Last night I read an article posted on Albert Mohler’s blog entitled Black Children Are an Endangered Species? The post, was about abortion and how painfully disproportionate it is in ‘favor’ of black women. Citing some statistics in particular, like 37% of abortions every year are performed on black women, while the black population in America only makes up about 13%. And, that if those black babies since Roe v. Wade hadn’t been aborted, the black population would be around 19% today!

Most of the quotes in Mohler’s post came from Catherine Davis, a pro-life advocate with a focus on the black community, and the website toomanyaborted.com.

The reality of abortion is a shameful stain on our culture. And while it has evolved into something appearing to be ‘benevolent’, it’s roots in the eugenics movement (a pseudo-science aimed at selectively breeding the ‘superior humans’, and sterilizing the ‘unfit’ ones) are grotesque.

Davis thoroughly believes that abortion is a prevailing piece in a huge conspiracy to ‘cleanse’ the human race of black people. I suppose it could be, but that doesn’t seem like the most rational answer to me.

Now hear me out and please, don’t confuse what I’m saying. I hate abortion. I hate the idea that human beings of any kind can be nullified in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. Americans have choices and freedom, but only to a point. And this is true across the board. I have the freedom to face an accuser, or not to. But I don’t have the freedom to rob him, or kill him. I have the freedom to quit my job and live on the streets begging for money. But I don’t have the freedom to steal my food and clothing.

Similarly, a woman has the freedom to engage in sex with whoever is willing, but she shouldn’t have the freedom to simply dodge the consequences that may follow when that means violating another person’s freedoms—the child she inadvertently conceived.

The abortion industry has an obvious slant toward black people. Though the statics are skewed. It also has an obvious slant toward low-income people in general. Unfortunately, this often means the Hispanic and black parts of our culture.

The abortion industry is incredibly lucrative. There is tons of money to be made. And this, I believe, is the pressing matter. Money. Not racial cleansing or hate. Liquor stores also have a concentration in minority areas as well. Yet I doubt there is a racially based conspiracy driving liquor sales.

It would seem to me, more likely, that there are cultural and economic situations in these particular people’s lives that make them more likely to pay for these procedures. Or, at the very least, makes public programs which pay for such procedures for these people much easier to achieve while appearing to do social good.

Even slavery throughout history wasn’t driven primarily by hate, but by money. ‘Free’ forced labor is ‘good’ for a business owner’s bank account. Or, at least in the short run it is.

Consider this, as a middle-class, white American, I am much more likely to walk by an Apple store. And, their marketing is almost definitely targeting me. But is that racist, or simply economic? It’s economic. There are all kinds of cultural and economic things that make me more likely to buy, and so their marketing campaigns have their crosshairs set.

I see no problem in speculating what may be the motives of those perpetuating something as terrible as abortion. But that really can’t be verified. And, staking a claim like racism or genocide, I believe, may have some really dangerous social consequences.

It hasn’t been that long since blacks in America were considered sub-citizens and it wasn’t long before that that they were considered by Europeans and new Americans to be sub-human. Those are deep wounds and they will take more time to fully heal. I believe that taking something as widespread and socially ‘acceptable’ as abortion and building an uprising against it on the claim that it is motivated by racist conspiracy will work against the efforts for social healing and reconciliation.

In fact, I think part of the reason her movement is gaining so much steam is because those wounds still exist and are very real. If you can fuel a social cause with something else people are passionate about, they will be more emotionally connected to the whole thing. But, while I think this could lend itself well to brining an end to abortion, looking back it may also go a long way to stunt the healing of a huge group of people.

I commend Davis for speaking out, and particularly for speaking out to the black community. However, I don’t think it is necessarily beneficial, or even responsible, to build that following on the possibility of racially motivated conspiracy. We want our children, who are lucky enough to survive the womb, to grow up secure in and loving their racial heritage, but also loving and respecting everyone else’s.

