Welcome into the Dean's List, a brief analysis of news and culture from a biblical worldview. This is the broadcast which we seek to faithfully proclaim, and the gospel indeed will overcome. It's Wednesday, April 2nd, 2014. I'm Paul V. The pro-abortion power brokers are relentlessly seeking different ways to gain the upper hand in this all-important battle. We all are certainly aware of that. There are different angles in the debate, and they need to bring up different angles. The differing angles, of course, are the results of the gains that we Christians are making. Some of those gains have been brought about by ultrasounds, ultrasound technology. We know that life, indeed, is in the womb. You can't say any longer that we're talking about tissue only. We know that babies in the womb experience pain. Those kinds of things and others are the reasons that we make significant gains. But if the other side is relentlessly at work to undermine those gains, well, all the more reason for Christians to engage relentlessly. And, of course, we need to engage from a position of strength, and that position, of course, is a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview, to be sure, is rooted in truth, and that's why it's strong. It's rooted in justice. It's rooted in freedom. It's rooted in reality. Now, I'm talking about these things because of this. The Christian Post is reporting that the University of Michigan paid $1,000 to pro-choice artist Heather Ault, who delivered a presentation, and in that presentation she presented her 4,000 years of choice collection. Now, one piece in the collection declares, for example, abortion is a gift from God. Let me read some of the posters in the art series. Abortion providers are heroes. Every day should be Abortion Provider Appreciation Day. Calm and peace radiate from this space. Celebrate abortion clinics. Now, obviously, these are unbelievable displays and there are certain pro-life groups who want the exhibit removed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this is being funded in part by taxpayer monies. We could talk about that, of course, but I want to talk about a different issue. And here's what I mean. The display, according to those in charge, is not about the political issues of abortion. Now, we know that it is. But they're saying it's not about the political issues of abortion. It's about the history of women learning to abort their fetuses. Listen to that phrase. The history of women learning to abort their fetuses in order to gain control over when they are pregnant. So there's the angle. Reproductive rights, we've been hearing more and more talk about reproductive rights. Now we're hearing more and more talk, of course, about empowerment for women. We're hearing more and more talk about control. Deborah Schwartz, Senior Public Relations Representative for the University of Michigan's Institute for Research on Women and Gender, had this to say. Contrary to what they're saying, this display is not about pro-choice or even pro-abortion. This is about the history of women learning to control their reproductive system. Heather Auld is trying to get past the hangar and the idea of back alley dirty abortions and celebrate the ways women and men for that matter can control their reproductive system through birth control and even by aborting a fetus. So I want you to think about the issue of language. There's this contrast between what they're attempting to do and back alley dirty abortions. And what are they trying to do? Well, they're trying to celebrate. They're trying to celebrate the ways that women can control their reproductive systems. And of course, they're going to do that through birth control. Who would object to that? Oh, and by the way, by even aborting a fetus. Well, obviously, what we have here is a diversionary tactic. And the real issue, of course, is not a woman's reproductive system. That's the diversion. The real issue is that we're talking about a human being, an unborn human being. But the language has changed. Now there's no hidden agenda here. According to the 4,000 Years for Choice website, Alt is an award-winning artist, researcher, and activist for abortion rights and reproductive justice. There's that terminology again. And she is devoted to revisioning Get That, she's devoted to revisioning the historical and cultural narrative of abortion and contraception. She's got another series that she calls Reproductive Roots. It's a set of graphics designed to be shared on social media. These graphics, Alt writes on her website, are a critique of the combative language of the pro-choice movement. And she says, as an alternative, that she wants to focus on the Get This inherent goodness in every woman's reproductive journey. So again, what are we talking about here? Well, we're talking about language. Listen to this language. We're going to focus on the inherent goodness in every woman's reproductive journey. We're not going to talk about abortion per se. We're not going to talk about killing a baby, of course. We're not even going to talk much about fetal tissue or medical material, medical waste material. We're not going to talk about those things. We're going to celebrate this. We're going to talk about the inherent goodness in every woman's, not aborting her fetus, but in every woman's reproductive journey. Change the language, you change the issues, change the issues, you change the game. That's why we Christians have to be wise. That's why we have to be informed. We have to understand the biblical worldview through and through. And, of course, we have to talk about rights, but not reproductive rights. We have to talk about the right to life, that God-given right that no one can take away from us. If someone can take away that right, then we have no civil society. So we need to talk about what it means to be a civil society and the laws that undergird and help perpetuate a civil society. We are in danger, every one of us, if we continue to go down this road. We need to talk about those things. But, of course, we need to talk about heart issues as well. When you are so wrapped up in yourself that you are willing to murder for convenience, that's the kind of language we need to use. You're selfish, and you're so selfish that you're willing to take another life for your own convenience. You're willing to murder. The real problem, of course, is human sin, and that's why God has to be in the picture even in the debate, even in our discussion topics or our talking points. God has to be in the picture. And of course, as we talk about these things and bring God into