Monthly Archives: January 2018

“Just One More Thing…”

Leave a comment
The always inquisitive Detective Columbo.

Do you remember Detective Columbo, the character Peter Falk played so well over the course of more than 30 years? Disarming but shrewd, his persistent questioning of suspects often involved some variation of starting to leave, apparently satisfied with the suspect’s explanation, only to stop, turn, and ask “Just one more thing…” Columbo’s thoughtful and relentless questions are usually a good example of persistence, thoroughness, critical thinking, and following the evidence wherever it leads – all good traits. But there is a time when continued questioning is not good. What do I mean? Let’s work through that today.

What I’m thinking of is the hyper-skepticism that can’t stop questioning. No answer can ever satisfy this mindset. The “question everything” mantra of this universal doubt sounds at first like a rigorous and impartial search for truth, but ends up being a self-destructive endeavor that only undercuts any truth it finds. How this often plays out in discussions of the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible is that there is always “one more thing” the skeptic objects to, one more justification for not believing the Bible. But these “reasons” tend to be reasons based on ignorance rather than positive knowledge. What I mean is that they are based on what we don’t know rather than what we do know. And that is not a good model to follow in any area of life. My own field of structural engineering is largely concerned with designing structures to resist loads caused in one way or another by gravity, but I couldn’t tell you whether gravity is a particle or a wave (although experiments in recent years appear to support the latter). And yet the most magnificent structures are built on the positive knowledge we do have about gravity and its effects, in spite of the details we don’t know. Likewise, we may not be able to verify everything in the Bible in our lifetimes. Some details may simply be impossible to confirm through archeology or other means after the millennia since it was written, but we are responsible for the knowledge we do have. We shouldn’t say that even though a witness has proven reliable in many other instances, we will discard all he has to say because of some statements we can’t prove. Yes, we are putting our trust in the person at that point, but it is an earned trust based on a consistent track record, and it is a reasonable position to take.

A question came up recently about the Massacre of the Innocents and the Resurrection of the Saints, two events recounted only in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew 2:1-18, he records King Herod’s jealousy of this prophesied King of the Jews, Jesus. In Herod’s paranoia about rivals (which is attested to outside the Bible), he tries to “nip this one in the bud” by having all the children under the age of two killed in the town of Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace. Then in Matthew 27:51-54, he records Jesus’ death on the cross, and the signs that followed, such as a great earthquake, graves being unblocked, and holy ones who had died coming back to life and coming out of the newly-opened graves to appear to people in Jerusalem. No other contemporary biblical or secular writer confirms these events or even mentions them, as far as we know (so far). Does that absence of independent corroborating testimony invalidate Matthew’s testimony? Of course not. There very well might’ve been other accounts lost to the ravages of time, but because of the importance of the subject matter Matthew was primarily focusing on (The life of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world), this lone account of those two secondary events survived as well.

Now, we may never find anything to corroborate these two stories in Matthew. On the other hand, someone 100 years from now may unearth another source contemporary with Matthew that confirms his account and fills in all the missing details. Who knows? But either way, there are a lot of things we do know and have to deal with. Rather than get stuck on secondary issues, I would encourage the skeptic to work through the primary issues first. A lot of the objections I hear from atheists about alleged Bible contradictions are things that could be ignored without affecting the central message of the Bible in the least. And that message is that God created this universe, we broke it by rebelling against Him, and yet He provided a solution to the mess we’re in that we never could get out of on our own, that solution is Jesus Christ, and we only have this life to decide our eternal destiny. While questions of what we are to do with unclear passages of Scripture are good and interesting exercises, and I have personally grown in my knowledge of Scripture and its interpretation by doing in-depth research to try to answer a skeptic’s question, the critically important question for the skeptic is what will you do with the clear message of the Gospel? To focus on many of objections I read or hear, and ignore the central message of rebellion and redemption, is akin to a person fretting about an ingrown fingernail when their leg is gangrenous. Their priorities are a bit misplaced, to say the least. Whatever your pet objection might be, might I suggest placing a higher priority on the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus and what that gift means for you? For if Christ was resurrected, then that is the single most important event in all of human history.

In closing, let me be clear that I don’t consider asking questions to be bad. But the purpose of asking honest questions is to find truthful answers. And when you get to the truth of a matter, there’s no more need for questions; they have served their purpose. Yet there is a mindset now that asks questions to undercut knowledge rather than to gain knowledge, as a means to protect cherished presuppositions, and that is what concerns me. If you’ve been “burned” before, and are skeptical in a merely cautious sense, by all means ask questions! Not every Christian out there may be able to answer your questions, but know that our ignorance on a specific issue doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer. And know that we care about you and want you to find the truth, “for the truth shall set you free” [John 8:32].

Criminals & Victims in Abortion

Leave a comment
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge addresses the 2018 Arkansas March for Life at the State Capitol.

I attended my state’s March For Life at our State Capitol this past Sunday, mourning the last 45 years of legalized abortion here in America. Afterwards, I had an unusual conversation with a gentlemen who claimed to be pro-life. Throughout the rally, he had been holding up a sign that advocated putting women in jail who sought abortions. This was the first time I’d seen anyone at a pro-life rally who advocated that, so we had an odd, but civil, conversation afterward. From the last 2 posts this month, and previous posts on the subject of abortion, you can see for yourself that I consider abortion to be the intentional killing of a living, innocent, human person – and therefore murder. So if abortion is murder, why would I and most pro-life people disagree with the gentleman I spoke to regarding the prosecution of women seeking abortions? Let’s work through that today.

  • The abortionist, as the one actually committing (and profiting from) the deed, and possessing sufficient medical training to know what it is that he is doing, will always bear the larger moral responsibility for an abortion. This is partly why pro-lifers consistently argue for punishment for the abortionist performing these procedures rather than the women seeking them. For instance, in a dismemberment abortion, the abortionist tears the arms and legs from the torso, then crushes the skull of the baby so that it may be sucked out of the womb through a vacuum hose. Because of the possibility of infection if any of the baby’s body parts are left in the womb to rot, the abortionist must examine the remains and account for all of them. While the woman may be told that her baby was just an “undifferentiated clump of cells”, the abortionist is able to visually confirm that that is simply not the case. He is without excuse.
  • This brings up a 2nd point: lies women believe. Many women have fallen for the lies that the new life they carry is “just a clump of cells”, “similar to a polyp or cyst”, “not human yet”, “not alive yet”, or “a part of their body to do with as they please.” It grieves me to hear responses like those from women (and men who feel they are being supportive of “women’s rights” by parroting the abortion talking points). The case for life is robust, both philosophically and scientifically. But sadly, pro-abortion lies like “My body, my choice” can be chanted and carried on signs far easier than a discussion of the verifiable different DNA between mother and baby. But since women do believe these lies, and hence do believe that they are simply getting rid of something less than human, I don’t fault them for making a tragic decision based on the false information given them by groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and others who claim to have their best interests in mind. Rather, I, and so many other pro-lifers, seek to educate women (and men) everywhere on the amazingly complex development going on largely unseen in the womb. Education dispels ignorance, and science is strongly on the side of life. In fact, some of the most outspoken pro-lifers have been former abortionists who could no longer ignore the clear scientific facts staring at them from an ultrasound machine, or the clearly human remains they were disposing of (Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Dr. Joseph Randall, Dr. Anthony Levatino, among many others over the years).
  • While the baby killed is clearly a victim in an abortion, many women do not leave the abortion unscathed. While there are the pregnant women who actually die in abortions, and other who suffer from medical complications afterward, I’m actually talking about the women who have regrets for an irreversible action that can’t be undone later; the women who suffer from guilt and wonder what that child might’ve grown up to be; and the women who suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts after the abortion, as found in a 1996 study in Finland [1].
  • We have a standard in the US of “innocent until proven guilty”. While the abortionist is clearly guilty, the case of the women involved is not nearly so clear cut. The expectant mother has often been lied to and misinformed, and may be scared of the consequences of her pregnancy and unaware of life-protecting options like adoption. Therefore it is better to err on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
  • Some women are pressured into abortions by abusive husbands, boyfriends unwilling to man up and take responsibility for the child they helped create, parents threatening to kick their pregnant daughter out of the house unless she aborts, pimps who know how much money they will lose out on if one of the girls they prostitute is pregnant for 9 months, or the government in the case of China.

These are some reasons why pro-lifers reach out with compassion to abortive mothers. As Robert P. George so succinctly stated, “We are interested in saving babies, not punishing mothers. And we know that we don’t need to punish mothers to save babies.”[2] So as Christians we follow Paul’s command to speak the “truth in love” [Eph 4:15], educating people who may possibly not understand the significance of what they do or advocate. And if you are considering an abortion, please call 1-800-848-LOVE to speak to a counselor or to find one of the 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers nationwide near you. They can help you make the best choice for yourself… and your baby.

[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7070/1431.full. This result is interesting in a country that provides free abortions and isn’t noted for associating any stigma with abortion.
[2] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/03/trump-is-no-pro-lifer. Regarding George’s main premise about Trump in his article, I will only say that I have been pleasantly surprised with Trump’s continued support of life and hope that Mr. Trump continues to prove us wrong who were skeptics of the genuineness of his seemingly recent pro-life views.

Normalizing Murder, Part 2

Leave a comment
Details of bony structures in 14-week-old fetus from an ultrasound equipment manufacturer.

Last week, we looked at the first eight of sixteen statements phrased as fill-in-the-blank sentences that are showing up on billboards in Cleveland, Ohio supporting the barbaric practice of abortion. Today, I’d like to work through the remaining eight.

  1. “Abortion is  life-saving. “ The irony of this statement would be comical if it weren’t such tragic disinformation. A successful abortion necessarily kills an innocent human. That’s not life-saving; that’s life-destroying. And while there are still cases where carrying the baby to term truly endangers the mother’s life, such as ectopic (tubal) pregnancies or uterine cancer where treatment may kill the baby and non-treatment may kill the mother, these are the exception and make up a minuscule portion of abortions. Interestingly, former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said in 1980, “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.” Even Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood, stated in 1967 that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”[1] And genuine life-saving technology has only improved since then, thus further reducing the likelihood of actually needing an abortion.
  2. “Abortion is  a parenting decision. “  If so, then it’s a tragic and often uninformed or misinformed parenting decision. Unfortunately, too many mothers believe the lies that their baby is simply a “clump of cells” or “a parasite”, or “only a potential human”, and make bad, irreversible “parenting” decisions. But parenting is more than just biology. A parent protects, nourishes, and loves their children, and prepares them for adulthood. To have the child killed is antithetical to the common idea of what makes a “good” parent, for it is opposed to a foundational goal of parenting: desiring the good of your children.
  3. “Abortion is  liberty. “  I think this misunderstanding comes from the notion of liberty being unrestrained ability to do anything you desire. That is simply untrue. I am never free to murder my neighbor, nor am I free to steal his car for the fun of it. Liberty is the freedom to do what is right. Freedom of choice does not entail the freedom to choose wrong or to violate someone else’s rights, which is precisely what happens when the unborn baby is deprived of that most fundamental right – the right to one’s own life.
  4. “Abortion is  a second chance. “ The hidden assumption of this statement is that bringing a new life into the world is a) a mistake, and b) one that can simply be erased  like an Etch-a-Sketch via abortion. Even if a baby is “unplanned”, or “inconvenient”, or the result of a one-night-stand, affair, or even a rape – are any of these a good reason to kill an innocent baby? Where is the baby’s first chance to live and make a difference in this world?
  5. “Abortion is  hope. “ Hope achieved at the expense of another’s life is not any kind of genuine hope to offer people, but is only the vice of selfishness repackaged as a virtue. Thinking the deliberate killing of a child brings hope is to assume the child is some kind of anchor holding the mother down, and that abortion can realize the hope of release from such a weighty burden. Yet this goes completely contrary to the beautiful, nurturing nature of motherhood, that routinely sacrifices self for the child. Our next generation isn’t a burden holding us down, but rather our successors that we give a step up to so that they can achieve more than we did, just as we tried to build on what our parents did for us. Abortion actually turns the advancement of civilization on its head.
  6. “Abortion is  health care. “ Calling the ending of someone’s life without their consent “health care” is just as much Orwellian “newspeak” as calling a government propaganda department the “Ministry of Truth”.[2] When the intent of a procedure is to take a healthy living human and make them dead, that is as far from health care as can be conceived.
  7. “Abortion is  sacred. “  This is perhaps the most egregious of the slogans. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the intended meaning here was “entitled to reverence and respect” or “highly valued and important”, and not the religious uses of the word “sacred”. Even so, those are hardly words that should be used to describe what is at best a tragic loss of life, even in the rare cases when a mother’s life is in danger.
  8. “Abortion is  right for me. “ Dear reader, if you are considering an abortion, I hope these previous 7 responses, and the 8 from last week, have helped you see why abortion is not right for you. All of the statements examined these two weeks try to deflect your attention away from one simple question: is the object of discussion an innocent… living… human… person? If it is (and I believe there are good reasons to say it is), then there are no good reasons that can justify killing it.

