Ask the Pastor with J.D. Greear

Pastor J.D. defines what it means to be pro-life and explains what it requires and the responsibility for Christians. A glimpse inside this episode: Last week, we covered some answers to pro-choice arguments, and if you missed that one, I’d encourage you to go back and listen to it. So, now, what does it mean to be “pro-life?” From womb to tomb, but that includes when the womb is a tomb. We must be pro-abundant life. And BTW, just so you know, Christians have always been like this. Sometimes I hear people say, “All you Christians care about is the pre-born!” But that’s not true. Since 1973, for every 1 abortion clinic in America Christians have built 3 pregnancy centers to assist women in crisis. They are buying groceries and helping young mothers get housing and whatever else they need. Go into foster services and adoption agencies and there you will find the group represented most are pro-life Christians and their friends. Christians have built more hospitals around the world than any other single group–for a long time in sub-Saharan African there was not a single hospital that hadn’t been built by a Christian mission. So don’t believe the tired trope that followers of Jesus only care about the pre-born. It’s just not true, and a lot of people use that to excuse the fact that they are virtually silent about the tragedy of abortion. It’s hard to say that you’re pro-life from the womb to the tomb if you’re apathetic when the womb is a tomb. Right now, children are most vulnerable, statistically speaking, when they’re in the womb. Listen to this: In 2018 abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide, with 42 million victims. That is roughly seven holocausts in a single year. I agree with Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile who says, “It’s staggeringly clear that the largest scale injustice, the most morally outrageous thing happening in our society today is the killing of children in the womb..” To be consistently pro-life, you have to want to change the law People say, “It doesn’t matter if we change the law… abortions happen just as much with pro-life justices and pro-life presidents, let’s work on the system.” The counting is skewed by things like the morning after pill.  Also, really shortsighted. This is only a 47 year question. How many lives would be saved if we truly as a society acknowledged the value of the pre-born and made it illegal to take their lives? Most importantly, we oppose Roe because it is an inherently unjust law. In 1973, we codified into law a Constitutional right to kill an innocent human child. As long as that law is on the books, we live in an inherently unjust country, no less than when we had a stipulation in our Constitution that blacks counted as only 3/5 of a human. To arrive at this “more perfect union,” that 3/5 compromise needed to be eradicated, and Roe, in my view, does as well. The worst position: I’m pro-life but think people should be free to choose for themselves.  So, what does being pro-life require of us? What’s MY responsibility? The African American pastor Thabiti Anyabwhile says that this passage is crucial in instructing us how to respond to the abortion crisis because it tells us  what God’s requirement is and the scope of that requirement  First, WHAT is our responsibility?  Proverbs 31:8 “Speak up for those who have no voice…” What better description of the preborn could there be than “those who have no voice”? No one hears their screams as they’re slain in the womb–We know they feel pain. Through microscopic cameras we see them flinch as they are injected with poison; we see their heartbeats SPIKE as they’re killed. But we don’t hear their voices. Some of them are old enough that if they were just 6 inches further out of the womb we could hear their screams. But because they’re left in the womb when their life is taken we don’t hear them.  So, we are obligated to speak for them. “Speak up” is repeated twice. Once in vs. 8; once in vs. 9. Speak up, the King says. Speak up. Say something. As with the story of the Good Samaritan, not speaking up in the face of injustice makes you guilty of injustice. It’s like Martin Luther King, Jr, said in regards to racial injustice: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Silence IS support. Speak up. ((Everywhere in the world our flag flies right now it represents this. And that is tragic.)) And hey, I want to stop here and say something: I want to ask you to seriously consider whether or not God might be leading some of you to take on the mantle of government leadership for causes like these. We need godly people (in both political parties) advocating for this. As I said, this should not be a partisan issue–much like care for the refugee or respect for the immigrant should not be partisan issues. I don’t care what your political party is–all Christians should be united in seeing the removal of this scourge from our land. Second, Proverbs 31 shows us the SCOPE of that responsibility: vs. 8 …Speak up for the justice of ALL who are dispossessed. All: If your love for the vulnerable is sincere, this won’t be the only life issue you care about. For some people, pro-life is like a moral club they use in the culture war, even as they ignore the suffering and needs of other vulnerable groups around them. If you really care about the vulnerable we’ll see you advocating for life everywhere– the poor, the marginalized, the forgotten of all ages and all races. Maybe most of all you’ll be brokenhearted about those around the world with no access to the gospel. The greatest tragedy in our world is people dying with the gospel; and the greatest injustice in the world is the failure of the church to get it to them. It’s like I said: A real commitment to life is demonstrated by advocacy for the vulnerable from the womb to the tomb. But don’t tell me you’re pro-life if you’re apathetic about life in the womb. A lot of our ministry to our community here centers around this issue. Speak up and offer help! Not just pro-life, pro-abundant life.   