the picture, we launch to the gospel because that is the only thing that will ultimately change hearts and minds. You really are so self-centered that you would kill to get what you want. Well, the apostles, for example, confronted thinking like that at a worldview level. They talked about a coming day of judgment. They were clear. They were playing. It didn't matter if people laughed at them. They said, the Lord Jesus Christ will judge on that great day. And the Bible tells us that some rejected the message, of course. Most, in fact, will. Some said, we'll hear you again on this. But some were saved. And that's where we want to hang our hats, so to speak. We want to make sure that we put the issues on the table, that we speak lovingly, but that we speak clearly. and that we trust the Lord to do what He alone can do. Turning now to the issue of the local church, more specifically, individuals who comprise local churches and their role in kingdom advance. On the one hand, we know that God's plan is unfolding, His plan to redeem a people for Himself. That's obviously a big plan. And if we see things the way that God sees them, that's a big vision. if we're going to get God's vision. Indeed, that is a big vision. At our own local church, our vision statement reflects the big vision of the Bible. Here it is. To so exalt the name of Christ that persons, structures, and whole cultures are transformed and brought under His Lordship. Now, why such a statement? Well, again, it ties back to the vision that we find in the Scriptures. Obviously, It's centered upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and individuals are to be saved, and as people are saved, well then, structures are changed, whatever those structures may be. You might be talking about local communities, you might be talking about local governments, and so it goes. Ultimately, we know that the gospel, as it permeates a culture, can indeed, and does, transform that culture. We've seen that historically speaking. At the same time, here's the question. Is it our role as a local church to transform an entire culture? Well, no, that's not our role as a local church. Hence our mission statement, which is different than our big vision statement. Our mission statement, with reference to the local church that I serve, is simply this. To advance the kingdom and our providential spheres of influence, including our homes, vocations, communities, and the larger world through missional living, culture making, and personal discipleship for the glory of God and the good of others." Now when we look at this mission statement, it's not any less ambitious than the vision statement. It's simply recognizing the particular role of a local church or individuals in a local church. Now part of the reason I'm bringing this up, is the debate between those who see churches and individual Christians as fostering big movements versus those who see churches and individual Christians as simply being faithful in their particular callings. A lot of pressure is put on a lot of folk, pastors, churches, individuals alike. A lot of pressure put on a lot of folk with grandiose talk and grandiose emphasis. Let me give you an example. I'm thinking of a local church. Here's their mission statement. This particular church, quote, exists to give every man, woman, and child the repeated opportunity to see, hear, and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ without them having to come or go anywhere. Now, that sounds pretty good. I mean, obviously, we want everyone to hear the gospel. We want to take the gospel to the people. But here's part of the problem. One church really cannot give every single man, woman, and child an opportunity to see, hear, and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly repeated opportunities to see, hear, and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ without them having to come or go anywhere. I'm not even sure that the Bible itself gives the church at large that mission. I mean, the Great Commission is simply this, make disciples of all the nations. all the people groups it's not necessarily saying that we give every single person the repeated opportunity i'm not even sure that's possible leave it we'll leave that uh... discussion for another time but aside from that the last part of the statement how are we going to give these folks the repeated opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel without them having to come or go anywhere well presumably in part that is through church planting Now, I am all in favor of church planting. I think that churches can and should plant other churches. I think that congregations can work to do that. I certainly believe that God calls up individual church planters, perhaps to multiply churches that way, to multiply the gospel that way, to plant more than one church. That's a great strategy. At the same time, here's the question. Is it really the New Testament strategy for every single local church to plant multiple churches. Again, church planters perhaps, but every single local church? One man said this to me on one occasion. He said that we ought to have several families in our church who are prepared at any moment to move out of the area, to move into another area to plant churches. Is that really the case? Certainly God can call a family to move from one place to another to be part of a church plant, but should we expect several families in every single local church to be prepared to move lock, stock, and barrel for the purpose of planting churches in other places. Don't get me wrong. Church planting is good. Again, all of life we live for God's glory. But the Bible is pretty clear that every single one of us has different callings, different gifts, different strategic places of influence, different callings, And I'm not sure the grandiose language in this regard or the grandiose mindset in this regard is very helpful. Karl Truman over at Reformation 21 talks about being ambivalent of the young restless and reforms emphases on grandiose movements, for example. Here's what he says. We're not concerned about building mass movements. Rather, we're concerned about impact at a local and then a denominational level. This is not because we care nothing for the body of Christ as a whole, but because we are aware of the church's limited resources and of the fact that most people in the churches where we worship have no deep interest in such movements. They're too busy, here's the issue, they're too busy being Christians in their daily lives. They work hard for the local church. They witness to their neighbors. They