Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.
-Romans 12:2 (NABRE)
All men are but descendants of The Fall of Man. (1) From Creation and forevermore, “man” is responsible for the consequences of his own choices. Though man is of divine origin, people allow themselves to be easily deceived, whether by Satan or by the sinful deceptions of others. Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, The Fall of Man (Genesis 3:1-24) Bible.org Series - Genesis: From Paradise to Patriarchs (May 11, 2004) https://bible.org/seriespage/fall-man-genesis-31-24 We allow ourselves to be manipulated by those distorting God’s word, denying God has any relevance to an enlightened culture, or instilling self-doubt by alluding religious faith is for only for those who “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.” Mayhill Fowler, Obama Exclusive (Audio): On V.P And Foreign Policy, Courting the Working Class, and Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians, The Huffington Post (Apr. 19, 2009, 5:12 am) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He himself tempts no one. But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.
-James 1:13:15 (NET).
To understand providence that lead to the creation of the United State's Constitution and it's moral fibers it would behoove one to explore the work by Mark Belies and Douglas Anderson. They are the authors of Contending for the Constitution, which “present[s] their case that the Constitution is based on biblical principles and Christian influence.” Mark Beliles and Douglas Anderson, Contending for the Constitution, (Providence Foundation eds., 2005) The authors identify several internal principles interwoven into the creation of the Constitution. They include:
- Internal Principle No. 1: Man is of Divine Origin
- Internal Principle No. 2: Man Has Individual Value
- Internal Principle No. 4: The Source of Individual Rights is God, Not Government.
The first principle raises the hackles of believers of evolution. Their religion is the belief that humans can trace their beginnings back to a reaction of chemicals in an organic goo, with no rhyme nor reason; just a “synthesis of relatively simple organic chemical compounds.” Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution indoctrinates children to believe this is gospel and that our present physical being is just based on survival of the fittest in which life naturally adapts to its environment in order to perpetuate itself. Smithsonian National Museum of National History: Broader Social Impacts Committee, Introduction to Human Evolution http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution (last visited Sept. 25, 2014).
However, many evolutionists agree that,
There is no way to observe or test any postulated evolutionary origin of life. All such theories are mere postulates, all related laboratory experiments are mere exercises in organic chemistry.
-Dr. Duane Gish, Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories, Institute for Creation Research http://www.icr.org/article/origin-life-critique-early-stage-chemical-evolutio/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2014).
Ironically, even within the theory of evolution, homosexuality is an aberration for human beings. Humans are not asexual. They need to “search for, attract, and couple with a mate.” Evolution has brought forth “specialized behaviors and physical features for doing so . . ..” Scientists, of couse, have attempted to explain this paradox. Preston Hunter, Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution (1994) http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
If there is no God, there is no intrinsic value of man for he comes from a random act of nature. Man’s worth is only defined as what value he can provide for the betterment of society. Hence, there is no worth to the unborn, only a functioning member of the community is. The individual may decide whether to dispose of it or not; there is no morality attached to it for the fetus has as much value as an appendix has to the human body. There is no justification for another to decide what a women does to this cluster of cells growing in her own body. There is also no reason to ban after-birth abortions as well, especially if they have abnormalities where:
. . .[t]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
-Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (2012) available at http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
This reasoning is supportive of the secular world view (as opposed to the Biblical world view). Since there is no value, then by what authority does man have to determine what is morally right or wrong? What is morally justified today, may not be tomorrow. Beliles and Anderson, supra at 109 – 110.
The Biblical world view teaches us a much different lesson. The origin of life and the human species are a result of distinct acts of divine intervention, of a Sovereign God. This is Creationism. The elements of a Biblical world view are: an absolute God exists; God created all; man is created in God’s image, making all of man worthy of respect and honor; man was given dominion over creation by God; man is predisposed to sin because he of the Fall; Jesus is our only hope for redemption; and God provides for His creation. One last aspect of the Biblical view is that the Bible is the Word of God, not man. Matt Slick, What are some Christian Worldview Essentials? http://carm.org/what-are-some-christian-worldview-essentials (last visited Sept. 27, 2014) His Word is flawless; otherwise Christ is a liar.