Pastor J.D. explains a few of the most common pro-choice arguments and responds to each one with scientific and scriptural insight. A glimpse inside this episode: What greater tragedy is there than taking the life of another human? First, “The baby is a part of a woman’s body, and we need to respect her right to privacy and sovereignty over her body.”  I agree that the right to privacy over our bodies is precious.  But here’s the thing: The baby is not part of her body. That baby is intimately attached to her body for a period of time, yes, but it’s not part of her body. Listen, Thaddeus Williams, from whom I glean a lot of this today, says: “From the moment of conception, that baby has its own DNA–it’s own unique genetic code, a unique heart, (unique) circulatory system, brain, and more. If you’re saying it is a part of her body, does that mean SHE herself has 2 brains, 2 hearts, and 4 arms and legs?” No, it’s a separate person, even intimately attached to her body. Scripture certainly presents the preborn child as its own person: The Psalmist of Psalm 139 says that in the womb God knew me by name, as a person; there I was fearfully and wonderfully made, knit together according to the plan of God with his purpose for me already in mind.  Scripture tells us that John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth’s womb because his spirit–in the womb–was filled with the Spirit when he came into the presence of Jesus.  Someone might say, “But it’s still IN my body.”  Yes, that’s true, but we all know our rights over our bodies are not absolute as far as the law is concerned. Prostitution is illegal in most states, and I don’t know of anywhere in the US can you legally pour drugs into your body just because it’s your body. Your rights to your body stop precisely at that place where they begin to affect someone else’s. And that’s exactly what is happening to the pre-born. Alright, here’s the next one. Someone might say, “Pastor JD, saying life begins at conception is a matter of opinion, and you shouldn’t force your opinion on others.”  Well, we’re not in the realm of opinion, here; we’re in the realm of biology and Scripture. Hear me out–let me get in the weeds for about 5 minutes. Hang with me.  If you say “life begins at birth”: Well, the only difference in a baby 5 seconds prior to birth and 5 seconds after birth is location, and “location” seems like an arbitrary foundation for personhood. Scientifically, what is the difference in the nature of the baby 5 seconds before birth and 5 seconds after?  If you say, “Life begins with brain function, when the baby can experience pain, when they are in (what scientists call) a sentient (or self-conscious) state.” Well, first, note that that contradicts the position that abortion is a fundamental woman’s right through all nine months of pregnancy simply because it is in her womb. But second, does that mean when we are not in a ‘sentient’ state we have lost our right to life? If I go into a temporary coma from which you know I am going to wake up in 9 mos., my strong preference would be that you not kill me.   If you say, “Life begins at viability,” (when the baby can live on its own). This also seems like a strange criteria for when personhood begins, because isn’t viability contingent on the advancement of technology? Every year, doesn’t newer, better technology push the length of “viability” back? If “viability” determines personhood, that means whether or not someone is a person is dependent on how advanced our technology is. And that seems arbitrary–it means that those born in more technologically advanced societies somehow possess greater personhood and more rights than those who are born in poor countries–and that doesn’t make sense. Plus, I would argue that the more helpless a person is, the more vulnerable–the less viable–the more we as a society should do to protect them. In the words of Cardinal Roger Mahony says, “We judge societies on how they treat their weakest members—the last, the least, and the littlest.” Even if you are unclear on this, and are not convinced that personhood begins at conception–shouldn’t you err on the side of life? “If you’re hunting in the woods and hear a rustling in the bushes and you’re uncertain as to whether it’s your friend or a deer, morality and common sense dictate that you don’t pull the trigger, given the potential risk of murder.” Here’s the next one: “If abortion were made illegal, people would just go back to coat hangers and back alley butchers.”  Two things I’d say here:  First, just to be clear, stories of that are WAY exaggerated. A total of 39 women died the year before Roe vs. Wade through illegal abortions. And that’s tragic, of course, but compare that to 900,000 babies who died in state-sanctioned abortions this year.  Second, again quoting Thaddeus Williams: the “coat hanger” argument misses the point that the preborn are people, and pointing out some negative side effects of a restriction doesn’t justify the sanctioning of murder. Next, “What about in the case of genetic disabilities? We shouldn’t bring babies into the world with genetic disabilities whose lives will be reduced to hardship and unhappiness.”  First, note that people with disabilities are vehemently opposed to this argument. There is not a single organization of disabled people in the world that I know of that is in favor of elective abortions of those who have disabilities. Second, you are making a false correlation between genetic deformities and unhappiness. Listen to this: “No study… has found that handicapped persons are more likely than non-handicapped persons to want to die or commit suicide… This report, which came out in Baltimore, said: “In fact, of the 200 consecutive suicides in Baltimore last year… none had been committed by people with congenital deformities.” None! If you’re trying to say that we should be able to abort those whom we know in advance are the most likely to be unhappy, it’s not those with genetic deformities that you should start with. They are on the happy end of the scale. The point is: Who are we to determine when another life is not worth living?  Again: this whole line of thinking misses the point: The preborn baby is a person. And if we think they might experience hardship in their lives, does that justify killing them in advance?   I’ve heard people say, “Abortion sometimes help poor women escape crushing financial burdens. Banning abortion would cause overpopulation and massive poverty.” This kind of statement confuses “finding a solution” with “eliminating a problem.” Think of it this way: If the neighbor’s dog keeps pooping in your yard… you go out and shoot the dog. You’ve eliminated a problem, but you haven’t come up with a solution. If poverty is a problem, let’s keep working to find a solution.  Again, the point is–the preborn are people. You can’t justify killing a person because it eliminates a problem. I mean, if you use that reasoning there, where does it stop? Couldn’t you use that same line of reasoning to justify eliminating other financially burdensome groups?  Finally, “Well, what about in cases of rape or incest?”  First, let me say I can’t imagine the pain involved in something like this. It’s unspeakable. But just to keep it in perspective. These tragic and heartbreaking cases make up less than 1% of all abortions. When someone says this to me, I always ask them: “So are you agreeing then that the other 99% of abortions are indeed immoral?”  But the bigger point is this: Does the fact that that baby got there by rape or incest change the fact that they are still A PERSON? Does the circumstances of one’s birth take away from their personhood? If a grown adult found out that they were conceived by rape, would that somehow reduce their value, or right to life, as a person?  Keep your eye on the central question: Is the preborn baby a person? If they are, how they became a person is irrelevant. Listen: That little human life, that little person, regardless of how they got there, when it’s no bigger than a speck, the size of a period at the end of the sentence, is made in the image of God. That speck has more value than all the planets and stars in the vast cosmos! It has a soul made in the image of God, that Jesus died, that has an eternal future. We’ve gotten into the weeds here a little bit because I want you to see that scientifically and Scripturally there is no question about how Jesus feels about THESE little children. “Let them come to me,” he says. Their lives are precious and valuable. And if you care about me, you’ll care about them, and not dismiss them (like the disciples did in this story) as an inconvenience.“ 