support the denomination with their tithes. They pray for the denomination and her missionaries in particular, and for the extension of the kingdom in general, and they trust others to do the same for their respective churches. And that's about it, more than enough to keep us all busy, as they say. I mean, when you, you know, echoing Carl Truman, when you look at the New Testament, you see the letters of Paul, for example, He basically admonishes the people to be good Christians, to live Christian lives. You know, Peter exhorts the folk to live their lives in such a way that when the Gentiles and the pagans accuse them of being evil, that they turn around and scratch their heads because, well, they're not necessarily demonstrating any kind of evil activity, that we Christians, in fact, are good citizens. And ultimately, they will glorify God on the day of visitation. I affirm that the gospel changes cultures. At the same time, I'll say this, that happens not as we organize ourselves to do such, not as we organize ourselves to transform culture, but as we teach our people to be faithful, as we spur one another on to being faithful, as we spur one another on to love and good works, as we spur one another on to do what God has given each one of us to do. in our particular gift mix, in our particular callings, in our particular spheres of influence, again, right where we are. Well, you've no doubt heard the news. An Iraq war veteran, Ivan Lopez, who was being treated for a mental illness, opened fire Wednesday at Fort Hood, killing three soldiers and injuring 16 others before killing himself. Obviously, this is an unspeakable tragedy. You know that Fort Hood is the same base where in 2009, U.S. Army Major Nadal Hassan killed more than a dozen in a shooting. But here's the angle that I want to take at the moment. In one piece after another, the line is thrown in. We're not sure if these killings are religiously motivated or not. Now, I want to say to you that whenever these lines are thrown in, regardless of whether it's fox news cnn or whoever the case may be it really is a shameful thing in a shameful multiple levels but just a couple of levels i want to point out first experts people of faith it's fair to people all people of faith whether you're talking about uh... christians or otherwise but as christians we are people of faith and it obviously it's a slanderous thing to question religious motivation whenever we see one of these mass shootings simply because some people are simply acting out on their evil inclinations. Now here's a second issue that makes this sort of thing shameful. The government, our government, and indeed the medical community and a number of others, I think it's time for us to start calling them to come clean with reference to the destructive effects of psychotropic medication. In just about every one of these stories, the common thread is not religious fanaticism. Rather, the common thread is psychotropic medication. You'll often see this in the stories cast in the language of individuals being treated for mental illness, but what amounts to being treated for mental illness these days is being loaded up on psychotropic medication. It is a known fact that medication of this nature affects different people differently. And in large numbers, it increases suicidality. It increases depression rather than countermanding it. In large numbers of cases, whatever a person is feeling, well, the inhibitions are lowered if not taken away altogether. And those who are depressed become more depressed. Those who are angry become more angry. those are prone to act out on certain feelings uh... might suppress those feelings it might not act out on those feelings normally all of a sudden are no longer inhibited from acting out on those feelings these medications make a lot of people simply come to the point where they just don't care anymore about anything but simply acting out on their feelings so these shootings are often not the result of religious fanaticism they're not even the result of mental illness They are so often the result of treatment of so-called mental illness. The medical model of psychology has serious problems. We don't have time to enumerate the details, but nevertheless, this is well-known and well-attested, well-documented. If an individual is suffering from depression over what he has seen in the midst of war, over what he has done in the midst of war, that's a normal thing. Would you not be depressed? It's seeing men and women maimed and killed. Would you not be depressed to get to take the life of another human being? And yet, if that depression becomes chronic, then what this individual needs is to get his thinking straight. He doesn't need to be drugged up. Did the war somehow bring on mental illness? Did what he went through somehow bring about a mental illness? Of course not. He's simply having a hard time. And to drug him up is both cruel and irresponsible. as we have seen in the news so often. This is an area where Christians need to do a lot more work. Part of seeing the world through a Christian lens means seeing the entire world through a Christian lens. And it means that we need to proclaim to the world that in Christ, and we need to affirm ourselves that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The Lord Jesus tells us how to deal with spiritual issues. He tells us how to deal with depression. In Him, we've been given everything we need for life and godliness. You want to know how to live life? You want to know how to be godly? In Christ, we get everything we need for that. The Gospel overcomes our sinful inclinations. And the Gospel helps us to influence culture. Even those who don't know Christ, again, we don't need to drug folk up in this regard. We need to feel grief when there's something to be grieved over. And then we need to get the answer. We need for others to feel grief. We need for them to get the answer. Our culture needs to realize you can't cure everything with a pill. There are certain things for which you really do need the Lord Jesus Christ. And that's our message. That's how we as a church can help prevent these mass shootings by changing public opinion as we engage the culture with the truth. Gospel overcomes. You've been listening to The Dean's List, an analysis of news and culture from a biblical worldview. Sign up to receive The Dean's List via email, along with other items of interest at deanslistcommentary at gmail.com or simply go to our website, trueworldview.net, where you'll find other helpful resources. I'm Paul Dean. Join me next time for The Dean's List. you.