Kudos Davis. But please, reconsider the talking points.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9:

The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

It is parliamentary that we saturate our lives with God’s word. Moses here commands the people of Israel to keep God’s word on their heart, teaching them to our children, talking about them constantly, written on our hands and mounted in our homes.

Now, whether that means we ought to literally saturate our environment with spiritual reminders or not is a different question.

But the point, perhaps at its most basic, is that we must be immersed in the Truth of the Gospel. All of our facets of thought must run through the conduit of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.

Easier said than done.

It’s no secret that I love my tobacco. More specifically a certain style of tobacco production called moassel. It’s smoked using indirect heat out of a traditional water-pipe called a narguileh, or ‘hookah’ as it is popularly called (what can I say, I’m a sucker for middle eastern culture).

Hookah tradition is literally 500 years old. It was invented in India and spread all over the eastern world—and now the western as well. Different regions ended up with their own takes on it and many different traditions emerged. Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians, Turkish, Chinese. It really goes on and on. In the middle east, the tradition is commonplace. Venture into any Middle Eastern market, and you’re likely to find moassel for sale in a variety of fruity and interesting flavors.

But, this post isn’t so much about hookah, or how much I love it. In fact, if you know me, you’re probably already sick of hearing me talk about it. Instead, I wanted to share my thoughts on American legislation and how stupid it is some times.

Now, please, don’t get me wrong. I’m usually not a politically minded person. But, because this topic comes so close to me and since this blog is really a reflection of my thoughts, I’ll bring this topic up.

A federal law was recently passed banning the sale of flavored cigarettes. The rationale being that flavored cigarettes entice children to begin smoking. Now, I am wont to understand this for a number of reasons.

1. We already have laws in place forbidding the sale of tobacco products to minors. This should be good, and with follow through, plenty sufficient. Yet, somehow, our lawmakers don’t see the value in enforcing existing laws, and instead punish legitimate businesses and adults who enjoy their products by banning those products altogether.

2. Among the flavors not banned is menthol. (a flavor I can only suppose someone high up has an affinity for). This also happens to be (among) the most popular flavors in the thick of underage smokers. In fact, there is little, if any, statistical evidence that underage people are drawn to fruit (or the like) flavored cigarettes. The only people I’ve ever even heard of smoking them are, well, very seasoned smokers (i.e., someone’s grandfather).

But what does this have to do with narguileh tradition? Well, nationally, nothing. But tides are slipping in a startling way.

New York City recently signed into law a ban on the sale of all flavored tobacco (again, except menthol type flavors). And, it’s threatening established hookah bars, most of which seem to be running in cultural hot-beds—not across the street from playgrounds and Chuck-e-Cheeses.

The government’s job is not to protect us from ourselves. At best, it should protect us from each other. If one person develops a dangerous product, the government shouldn’t ban it, it should require full disclosure. People die on motorcycles, but they’re not banned. And frankly, what 13 year old kid doesn’t think they’re awesome?

If I enjoy smoking flavored tobacco, I should be free to do so—provided the manufacturer fully disclosed the danger.

Protecting children should primarily be the parent’s job. Law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors helps this because teenagers have their own money and parents can’t monitor absolutely everything their children do with it. So this legislation makes sense. However, a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco not only subverts this responsibility of the parents, it also deprives hordes of people a freedom that they ought to have since ultimately it’s a choice adults can make without harming anyone but themselves. Much like riding a motorcycle.

The new laws in New York City are stupid, to say the very least. But it could also be a signal that some of our basic liberties are at risk.

I love moassel, but I also love McDonalds.  How long before someone with too much authority decides that’s bad for my kids and criminalizes me from buying it too? Government control of people’s personal lives is simply never a good idea.

Originally posted here, at DesiringGod.org. Worth reposting. Worth thinking about. Worth considering the idiocy of prizing social progress and political reform above human life.