Pastor J.D. discusses how this view might be a reflection of our time and place as well as the Bible’s role throughout history. A glimpse inside this episode: Feeling the morals are regressive may be a reflection of our particular time and place. I mean, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Bible offends our culture. We should be concerned if they don’t. The Bible has offended every culture, just not always in the same way. E.g. Muslim cultures and the teaching on forgiveness An “Equal Opportunity Offender” Wouldn’t you expect, if the Bible is the Word of God, that it wouldn’t offend us?  Wouldn’t you be more suspect if it just affirmed everything we already believed? Do we really think we’re so advanced that we’ve gotten everything right?  Think about how you look at people 100 years ago. We say, ‘I can’t believe grandma and grandpa actually believed that?” 100 years from now they are going to look back on us and say, “Wow, they were advanced!”?  The standard: “If I feel a sincere impulse inside of me, it has to be right,” cannot  be correct.   Change the setting—now you have a guy in his early 20’s walking down the street of a Viking town in the 11th century who feels like his honor has been insulted and thinks, “I can’t be happy until I have avenged myself and my family name and that can only happen by killing the one who offended me.” We would say, “That is bad.”  On what basis? It’s because it violates a higher law. Just because it’s in your heart doesn’t mean it is right. We need an external standard. The Bible has been behind the greatest moral revolutions in the world End of slavery—The best work on slavery is by an African-American scholar named Thomas Sowell. He points out slavery was universal. The terrible European slave trade trafficked 11 million Africans; but twice that many were bought and sold on the Arabian Peninsula during that same time period. Furthermore, he says, almost every slave he says sold in the European slave trade were enslaved and sold to them by other Africans. So, in other words, slavery was a nearly universal problem. Yet you have an enormous amount of guilt literature coming out of the West, but none out of Arabia.  And the efforts to stop slavery came from the West. Why, he asks? Slavery is universal, but what stopped slavery it in the West? His answer? Undeniably, the Great Awakening: The preaching of men like John Wesley and the reforms of Christian statesman William Wilberforce.  The Civil Rights Movement in the United States was pioneered by pastors like MLK, Jr. The end of apartheid in South Africa had Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the outspokenly Christian Nelson Mandela—both of whom opposed the racist practice based on the Bible’s principles. Prison reform and the rights of women were led not only by Christians, but by Christians who cited Christian teaching as the inspiration for their reforms The church is still the #1 provider of healthcare around the world. Christian Atheists: I saw one atheist author mention that if you go anywhere in the world where the need is greatest, the people you are most likely to find there are Christians. Hitchens conceded the same thing. He said, “I don’t believe Christianity, but something in it compels people to get involved in the worst situations on the planet.” I was listening to a lecture by Dr. Charles Mathewes up at UVA and he said that most atheists today who have moral objections to Christianity don’t realize they are “Christian atheists,” which means that the basis for their objections usually come from teachings that have been shaped by a Christian worldview. Friedrich Nietzsche, my favorite atheist, acknowledged that. He said: My moral objections to Christianity ultimately came from the principles I learned from Christianity.  One historian notes: Atheists today aren’t like they were 1000 years ago. They are Christian atheists. Understand Progressive Revelation Bigger conversation, but God planted seeds instead of issuing a political manifesto

Pastor J.D. shares why humility and repentance are key in any discussion about Critical Race Theory.

Pastor J.D. briefly explains CRT and how injustice should be considered humbly, soberly, and charitably in the light of Scripture.