What are some alternatives to abortion that would be right for you? The times that stretch us beyond what we thought we could withstand are often the times we grow the most. If you don’t feel like you could take care of a baby, consider the generations of women before that opted to push through the trials and raise a kid amidst financial uncertainty, poverty, food scarcity, war, and a host of other struggles. How many of us were “unplanned”, and caused years of sacrifice for our parents? And yet, if that was you, aren’t you glad you got the chance to live? But if your situation really does preclude raising your child, adoption is another option. Is your pregnancy burdensome? As difficult as it may seem, it is a temporary burden, while abortion is an action with permanent consequences. Seek support during this difficult time and persevere until birth so that someone else can offer your child the opportunities you can’t. In closing, everyone comes to this decision with their own story, their own questions, and fears, and concerns. If you’re trying to decide between abortion and giving birth, let me point you to a nationwide toll-free number you can call or text anytime to talk to someone about your specific situation. There is likely a pregnancy resource center near you that may even be able to offer you services like ultrasound, but this number will get you started, wherever you are in the US: 1-800-848-LOVE (5683).

[1] Koop and Guttmacher quoted at http://abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified, accessed 2018-01-14. Although I prefer to set eyes on primary sources to confirm a quote is authentic and in context, I was not able to find the sources referenced online or for sale in print. If you have a copy of Guttmacher’s book Abortion–Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, 1967), or the May 1980 issue of Moody Monthly  that you would be willing to donate or sell me, please contact me.
[2] George Orwell, 1984. A good read, I might add.

Normalizing Murder, Part 1

1 Comment
Image of fetal face, not from a pro-life website, but from an ultrasound manufacturer. Abortion kills a living human person.

Some billboards are going up in Cleveland promoting abortion. Now, I’m used to the typical lines like “It’s my body” and so on. I can at least understand the confusion with ideas like that; the proponent assumes that just because something is inside one’s body, then it is one’s body. My response is simple – get a DNA test done on the baby (or fetus if you prefer), and if it comes up identical to your DNA, go for it. You would have my blessing to proceed with an abortion, for it would simply be part of your body. Of course, that is an impossibility, for the mother only provides half the chromosomes to the fetus. Therefore it is impossible for it to be part of the mother’s body. From within moments of conception, the baby is a genetically distinct human. But these new billboards are so brazen in their disinformation, that they require a response. The billboards simply show a short fill-in-the-blank sentence, “abortion is _____”, with the blank filled in with one of 16 different false conclusions. As the tragic anniversary of Roe v. Wade approaches this month, and we mourn the loss of nearly 60 million Americans over the last 45 years, let’s look at the first 8 of these faulty arguments this week, and the remaining 8 next week.