The past few days I’ve been reflecting on the idea in Romans 2:14-15:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”

This idea of the work of the Law being written on people’s hearts is very interesting. It’s clear that in a fairly universal sense all cultures tend to agree with some basics tenets of morality. Murdering is bad. Lying is un-virtuous. Stealing is reprehensible. Sex is wrong apart from commitment. Yet many people who agree with these things, and who’s conscience is stricken because of them, do not know of the express commandments from God about them.

What’s the deal with that? Why do human beings seem to universally agree on some very basic moral structure, while the religious and moral institutions vary dramatically?

Well, it seems that this is exactly what Paul has in view when he says that the gentiles are a “law to themselves". There is a God and he is Holy and he has graciously given such a law in the hearts of people–even those who don’t know him. But, I think, there’s something even more astonishing than that.

We all know that God’s law is more demanding than any person can survive. In the heavenly court, no human will be justified on the basis of God’s law. All have sinned and all are guilty. But, if we were to scale back and look at only the requirements of man’s law–the one written on every man’s heart–we would still be guilty. Not only are we unable to keep God’s perfect law, we are unable to keep our conscience clean on our own terms.

Even apart from God’s holy law, a savior is not only necessary, he is imperative to our very lives. Praise the Lord that God had done what he has and that all sins are paid for through the atoning, justifying, propitiating, sanctifying work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

I read in Nehemiah today about Ezra, the priest, reading from the Law. I thought it was interesting how familiar the description of his delivery was to what we’ve seen in the Christian church over the past few hundred years.

This is Nehemiah 8:2-8:

“So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law. And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform that they had made for the purpose. And beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah, and Maaseiah on his right hand, and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam on his left hand. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and as he opened it all the people stood. And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”

A few days back I finished Samuel Bolton’s puritan classic, True Bounds of Christian Freedom. In the world of puritan literature, this one was definitely among the easier to read.

In this work, Bolton’s aim was to make clear what it means to have Christian “freedom” and where exactly the law falls into the equation. There is a certain sense of ambiguity throughout the church as to the answer to both of those questions. Some will claim their freedom over all kinds of things they shouldn’t, while some who ought to be free to live in move are paralyzed for lack of understanding their true freedom in Christ.

In nine chapters and 224 pages, Bolton endeavors to thoroughly answer each of the following questions:

1. Does our being made free by Christ free us from the law?

2. Does our being made free by Christ deliver us from all punishments or chastisements [from God] for sin?

3. Is it consistent with Christian freedom to be under obligation to perform duties because God has commanded them?

4. My Christ’s freedmen come into bondage again through sin?

5. Is it consistent with Christian freedom to perform duties out of respect for the recompense of the reward?

6. Does the freedom of a Christian free him from all obedience to men?

Each chapter, Bolton thoroughly and a biblically makes his case for the answer of each of these questions. Some of the questions appear somewhat elementary, but even still Bolton makes some valuable, encouraging and challenging points.

I enjoyed this book at some times more than at others. There were parts that became overwhelmingly dry, while others seemed rich with metaphor and content that kept my mind turning over different thoughts. There was at least one time in this book where the information contained completely lit up my understanding of life, sin, death, Jesus and atonement and then subsequent freedom. It made the interlocking nature of the two covenants become very clear and there connection to each other was no longer hazy. The five or ten pages alone that produced that understanding made the book worth the read.

I really think that Christian freedom is something that is not well understood in our churches today, but needs to be. We have it saturating so much of our Christian multimedia and conversation, but most of the time it doesn’t produce heart level bondage to righteousness, as it should, but instead acts as an unjust ease of conscience on men and women who wish to go on sinning.

I think this book has a great deal of encouragement and challenge to offer the church today, but may not be the most accessible to average readers. While it is easier than a lot of classic literature, a lot of the wording will probably be lost on people. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who feels their understanding of law and freedom is deficient, but be warned, you’ll have to stay committed to the book in order to benefit from it.