God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
-Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)
God's Word is the reference point; not man’s word. God is the epitome of Divine, and man was made in his image. “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27 (NIV). Humans have worth and value by the nature of their origin. When does that life begin? The spark of life begins at the moment of conception.
There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate.
-Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD, Life Begins at the Beginning, TFP Student Action (Jan. 13, 2011) http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/abortion/life-begins-at-the-beginning.html Therefore, at conception, the unborn has value and worth. To voluntarily destroy that life for any reason is murder.
Turning the lens back to the cultural sin of homosexuality, some Christian supporters argue that since God is love, man should not deny whatever shape or form that love for another takes. Yer God’s Word tells man that homosexuality is a sin:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(2) , . . .
-1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) .
Would Jesus have supported gay marriage if He were alive today? Admittedly, Jesus never spoke on this “lifestyle” directly. However, when He spoke of marriage, divorce, and creation, He did not speak generically. For instance:
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
-Matthew 19:4-6 (NKJV) .
God does tells us to love one another, regardless. On that token, it would appear it would be acceptable to lay with and marry whomever. Upon closer inspection this is not the truth. We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Psalm 97:10 (NIV). Jesus also gave us direction on addressing that which is sinful in the book of John (emphasis added):
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
-John 8:10-11 (NIV)
He does not condemn the sinner (the adulterer), but gives her direction to no longer commit the sin.
What of the our unalienable rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? We “ . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
Does that not justify us to do whatever we wish? No, for these rights do not come from man. If these rights were endowed by man to man, then the argument, whether from a Biblical or Constitutional perspective, support of abortion and same-sex marriage would be justified. Many confuse the term unalienable rights with inalienable rights. Inalienable rights can be surrendered or transferred with the consent of the one possessing such rights, or by operation of law. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (1952).
God given rights cannot be taken away or forfeited. They are inherent to man. They come from God, and God’s law defines those rights. The rights are without sin, and they are not to be construed justify sin. Government can only help secure these rights (not grant or create).
Those with the Biblical World view should not fear entering the area of public debate with arguments such as these and more in order to stop the erosion of morality. But it is of this author’s opinion the Constitution should not be further amended to prevent or secure these views. The Bill of Rights were added immediately as an amendment to the Constitution, of course, but mainly to further define what Government cannot do; some felt the initial Constitution itself was not explicit enough to make clear the rights of man. Other necessary items such as the abolishing of slavery and woman’s suffrage rights were just as they impeded on man’s God given rights, and the amendments served to glorify the love of God.
Unfortunately, over a hundred years later, some of the amendments are being misconstrued in order to further political and personal ideologues. In Roe v. Wade, the Fourteenth Amendment was used to support a woman’s decision to abort her unborn child. Fourteenth Amendment--Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection:Abortion, Justia US Law http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.html (last visited Sept. 27, 2014)
The Constitution is not and was never intended to be a living document. It takes three-fourths majority to amend the Constitution: a majority of man who would base it on their personal authority, not God’s.
There has been a significant uptick of judicial activism (“when judges decline to apply the Constitution or laws according to their original public meaning or ignore binding precedent and instead decide cases based on personal preference”) and belief that the Constitution is a relic from a bygone time. Elizabeth Slattery, Legal Memorandum #96 on Legal Issues: How to Spot Judicial Activism: Three Recent Examples, The Heritage Foundation (June 13, 2013) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/how-to-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples The entire Constitution, thus the United States, is at risk.
Nothing in the Constitution is absolutely sacred. Every bit of it can be changed, even to the people’s detriment, if that is what a majority of the people desire.
-David Gibbs, Jr. and David Gibbs III, Understanding the Constitution: Ten Things Every Christian Should Know About the Supreme Law of the Land 82 (Christian Law Association, 2006)
The Constitution was led by Providence, based on the Law of God. Because of this, man has to recognize and heed Scripture’s warning man to not add or take away from it:
Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
-Deuteronomy 4:1-2 (KJV)
Every word of God is pure…. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
-Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)
…whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it….
-Ecclesiastes 3:14 (KJV)
(1) The use of the word “man” or “men” is not inclusive to the male species; it includes women as well.
(2) The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts