This past December 1^st the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy that challenges Roe v. Wade. The issue in Roe v. Wade was when does human life become a person and subsequently invokes the constitutional protections afforded personhood.

     In Roe the court ruled ex utero viability which was held to be any point in the pregnancy after 24 weeks, or what has become known as the second trimester, and if it was determined to be medically necessary for the health of the mother.

     What has changed since Roe? Two things have changed; the mother’s health does not have to be in medical jeopardy, and late term abortions are allowed right up to just before birth. The old adage ‘give an inch and they will take a mile,’ has proven true in Roe v. Wade. Legal abortion has devolved from medically necessary to a convenient form of birth control at the expense of the baby’s life.

     The implications of the court’s decision, either way, cannot be overestimated. The ramifications of the court’s decision will impact the law, medical treatment, political issues, and the spirituality of our nation to name just a few. And no matter what the decision is, our nation will most likely remain sharply divided over the issue of abortion.

     We know from medical science that within thirty seconds of conception half of the mother’s chromosomes will unite with half of the father’s chromosomes which, if left alone, will grow to become a unique human being.

     For this reason, nascent human life should be afforded the constitutional protections of personhood from conception. As much as I hate that we have become a divided culture over how we should treat innocent human life, I still believe we owe legal protection to the most vulnerable among us, the unborn.

     But our nation’s spirituality, and by that I mean our desire to know and obey the God of the Bible, has declined along with our morals and respect for human life. I readily agree with the late Billy Graham who said, “The central issues of our time aren’t economic or political or social, important as these are. The central issues of our time are moral and spiritual in nature.”

     Sadly, the fact that innocent human life has become a political and legal issue is an alarming commentary on the backslidden condition of our nation. If we had respect for human life there would be no need for laws to protect it, but we do not believe what the Scriptures teach.

     I pray America repents of its sin and turns to Christ for forgiveness. I pray for national revival and that we as a nation would embrace the words of the psalmist, “ Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward,” Psalm 127:3.

I need to remind us that the real Supreme Court does not convene down here.

I read with some interest an article titled “Why some Americans don’t celebrate Thanksgiving,” by Chelsea Ritschel. She writes, “For many Americans, Thanksgiving is a special beloved holiday for eating turkey and spending time with family and friends. However, for others, the celebration is deeply controversial as Thanksgiving has a contentious history.”

     “Like Columbus Day, the holiday is viewed by many to be a celebration of the conquest of Native Americans by colonists or an embellished narrative of ‘Pilgrims and Natives looking past their differences’ to break bread.”

     I did not know that either of these holidays were “viewed by many to be a celebration of the conquest of Native Americans by colonists.”

     A professor at the University of Texas at Austin, Robert Jensen, has said, “One indication of moral progress in the United States would be the replacement of Thanksgiving Day and its self-indulgent family feasting with a National Day of Atonement accompanied by a self-reflective collective fasting.”

     I agree with Professor Jensen that a National Day of Atonement is in order, but not to replace Thanksgiving Day or because something happened two hundred years ago that neither my ancestors (as far as I know), nor I had anything to do with. If Americans want to see “moral progress” we need to repent of our sexual immoralities and the practice of abortion for starters.

     Ritschel further claims, “Young children are taught about Thanksgiving in school, where they often learn of the first feast through crafts and drawings. In addition to depictions of turkeys, the Mayflower and the Pilgrims, many children decorate Native American headdresses which frequently bare no resemblance to the headdresses, clothes and feathers worn by the Wampanoag Indians. These inaccurate historical references are … making the battle for equality and accurate representation an ongoing one for Native Americans.”

     I did not know that the battle of the Wampanoag Indians for “equality and accurate representation” hinged on the drawings of “young children.” I wonder if the children’s drawings accurately depicted the “turkeys, the Mayflower and the Pilgrims” also.

     The narrative I am familiar with is about some English colonists called Pilgrims coming to the New World in search of religious freedom. They landed in the dead of winter and during the following year many died. With the help of some Native Americans, now identified as the Wampanoag, they survived.        

     Having harvested a bountiful crop, they celebrated offering thanksgiving to God. Those Native Americans who helped them survive were invited to celebrate with them. That’s the Thanksgiving account I was taught and remember, if there are errors I am not aware of them.

     But for me it is not whether what happened 400 years ago is historically accurate. My focus during Thanksgiving is being thankful for God’s gracious providence, because it is never a bad time to be thankful to God.

“He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; and to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God,” Psalm 50:23.

The night before I wrote this article, our church utilized our mid-week service to fill shoe boxes for Operation Christmas Child. Operation Christmas Child is an effort of Samaritan’s Purse to send a shoe box of “toys, gifts, school supplies, personal care items and the Gospel message” of Christmas to needy children around the world.

     As many know, Operation Christmas Child was the brainchild of Rev. Franklin Graham the Founder of Samaritan’s Purse. My wife and I have been regular helpers in this seasonal celebration since its inception. It is always a joy to celebrate this time of year by giving to others, and a blessing to be a part of a church family that feels the same.

     The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not share this perspective. A “concerned district community member” informed the FFRF that North Short Elementary School, in the Galena Park Independent School District, Texas, was sponsoring a fundraiser for Operation Christmas Child.

     FFRF wasted no time in sending a warning letter to the school district. In a statement FFRF said, “The state/church watchdog has been assured, in a communication from the school system, that the district has been unaware of the school’s participation in the evangelical fundraising and that this will no longer take place.”

     This may shock some, but I am not offended by the FFRF’s actions. I am no more offended by the FFRF than I would be if a blind man stepped on my foot, and for the same reason; neither of them can see. One is physically blind and the other is spiritually blind.

     God commissioned the Church alone with the Christmas message of joy and hope. No other organization or institution is given the privilege and responsibility of sharing that message. Jesus told the faithful, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” Matthew 28:19-20.

     And what does the FFRF offer children in lieu of a shoe box, the empty darkness of disbelief, no toys, gifts, school supplies, personal care items, nor the Gospel message. The FFRF can stop a school district, but it cannot stop the Church.

     Hopefully the FFRF will come to realize what the Grinch did, “Maybe Christmas, he thought, doesn’t come from a store; maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more.”

     Christmas does mean a little bit more. During this Thanksgiving season, I am thankful for the angelic message, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” Luke 2:10-11.

Neither the Freedom From Religion Foundation nor the Grinch have been able to steal Christmas, and for that I am thankful.

Every time I think I have heard it all, I come across a story that highlights the devolution of human thought and common sense.

     PETA is an acronym that stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk has said, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all mammals.” Her meaning is we are all animals, so animals should have the same rights as humans.

     This is in keeping with the view held by Princeton philosopher Peter Singer who believes any human “who discriminates against animals by not giving them the same rights as people,” is a speciesist. I am guilty as charged, because I do discriminate between animals and humans

     In his “The Briefing,” Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., recently addressed the issue of PETA’s request that Major League Baseball rename ‘bullpens’ the ‘arm barn.’ PETA claims ‘bullpen’ is a term that refers to holding pens where cattle are kept before being slaughtered and processed. PETA, on behalf of animal rights, decry the use of ‘bullpen,’ as being derogatory to cattle.

     A friend of mine, Old MacDonald, told me just the other day, the barnyard has been relatively quiet about the controversy; there have been no protests from the livestock. The bulls have not bellowed their discontent and it seems the cows see it as a gender issue; after all, it is called a ‘bullpen’, not a ‘cowpen.’

     The horses have not whinnied a yeah or neigh, he hasn’t heard a peep from the sheep, and the chickens have not cackled any complaints. He did say it seems the chickens did get their feathers ruffled when the cows were purported to have authored the Chick-fil-A slogan, “Eat Mor Chickin.”

     Of course, that slogan and its lack of proper spelling makes the cows look illiterate. That will probably be the next issue on PETA’s agenda; they are so bullheaded, I mean hardheaded.

     Sarcasm aside, the Scriptures teach the ethical treatment of animals. “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” Deuteronomy 25:4. Here is a short interpretation, if you are going to work an animal, you should feed him. And the Sabbath day of rest was also for the working animals, Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14.

     These are just some examples there are more, but the point here is that the Bible advocates the ethical treatment of animals, but it also makes a distinction between animals, and humans who were created in the image of God. PETA does not recognize that distinction.

     Animals could be eaten as outlined in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, and could be used as animal sacrifices, Leviticus 9:4, 18, in the Old Testament system of worship. Eating and sacrificing humans was strictly forbidden in the Scriptures and should be accepted as common sense, but common sense is not as common as it once was.     

Personally, I am a member of the other PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals. I think I’ll have a steak.

A recent article titled, “Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn’t mean they are anti-religious,” by Elaine Howard Ecklund and David R. Johnson share their findings based on their research into atheism and science from the book they co-authored, “Varieties of Atheism in Science.”

     From 2013 to 2016 Ecklund and Johnson did “quantitative surveys with 1,293 scientists who identified as atheists” and “81 in-depth qualitative interviews” and “found that scientists’ views of religion are much more diverse than the image conveyed by new atheists. The term “new atheists” is a reference to modern skeptics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others.

     When those interviewed were asked about their perspective of God, they selected the statement “I do not believe in God” even when other answers were available such as “agnosticism, the view that the existence of God or the divine is unknowable.”

     According to Ecklund and Johnson many atheistic scientists think religion serves society by promoting charity without and well-being within. Religion is not seen as divine in any respect but promotes a utilitarian good that benefits the culture.

     In his book “How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture,” Francis Schaeffer gives the historical account of how Christian views contributed to the development of modern science.

     Our modern method of scientific investigation evolved over several hundred years. It consists of five steps, which are: (1) Stating the problem, (2) Formulating a hypothesis, (3) Collection of data through observation and experimentation, (4) Interpreting the data, and (5) Drawing conclusions.

     This method of scientific inquiry was developed in European countries whose cultures reflected a Christian worldview. In fact, this method of investigation was predicated upon the following syllogism: (1) God created the heavens and the earth (id est, the universe), (2) God is a reasonable Creator, (3) ergo, the universe and what we observe in it can be understood on the basis of reason.

     This presuppositional view of a created universe operating by divine order was the primary foundation for scientific study for such men as Galileo, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and others. Even Albert Einstein defended his research of the Unified Field Theory by saying, “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”

     My point is theism has played a more prominent role in the development of modern science than atheism. This is why I believe there is no contradiction between true religion and true science. By “true religion” I mean a proper understanding of Scripture, and by “true science” I mean those things we observe to be true in creation.

     Conflicts between science and faith arise when we get to interpreting the data and drawing conclusions. Believers do not have any problems with what science observes, but we do not accept unproven theories that contradict the Scriptures.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” Genesis 1:1. I find this quote from the Scriptures to be sublime in its simplicity, profound in its scope, and fully supported by science.