Anthony Flew's Theism: The Intellectual Dishonesty of Atheist Websites

I find it extremely amazing that some atheist websites will distort the truth to preserve their position. I do not know if they are deliberately lying or if they are merely mistaken. However, one website says that Anthony Flew, formerly an avowed atheist, has not become a theist. In particular I will quote from the atheist site of Austin Cline, who refuses to believe that Flew has claimed to have become a theist or deist of sorts:

• In the end, Flew doesn't claim to be either a theist or an atheist here. He says that theists may find some confirmation in some of the arguments used by some people. Even if we ignore the fact that he himself seems to have refuted some of those arguments in a very old book, there is an apparent absence of a "we" in those statements. Flew doesn't claim to find any comfort or confirmation of any beliefs in those arguments, so it would be hard to describe him as a theist. Perhaps he is hopeful; probably he is agnostic. But a theist? http://atheism.about.com/b/a/170090.htm

Atheists like Cline prefer to parse what Flew said in his revision of his old book, which now has a new introduction. Flew specifically says that naturalistic science has yet to produce a satisfactory answer for how life could spontaneously generate from inanimate matter, though scientists are working on that problem. The short of it is that they have not yet produced an empirical explanation with a working model. If so, they should be able to simulate this experimentally. After all, if life can be produced spontaneously from inanimate matter, surely an experiment could be reproduced approximating the conditions for this?

However, to refute Mr. Cline's contention that Flew is not a theist, let us quote Mr. Flew directly in his interview with Gary Habermas:

• HABERMAS: Tony, you recently told me that you have come to believe in the existence of God. Would you comment on that?
  
• 
  FLEW: Well, I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before. And it was from Aristotle that Aquinas drew the materials for producing his five ways of, hopefully, proving the existence of his God. Aquinas took them, reasonably enough, to prove, if they proved anything, the existence of the God of the Christian revelation. But Aristotle himself never produced a definition of the word “God,” which is a curious fact. But this concept still led to the basic outline of the five ways. It seems to me, that from the existence of Aristotle’s God, you can’t infer anything about human behaviour. So what Aristotle had to say about justice (justice, of course, as conceived by the Founding Fathers of the American republic as opposed to the “social” justice of John Rawls (9)) was very much a human idea, and he thought that this idea of justice was what ought to govern the behaviour of individual human beings in their relations with others.
  
• 
  HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?
  
• 
  FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings. http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
  

Surely this direct quote from Flew should satisfy Mr. Cline and his cronies? I guess not since they are still trying to backpeddle and spin the issue so their atheist allies will not know the whole truth of the matter. I am continually amazed at how far some people will go to save face.

However, let me briefly return to the point about life arising spontaneously from inanimate matter. While Lee Strobel is no scientist, he did interview several scientists in his book, The Case For A Creator, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004). He notes especially that Stanley Miller's famous experiment in 1953 was supposed to prove how life could generate from a primordial soup. Miller sought to reproduce the conditions of the atmosphere at the time in earth's history when life was supposed to have first appeared. Unfortunately, his experiment was later found to inaccurately reproduce the chemical composition of the atmosphere of that time period, which calls into question his results. And even if we do accept his results, he only was able to produce certain organic molecules by reproducing lightning or electrical stimulation. Miller was able to produce amino acids but only with an inaccurate atmosphere. If we introduce an accurate atmosphere, the result is something closer to formaldehyde.

In an interview with Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000), Strobel asks pertinent questions:

• Strobel: I asked the next logical question: "What happens if you replay the experiment using an accurate atmosphere?"
  
• Wells: "I'll tell you this: you do not get amino acids, that's for sure," he replied. "Some textbooks fudge by saying, well, even if you use a realistic atmosphere, you still get organic molecules, as if that solves the problem."
  
• Strobel: Actually, that sounded promising. "Organic molecules?" I said. "I'm not a biochemist, but couldn't those be precursors to life?"
  
• Wells: Wells recoiled. "That's what they sound like, but do you know what they are? Formaldehyde! Cyanide!" he declared, his voice rising for emphasis. "They may be organic molecules, but in my lab at Berkley you couldn't even have a capped bottle of formaldehyde in the room, because the stuff is so toxic. You open the bottle and it fries proteins all over the place, just from the fumes. It kills embryos. The idea that using a realistic atmosphere gets you the first step in the origin of life is just laughable.
  
• "Now it's true that a good organic chemist can turn formaldehyde and cyanide into biological molecules. But to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right substrate for the origin of life," he said, breaking into a chuckle, "Well, it's just a joke."
  
• He let the point sink in before delivering the clincher. "Do you know what you get?" he asked. "Embalming fluid!" (Strobel, page 38.)

To put it mildly, the materialists and the atheists have put on a bluff for the public and have swayed minds. However, most of their "evidence" is interpreted in highly speculative ways and there is little "hard" empirical science to substantiate the speculative theories.

I find it amazing that even Anthony Flew is finding the argument from design convincing enough to cause him to switch from a negative atheist position to one of deism, as he himself openly says in his interview with Gary Habermas, quoted above. Let the atheists spin all they want but the fact remains that out of his own mouth Flew says that he is now a deist. As further proof, please see this article from a British online newspaper, The Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article402187.ece

May God have mercy!

Charlie

Reasonable Christian: Anthony Flew Becomes a Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Athony Flew

Reasonable Christian: Anthony Flew Becomes a Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Athony Flew

The Transgender Myth

(Note: Click here to read, "I'm a Girl -- Understanding Transgendered Children," on ABC's website).

Last night on ABC's 20/20 Barbara Walters gave the classic propaganda push for the normalization of a condition that is still considered a psychological disorder in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision or DSM-IV-TR. The sad part of this whole debate is that there is practically no scientific proof to support the position taken by Barbara Walters and other popularizers of postmodern mythology, such as homosexuality being a genetic and inborn condition and that the transgender condition is somehow biologically preconditioned by hormonal imbalances.

The real problem is that neither homosexuality nor the transgender condition can be proved from the research available. The best they can do is find some "suggested" links but apparently this research is biased since the assumption is made ahead of time. Amazingly, even the biased science cannot give solid proof for the a priori condition.

This leaves us to assume the obvious. The causes for homosexual and transgender disorders are psychologically induced, which basically goes back to the old nature versus nurture debate. Those of us who have read the material know that most cases of homosexuality and transgender are connected to nurture where a person is converted from heterosexuality to homosexuality or the transgender condition either by self-discovery or by encouragement from a confused and psychologically disordered parent.

Last night's show on 20/20 had at least one clear case where a mother deliberately manipulated harmless childhood role-playing and brainwashed her son into thinking he was a girl trapped in a boy's body. The fact that this goes all the way back to his two to three-year-old childhood and that his mother encouraged and hid the transition from his father for many years shows clearly that the mother deliberately and without shame shaped and molded her son into thinking he was a girl. She even admitted taking him out to buy dresses and otherwise encouraging him to become a girl mentally. There is no way that a child of five or six years of age can understand anything at all about this whole debate about transgender. It is so obvious that the child was influenced by a mother who wanted him to be a girl, rather than a boy who wanted to be a girl. I noted right away that the mother appeared to be of the domineering and overbearing type and that the father himself was "effeminate." Also, telling was the fact that the father's discovery of the manipulations by the mother almost caused them to divorce.

The real irony of this sort of propaganda is that reporters like Barbara Walters will say that religion is wrong because it is not supported by science. Yet when it comes to pushing a political agenda for all sorts of social and psychological aberrations like homosexuality and the transgender condition, true scientific evidence and empirical proofs seem to be completely unnecessary. Science was barely even mentioned in the program except as an aside. Moreover, postmodernism taken to the extreme is an anti-intellectual movement which picks and chooses what science it will accept and what science it will reject.

Even more ironically, the same people pushing the evolutionary theories based on natural selection and random mutations ignore the fact that if homosexuality and transgender is genetically propagated, the burden of proof lies with them to show how this fits with natural selection and evolutionary theory? How does it profit a species to pass on dead-end genes which cannot reproduce because homosexuals don't generally have children? I suppose we could allow for lesbians who get artificially inseminated but that still would not explain the vast majority of cases where homosexuals and transgenders come from otherwise normal bloodlines of heterosexual families.

Basically, a person who becomes a homosexual or a transgendered individual undergoes a psychological conversion process that is essentially in the mind, not something that is genetically or biologically predetermined. On the other hand, to say that a person is biologically predetermined would in fact go against the philosophical principle of free will and would instead support the idea that people are basically slaves to their environment and their natural composition. I suppose in that sense the proponents of homosexuality and transgenderization are in line with evolutionary thinking, which basically says that humans are just another animal that randomly evolved into a more intelligent and intellectually superior species. The assumption is there no God and that we are just a huge cosmic accident or "miracle."

Moreover, this sort of thinking has gone to the absurd level. A transgendered person is the opposite sex trapped in a biological body of sex they were born with. But such a person could have a homosexual orientation, a heterosexual orientation, or a bisexual orientation. Wait a minute, though. Are we referring to the biological sex of the person or the preferred gender of the individual? If we are referring to the biological sex of the person, if they like people of the same biological sex, they are technically "homosexual." But if we buy into the whole transgender myth that they are really the gender they want to be but are trapped in the wrong body, they would then be "heterosexual." This is totally confusing and silly, to be honest. A boy who wants to be a girl would be both a homosexual and a heterosexual, depending on which view you took. Or is he a bisexual or all three at once?

As you can see, modern political correctness has basically become fragmented, anti-intellectual, irrational, and schizophrenic. I could not believe that Barbara Walters could do this program with a straight face. The anti-scientific basis for the whole thing is just astounding to me, especially since they reject conservative Christianity supposedly on the basis of "science." Give me a break!

Christianity is really the basis for solid science and a consistent, coherent, and congruent worldview in the first place. Reason taken out of the context of a Christian worldview leads to all sorts of irrational conclusions including homosexuality and transgenderality. It is time for Christians to step to the plate and do the hard work of intellectual investigation of the issues and to prove the Christian worldview to be the superior and rationally acceptable alternative to the postmodern absurdities we see in the modern media, particularly the deranged and detrimental programming pushed by ABC and Barbara Walters last night.

This shameless piece of propaganda should be rejected for what it essentially is: anti-intellectualism at its worst. It is time for thinking individuals to wake up and stand against this sort of irrational political correctness taken to the extreme. The parents of this little boy should be ashamed of themselves for destroying his life, and ABC and Barbara Walters should be ashamed for promoting the destruction of the future of innocent children who have been brainwashed to promote a political agenda.

May God have mercy!


Charlie

Post script: Isn't it amazing that a two-year-old has the vocabulary of an adult:

When Jazz was two, he asked his mother a question that left her numb and frozen. "[He] said, 'Mommy, when's the good fairy going to come with her magic wand and change, you know, my genitalia?" according to Renee.

This is obviously not a case of "nature" but one of "nurture" where a psychologically disordered mother has chosen to corrupt her son in her desire to have a daughter. The fact that Barbara Walters does not question the mother on this shows her bias and her lack of understanding of the scientific method. Never be afraid to question anything if you are truly a scientist. I question this entire ABC episode and article. It is sheer propaganda, not science. [Post script added 1/25/2009]

Addendum:  Blame Who?

The Departure of the Reformed Episcopal Church from Evangelical and Protestant Reformed Theology

Front row: Jim Reber, Charlie Ray, Willie Hill, Canon Mocke.  Back row:  ? Kevin Burke, Bishop James West

The photo is from my ordination as a deacon by Bishop James West, of the Reformed Episcopal Church around 2002. On the left is Jim Reber, presbyter. I am standing to right of Jim Reber.  Holding the shepherd's staff is Kevin Burke, deacon. Center, James West, bishop of the Southeast Diocese of the REC. On the right, Willie Hill, presbyter and pastor of New Israel REC in Charleston, SC. Photo was taken at the historic chapel of Good Shepherd TEC in Maitland, Florida, where Trinity REC was meeting at the time. I am kneeling in the middle.

[Editor's note:  I am no longer a Reformed Episcopalian.  I align completely with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.  February 12, 2025.]

At the risk of repeating myself, I want to re-emphasize the situation with the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is essentially committing apostasy by merging with an Anglo-Catholic and Romish continuing Anglican denomination called the Anglican Province of America, the presiding bishop of which is Walter Grundorf. I have recently been in contact by e-mail with the presiding bishop of the Anglican Orthodox Church, the Most Reverend Jerry L. Ogles. The Anglican Orthodox Church is very Evangelical and low church according to Bishop Ogles and furthermore, the AOC separated from the Episcopal Church USA in 1963 over doctrinal issues and moral issues that have only gotten worse. To my surprise, Bishop Ogles informed me that "Wally" Grundorf was once ordained as a deacon with the Anglican Orthodox Church but was defrocked by Bishop James Parker Dees when it became obvious that Deacon Grundorf was intending to take one of the AOC parishes into Romish doctrines. (Grundorf is now the presiding bishop over the Anglican Province of America).

These developments between the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America are alarming to me, and I feel that I was terribly misled by the Rev. James Reber of the REC, who was at that time the pastor of a missionary parish of the REC in Maitland, Florida. Reverend Reber presented himself to me as a "Reformed" person, i.e. a Calvinist. I was later to learn that such was far from the truth. Rev. Reber told me up front that he was a "theonomist," which I totally disagree with. I let him know in no uncertain terms that I didn't agree with that schismatic Reformed teaching, but I could tolerate it provided his views were not extremist. We agreed to disagree and Rev. Reber helped me to obtain orders as a deacon with the Reformed Episcopal Church so that I could serve with him and Kevin Burke, the other deacon at Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church, which had an active membership of maybe 15 or 20 people.

Initially, Rev. Reber had told me that the REC was thoroughly Reformed and that he himself had been ordained with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church prior to returning to the REC, after having earned his master of divinity through the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I read the Reformed Episcopal Church's Declaration of Principles statement, which is supposed to be unchangeable according to their original canons in the formation of the denomination in 1873 under Bishop David Cummins, and I read For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians, by Allen C. Guelzo, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), 391 pp. I was convinced from the historical background information that the Reformed Episcopal Church was essentially Protestant, Reformed (i.e. moderately Calvinistic), and Evangelical. However, as time went on, my alarm bells kept going off, especially after attending the Southeast Diocese synod around 2003 where I learned that Bishop Royal Grote was hosting a representative of the Anglican Province of America who would speak briefly from the platform in one of the evening prayer services.

To my chagrin I was to discover that the REC and the APA were in process of a merger, which Reverend Reber downplayed to me as much as possible in the beginning, knowing that I was an avowed Calvinist and thoroughly Protestant. I think Rev. Reber mistakenly thought he could persuade me to accept the merger and maybe even persuade me in the Anglo-Catholic direction. It was only after I was ordained that I became aware of this mass apostasy on the part of the Reformed Episcopal Church, which was in direct opposition to their reason of being in the first place. According to all accounts, the Reformed Episcopal Church was formed after Evangelicals in the Protestant Episcopal Church were openly persecuted and forced out by Anglo-Catholic bishops in the PEC in the late 19th century. One need only read the Declaration of Principles of the REC to become aware of this.

I should have paid more attention to Allen C. Guelzo's comments in For the Union of Evangelical Christendom:

• What is interesting in this regard is to note how some Reformed Episcopalians, without any apparent prompting, have undergone some of the same changes, and followed virtually the same arc of reconciliation with their Anglican identity, as their Evangelical counterparts in the Church of England and the Episcopal Church. For just as the 1970s saw the pendulum of enthusiasm swing in Evangelical favor in England and the Episcopal Church, so in the 1980s something of the same resurgence of Anglican interest and life occurred in the Reformed Episcopal Church. Reformed Episcopalians began showing up at meetings of Anglican traditionalists in Fairfield, Connecticut, in 1985 and 1986; in 1988, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church sanctioned the opening of discussions; and in 1989, the Episcopal Synod of America (a joint venture of Episcopalian Evangelicals and traditionalist Anglo-Catholics) welcomed a Reformed Episcopalian onto their platform. Even the rochet and chimere for Reformed Episcopal bishops, and the surplice and scarf for the other clergy, have surfaced within the New York and Philadelphia Synod. (Page 334).
  

And on the previous page, Guelzo points out that despite the Reformed Episcopal denials of apostolic succession, for all practical purposes the REC bishops have continued to follow the ordinal of 1662 for consecrating bishops and have kept thorough records to make sure that succession lines could be traced (page 333). Guelzo is almost prophetic when he makes the statement that the Reformed Episcopalians return to Anglicanism might be too late since they might have nothing to return home to:

• The Reformed Episcopalians may well have come back to Anglicanism only to discover that no one is quite sure what Anglicanism is. That could possibly mean that there is no longer any viable reason for Episcopalians to see the Reformed Episcopalians as being outside of official Anglicanism, but it could just as well mean that the Reformed Episcopalians have lost so much of their original raison d'etre that they no longer see any reason to remain outside official Anglicanism, or it could mean that there really is no Anglicanism left to come back to. (Page 335).
  

The Reformed Episcopal Church had been slowly losing membership since the 1930s and by some estimates had less than 6,000 total communicant members in the mid 1990s. According to Guelzo, the REC had flirted with fundamentalism and its inherent anti-intellectualism, dispensationalism, Calvinism, theonomy and reconstructionism (page 336). But the most recent "-ism," says Guelzo, is "Anglicanism." I think what he really means is Anglo-Catholicism since this is the direction that the REC is headed with the coming merger with the Anglican Province of America. Already the REC and APA have a concordat with full communion between its ministers whereby any REC or APA minister can pastor a parish within the other's denomination. In fact, after I was forced to leave the ministry at Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church the parish collapsed and Reber was forced to leave because virtually all of the members of Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church had left, apparently because they too were uncomfortable with the Anglo-Catholic leanings of the REC. To confirm my suspicions, I later learned that Rev. Reber was appointed as rector at an Anglican Province of America parish in Kissimmee, Florida.


Moreover, the straw that broke the camel's back between Rev. Reber and me was the issue of apostolic succession and my vows to "obey" my bishop. I told "Jim" my views on apostolic succession were those of the Evangelical, low church side of things whereby apostolic succession is only valid as apostolic doctrine as recorded in Holy Scripture is upheld and taught by the bishops who are consecrated. The Reformed and Protestant doctrine is that where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, there you will find the true local church. This is even mentioned in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion:

XIX. Of the Church. 

THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. 

Rev. Reber and I had strongly disagreed several times over the issue of theonomy, as it seemed to me that he was trying force me into accepting his views since he several times characterized those who disagreed with him as "antinomians." Thus, to him my views represented a challenge to his newfound conversion to Anglo-Catholic views and to his theonomy. I was surprised therefore when he approached me and told me that I needed to contact Bishop James West immediately to "explain" myself because in his view I had broken my vows given at ordination to "obey the priests and the bishops appointed over me." I quickly pointed out to him that I had done nothing wrong since I had clearly promised to obey the Gospel and those over me so long as they too were in obedience to the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. I made it clear that he was more than welcome to bring formal charges of heresy against me if he thought I was doctrinally wrong on any point. He refused to do so and said that if I didn't contact the bishop, he would take action. At that point I saw that he was determined that I should either agree with his views on theonomy, reconstruction and Anglo-Catholicism, or I should voluntarily leave or be forced to leave based on his false charges. It was then that I realized I would never fit with the Reformed Episcopal Church and offered my resignation.


