming, swimming, crying babies that fight against forceps too?

Now what then separates abortion from infanticide? 12 Inches or so. We are scandalized at the prospect of infanticide but we as a nation treat its twin, abortion, as a sacred and noble right. 12 inches do NOT separate a tumor from a baby, they separate legal atrocities from illegal ones.

As Chesterton noted, “nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes.” We continuously fall for age old fallacies in the guise of new age truths – “truths” which die and resurrect in different forms throughout history; always lacking the proper Foundation, thus never providing a firm solution for the troubles of the world (without which, peace is unattainable). All the while, buried beneath the ashes and rubble of intellectually misguided prophets such as Marx, Nietzsche and Freud lies the Logos – the Eternal Word of God. “Come to me,” He whispers,” and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

I wrote the quote above yesterday, and after further reflecting on it today, I thought it might be fun to make up little debates in which I cite opposing quotes. First up, in the left corner: Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. In the right: The Holy Trinity.

What Sigmund Freud said: “We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love.”

What God says: God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13).

For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline. (2 Timothy 1:7 NLT).

Freud: “Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.”

God: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3).

What Freud got right:

“I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection.”

What Friedrich Nietzsche said: “Faith: not wanting to know what is true.”

God: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. (Hebrews 11:1). But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18:8).

Nietzsche: “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

God: For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:19).

The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matthew 11:15).

Niezsche: “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

God: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. (Matthew 19:14). 

Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5,6).

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14).

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (John 17:9,10)… I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil. They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. (15-23).

What Nietzsche got right:

“We love life, not because we are used to living but because we are used to loving.”

What Karl Marx said: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

What God says: Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world. (James 1:27).

Marx: “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

God: You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free… the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself. (Galations 5:13,14).

They offer superficial treatments for my people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. (Jeremiah 6:14 NLT).

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid. (John 14:27).

Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

God: For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

(((Note: I am in no way saying that people should not help out the less fortunate. Far from it. Charity reigns at the very heart of the Gospel. But should the State force its citizens to do so? That’s a whole different story. Please feel free to check out the following posts to see my views on this topic: Obama the Apostate and Planned Parenthood, Nazi Germany and Those Who Call Good ‘Evil’ and Evil ‘Good”)))

What Marx got right (add the word “Christian” at the beginning of the following phrase):

“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”