  1. “Abortion is  normal. “   The word “normal” can have a technical  meaning in fields like statistics and engineering, but in everyday usage, normal means regular, common, or natural. Induced abortions ended approximately 19% of pregnancies in the US in 2014.[1] Clearly, the regular, natural result of a pregnancy, if not interrupted, is childbirth, not abortion.
  2. “Abortion is  necessary. “  Abortion is certainly not necessary, in general. If the human race is to continue to survive, childbirth is necessary, but not abortion. I’m guessing – hoping – they are referring to the specific cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Is there any other case where the idea of a necessary death could even be contemplated? Even when presented with the apparent need to kill one to save the other, versus losing both, it is still a decision of last resort arrived at after exhausting other options. But those cases are the exception even in times and places of poor medical care. In light of  current medical advances, there are becoming fewer and fewer cases where a nonabortive solution can’t be found. The primary case is ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, which is an almost guaranteed death sentence for both mother and child if allowed to proceed, although even in that dire situation, there are a handful of cases where mother and baby both survived an ectopic pregnancy (with 3 in the UK between 1999 and 2005). However, these are an extremely small percentage of abortions. If this is the scenario pro-abortion activists want to appeal to, then OK; let’s ban all abortions except where it is actually necessary. Since the vast majority of abortions are elective, I suspect the argument for necessity is simply a bluff needing to be called.
  3. “Abortion is  your right. “  While abortion or a right to privacy are never mentioned in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence, the right to life is recognized and protected in both documents.[2] But since the abortion supporters bring up the subject of rights, it’s worth reminding everyone of something  R.C. Sproul used to say: nobody has the right to do what is wrong. It’s also been said in various ways since the 1800’s that the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Rights come with responsibilities, and if your right to do something is reasonably restricted when it would only harm another person, how much more should that alleged “right” be restricted when it would kill an innocent person?
  4. “Abortion is  gender equality. “ This is an interesting one because sex-selective abortion kills more females than males worldwide. After years of preferentially aborting baby girls, areas like China and India are beginning to see substantial deficits in the number of women compared to men. Just from a practical standpoint, it really makes no sense for feminist women to support a procedure that actually kills more women than men worldwide. But then today’s feminists aren’t like the real pioneering feminists who were staunchly opposed to abortion.
  5. Abortion is  a  family value. “ To say that killing a family member is somehow a family value is simply bewildering. Enough said.
  6. “Abortion is  good medicine. “ Actually, abortion violates the Hippocratic Oath, from whence we get that most basic, founding medical principle of “Do no harm,” the idea that doctors should be about healing their patients, not harming them. But perhaps you might think Hippocrates was only referring to those who had been born. After all, he did live 2400 years ago and couldn’t possibly know what we know now about babies from genetics and embryology (which has only strengthened the argument against abortion, by the way). You might be tempted to think that, except that Hippocrates specifically prohibited a doctor from performing abortions in his famous Oath. Yes, it was bad medicine back then, and it’s even clearer now that things like ultrasound have opened a window into the womb.
  7. “Abortion is  safer than childbirth. “  This is based on the presupposition that the mother is the only patient involved. When we correctly understand that the unborn baby is a living human person, then we understand that every successful abortion kills at least one of the patients (and sometimes both).
  8. “Abortion is  a blessing. “ This is perhaps the most selfish of all the billboard slogans, for depriving someone of their very life, without their consent, is only a blessing if you don’t want that person alive. This slogan perverts the traditional view of children as a blessing and substitutes their death as the blessing.

Abortion is often a sensitive and emotional subject, but that is because the stakes are so high. It’s either no big deal and all these billboards trying to justify it are needless, or the human race has killed 1.4 billion of its most defenseless members without provocation – just since 1980 [3] – and it’s actually the most important issue facing humanity. There really is no in-between. If the unborn baby is a living human person, innocent of any wrongdoing, then abortion is murder, and abortionists are not doctors but serial killers. And if we continue to ignore the holocaust happening right in front of us, our generation will be just as shamed in future history books as the households of American slave owners and the Germans who lived near the Nazi death camps and looked the other way.

[1] http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
[2] Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence, and the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
[3] See www.numberofabortions.com for more tragic abortion stats.

Another New Year and Still No Return of Christ

Leave a comment
One of many predictions of Christ’s return that didn’t pan out.

As I write this, another year has passed into history, and a new year has crested the horizon. Skeptics like to point out that Christians have been saying Jesus is coming back soon – any minute now – practically since He left. “Enough already! Haven’t all these failed predictions convinced you Christians that none of this is true?” they ask. What of that? Does Christ’s not returning as He promised (yet) show Christianity to be false? Let’s work through that today.