I for one will never compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the same Gospel for which our English Reformers were burned at the stake, including Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and a host of others. I gladly bear the reproach of apostates and heretics who have forsaken the gospel for the sake of man's traditions and man's approval. It has become increasingly obvious that the Reformed Episcopal Church is in agreement with the Anglo-Catholic denial of justification by faith alone as it is laid out so clearly in Article XI. Of the Justification of Man.


While I greatly appreciate the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the sacraments of the Anglican Reformed faith, I am not opposed to Protestant churches which adhere strictly to their traditional roots and their confession of faith while preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and administering the sacraments in a proper manner. My true leanings are Calvinistic and I do believe in the complete sovereignty of God who has a purpose for everything that happens to us in this life. Therefore, I have a general commitment to most of the Reformed Confessions of Faith with The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion being the primary and foremost of them. I greatly admire the Westminster Standards and the Heidelberg Catechism.


Where God will take me from this point I do not know. But the one thing I do know is that God cannot fail to keep His visible church intact until the return of Christ. The gates of hell shall not prevail against His church, no matter how many former believers depart the faith for something less than apostolic doctrine as it is recorded once for all in Holy Scripture.

May the peace of God be with you all,

Charlie

(P.S. Sadly, Bishop James West has since passed away. I truly hope that his heart was right with God. I believe it was since he told me himself that he was not comfortable with the Anglo-Catholic side of things. However, I could be wrong since it seems the denomination is determined to part from the Gospel and join with Romish Anglo-Catholics who deny all 5 of the solas of the English and Continental Reformation).

Addendum:  The Reformed Episcopal Church no longer adheres to the plain teaching of the Declaration of Principles but has given them an Anglo-Catholic  revisionist spin.

President Bush's Statement on the Supreme Court Upholding the Law Against Partial Birth Abortion

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 18, 2007

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial-birth abortion. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. The partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.

The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

Politically Motivated Attacks Against the White House?

The current attacks against Attorney General Roberto Gonzales are uncalled for since a sitting president can hire and fire at will according to his own will and discretion. Since the other party cannot fire President Bush they are instead seeking to harass Bush at every turn. This would include any plans he might have to bring the war in Iraq to an honorable and agreeable victory, which Democrats are opposing by trying to cut funding for the war.

Previously, the Valery Plame affair was the source of attack against the President when Mrs. Plame suggested her own husband be sent to Africa to investigate the Iraqi connection there for raw uranium materials needed to manufacture nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. When that failed to stop President Bush from going to war, the irrate opposition decided to go after Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Only Mr. Libby went down and that was because he violated the law after the investigation began, having done nothing illegal in the first place. Mr. Libby's crime was having not been straightforward enough at first, thus violating the law. Mr. Libby is a political scapegoat for the Democrats who were out for blood.

Actually, all of this goes back to when the Democrats lost two presidential elections. Because they were sore losers, they tried to use the courts to hijack Mr. Bush's victories in both elections. So when that failed, Democrats decided to do everything in their power to make Mr. Bush a lame duck in the second term.

The good news is that those of us who voted for George W. Bush got our money's worth recently. The balance of power in the Supreme Court is going back toward the middle and the right, thank God. Abortion can be regulated and restricted according to the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the law against partial birth abortion. President Bush has made a valiant effort to make all of his campaign promises come true, which would have happened had the Democrats been willing to work with the sitting President. At least Mr. Bush was able to get some very good Supreme Court justices appointed, including the current Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

While I am not pleased with any of the Republican candidates for 2008, I will do everything in my power to oppose the radical liberal left that currently dominates the Democratic Party. Part of the Democratic Party platform is to restrict religious liberties, to harass Evangelical and Conservative Christianity, and to promote ungodly morality like the gay and lesbian culture, abortion on demand (i.e. murdering the unborn), and silencing any public expression of opinion that is not "politically correct." If the Democrats get their way, it will soon be against the law for Christians to preach or teach against homosexuality even in their public worship services, since this would constitute a "hate" crime.

Be that as it may, I am certainly not in agreement with the Republican Party on every issue either. Republicans are not compassionate enough for the poor and have done little to help the poor overcome poverty, crime, and oppression. I fully sympathize with Democrats who seem to be concerned about those issues. But the fact remains that Democrats have made it very clear that they do not want my vote. Instead they want to curtail my religious liberties, silence my political dissent against abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action. Democrats remain hostile to Bible believing Christianity precisely because Christianity cannot and never will agree with or endorse the murder of innocent unborn children. Neither will Christians ever compromise on the issue of homosexual behavior and culture. Both gay rights and abortion remain part of the Democratic Party platform.

The Democratic strategy seems to be to harass the President about the war hoping to turn public opinion against the Republicans and back to the Democratic Party. That seemed to work in the mid term elections for Congress. However, it cannot win in the long run. The loss of one battle does not constitute a victory in the culture war. Those of us who are conscientious objectors to the attempts by atheists and secular humanists in the Democratic Party to get rid of Christian voices and influence in politics and the public arena can and must make a difference with our votes and our voices. We must continue to speak out and to vote our conscience. We must do everything in our power to keep Hillary Clinton and every other radical left secularist out of the office of the presidency.

May the peace of God be with you!

Partial Birth Abortion Is Now Illegal

Finally. After four long years we have a Supreme Court ruling that upholds a good law that makes illegal to perform an abortion procedure where a premature baby is partially delivered and then his or her brain is literally sucked out of the skull, collapsing the head. While this is by no means a reversal of Roe v. Wade, it does give hope that abortion can be regulated by individual states, especially in its most extreme forms. The original Roe v. Wade ruling was supposed to limit abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy but radicals on the extreme left pushed for unrestricted abortion rights allowing abortion right up to the third trimester.

Those of us who believe in God rejoice that right has prevailed for a moment. However, if the culture war is to be won, we must not give up the fight. This is a glimmer of hope that morality and ethics from a Christian perspective can make a difference if Christians flex their muscles in the ballot box. While I am not entirely pleased with President George Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, I am very pleased that I voted for Bush in both elections and that Bush prevailed. The Bush appointments to the Supreme Court have been worth the effort to get him elected. Perhaps this will send a message to the atheists, the radical feminists, and radical left that Christians and other religious conservatives have a real voice in the democratic process here in America.

I am not entirely pleased with Evangelicalism these days because of the loose commitment to confessional theology and dogmatic theology and doctrinal content. But so far it looks like at least the moral foundations are still intact. How long that will last remains to be seen.

My biggest concern is the upcoming election of our next President in 2008. Bush will be gone and the person in the oval office could appoint several more Supreme Court justices. Those of us who are religious and social conservatives on the moral issues should think hard about who we will support in 2008. The very conscience of our nation is at stake. Will we continue to allow the mass genocide of the unborn? Or will we do the right thing and end this slaughter of the innocent? Only God and His providence can change the course of our nation. I pray that God will indeed intervene and appoint more godly men and women to authority in our government and that secular materialism and atheism will be soundly defeated.

May God grant us the courage to be involved in the democratic process and to stand against the erosion of the religious liberties given to us in the Bill of Rights. But even more to the point, we have a God given right to worship as we are commanded to do in Holy Scripture. And we have as much right to influence public opinion and the legislation of laws as any atheist, feminist, homosexual rights advocate, or anyone else who is opposed to traditional values, Christianity, and the American form of democracy. God bless America!

T. P. Boultree

T. P. Boultree's book, A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION FORMING AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, is available online in pdf format. I heartily and highly recommend it to all who are of the Reformed, Evangelical and low church persuasion! Enjoy! Click here to see it: http://www.archive.org/details/thirtyninearticl00bouluoft