First off, does Jesus say exactly when He’s returning? No. Predictions of exact dates are based on the all-too-fallible interpretations of mere humans. And Jesus specifically said that no man knew the day or the hour of His return [Matt 24:36,42,44], so these attempts to predict such a date are actually contrary to what Christ taught. While we are to pay attention, be prepared, and live accordingly [2Pet 3:11,14], we portray Jesus as a liar if we try to say He is returning at such-and-such a time. But why was God so vague in all the end-time references in the Bible? Why “tease” us like that? I would suggest that maybe He wanted to prepare us for what was to come, but not let our procrastinating tendency get the better of us.  What if God had actually said that Jesus would come back on March 11th of the year 4377? Honestly, I don’t think many of us would have a real sense of urgency about broadcasting the good news of salvation to those who need to hear it if we knew the deadline was thousands of years away. Meanwhile, people are dying every day separated from God. The situation has been, and continues to be, urgent, but our limited perspective blinds us to it. Given a definite date, far beyond the end of our lives, we would say it wasn’t a problem, forgetting that the task of evangelizing the world is a long-term project (humanly speaking). Simply put, we would blow it off, while the world lay in dire need of the Good News we so casually held onto.

Secondly, this ridicule of skeptics due to Christ’s delay is exactly what Peter says will happen in his 2nd letter, when he warns that mockers will come, asking where Christ’s return is, and saying that all has been the same since the beginning of creation. But Peter reminds his readers that it hasn’t really been the same since the beginning – God judged the earth once with a flood, and will judge the earth again. Third, Peter offered his readers an important reminder that I want to focus on today: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” [2Pet 3:9]

People tend to think about the Second Coming of Christ as something that can happen at any time, and should’ve already happened since it was anticipated so long ago (by human standards). OK, fine – let’s look at the alternative. What if Christ delays coming back for a million years? Or a hundred million years? Our sun has enough hydrogen to burn for several billion years, and geologically, the earth is good for several hundred million more years of supporting advanced life forms. So is there any reason He couldn’t delay a really long time from our perspective? We humans tend to have short attentions spans (Twitter, anyone? Just saying…), and we tend to think that any delay is an unreasonable delay.  But what would be the end effect of such a long delay? We Christians would have more time to evangelize the world so that in the end, the number of people that died without hearing the Gospel would be minuscule compared to the overwhelming masses of people over thousands (or millions) of years who did hear and had the opportunity to repent. For instance, imagine if He had returned in His disciples’ lifetimes, as they appeared to have been expecting. It’s estimated that only 1 out of every 360 people in the known world were committed Christians in AD 100, after the disciples had been evangelizing the world for 70 years. But that ratio has been decreasing ever since. Now, almost 2 millennia later the number is closer to 1 in 7.[1] Even in human terms, I can understand waiting 2000 years to allow those kinds of numbers of perishing people to come to Christ. While I don’t think a time would ever come when the world’s population is entirely Christian, or even majority Christian [Matt 7:13-14], I could see a time when the number of people unable to hear a gospel presentation and decide for themselves whether to accept or reject Christ approaches zero. Is that God’s plan? I don’t know, but it could explain why He tarries, “not desiring that any should perish” [v9].

As Bill Mounce says, eschatology (the study of end times) is primarily ethical. It’s not intended to provide a detailed map of future events, but rather tell us how we should live in light of what’s coming, being always ready, and working faithfully until He returns.[2] Christ’s not returning yet is not reason to doubt His eventual return, but to be grateful for His patience in allowing more people the opportunity to hear and choose wisely. It’s also a reminder for us Christians that our work is not yet done, and as long as there are still people dying without Christ, it is incumbent on us to not slack in our service of bringing them the Good News, no matter the cost. So I ask you today, to not let another year slip away unprepared to stand before Christ, for whether Christ ever returns in any of our lifetimes, we are nevertheless guaranteed an appointment before Him after our deaths [Heb 9:27]. Make sure you’re ready, and then help others do likewise.

[1] Lausanne Statistics Task Force, as cited by William Lane Craig in On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (David C Cook, Kindle Edition), Kindle Locations 2707-2708. Ratio of 1 in 7 is the estimated number of committed Christians to non-Christians, in 1989. Nominal Christians are not included in either category. If all nominal Christians were included with non-Christians (worst case), the current ratio would still only increase to 1 in 9. Such estimations are necessarily imprecise, for only God truly knows the heart, but this does, it seems, provide a lower bound on the ratio of Christians to non-Christians worldwide.
[2] Bill Mounce, in his lecture on Mark 13 in Biblical Training Institute’s Academy curriculum.