In this re-broadcast of one of our most popular episodes, Pastor J.D. looks at the creation narrative and explains that an open Bible and an open mind are key when contemplating the concept of evolution. A glimpse inside this episode: The short answer is, “Yes.” This is one of those areas where Christians should be free to disagree. There are many conservative Bible scholars who believe in something like evolution. Notable theistic evolutionists: Alistair McGrath, Francis Collins, and maybe Tim Keller(?) Others do not. But they are able to remain in close fellowship with one another, because this is not a “first order” issue. I have serious problems with theistic evolution, but I don’t consider it a first order issue. Now, just because we can charitably disagree doesn’t mean this discussion is irrelevant. It has a lot of implications for how we read Scripture, which makes it crucial. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, you’ll have to believe in what’s called “theistic evolution”—that even though the earth is billions of years old and it took millions of years for animals to come to their present form, God was orchestrating it. Hence theistic evolution—God + evolution. Now, many conservative scholars have issues with this. For instance, Wayne Grudem has an article called “12 Ideas You Must Embrace to Affirm Theistic Evolution.” His whole point is that if you affirm theistic evolution, you deny basic principles that are plain in Scripture, such as: Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, were born from human parents. God didn’t act directly or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground; God didn’t act directly to create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side. Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sins because human beings were doing morally evil things long before Adam and Eve existed. (and weren’t sinless) Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin because human beings existed long before Adam and Eve and they were always subject to death. Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve for there were thousands of other human beings on the earth at the time that God chose two of them and called them Adam and Eve. God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, and land animals. God never created an originally very good natural world—a safe environment, free of thorns, thistles, and other harmful things. After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural world, making it more hostile to mankind. According to Grudem, this position is just too fraught with problems for a serious Bible reader. Doesn’t Genesis 1 teach that God created the world in six literal days? Many people look to Genesis 1 and they want to know timelines. Are we talking about 24-hour periods here? Or does each day represent a period of time—millions of years, perhaps? Maybe there were gaps somewhere along the way? This is one of those questions that some Christians take very seriously. It often acts as a litmus test for whether you’re a “real” Christian at all. With all due respect to those who consider this a Priority One issue, I don’t believe that Genesis 1 itself gives us enough to come to rock solid answers about the creation timetable. Remember: whenever you’re interpreting a passage of Scripture, you have to ask why it was written before you pepper that passage with questions. If you start with the wrong questions, you’re not going to get to the right answers. And it appears rather obvious that the author of Genesis 1 was not intending to weigh in on the scientific nuances of our contemporary creation v. evolution debate. The focus of Genesis 1 is not specifically how God created, but that he created. It’s an artistic celebration, not a scientific documentation. When it comes to the age of the earth, that’s a question that scientists and theologians should explore together. I know godly, biblically faithful theologians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and who think that the timetable of Genesis 1 was not a literal week (which, by the way, isn’t a new interpretation, but is a position that has been around since the first few centuries of Christianity). I know some who think that God used evolution as a part of that process. And I know highly intelligent, scientifically sophisticated, erudite scholars who believe that each of the days in Genesis 1 are literal days. My encouragement to everyone in this discussion is to study it out with an open Bible and an open mind—and not to look at other believers wrestling, in sincerity and faith, with disdain. If you believe in a literal 24-day in Genesis 1, don’t view your brothers and sisters who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible but approach interpreting Genesis 1 differently than you do as “enemies of the faith” or “compromisers of the truth.” That’s not always true. And if you don’t believe in a literal 24-hour day, don’t look down your nose on others as “primitive, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.” That’s not always true, either. Be charitable and assume that others are trying to be faithful to God’s Word and God’s world, just like you are. God’s Scripture is never wrong. But we theologians and scientists often are. So we’ve got to resist the temptation to turn into a dogma a question that Scripture did not intend to settle. As Christians, we can agree: the universe is not the result of blind, random forces (NOT nothing x nobody = everything); God is the miraculous author and creator of all we see. That’s actually a significant common ground. Great book: 40 Questions on Evolution and Creation by Ken Keathley and Mark Rooker, two of my professors at SEBTS

Pastor J.D. explains that it’s more about why than what we ask God. A glimpse inside this episode: Short answer is no, it is not wrong. Psalm 27:13: “I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living!” Examples of things Christians prayed for. Here’s a handful, in no particular order: Hannah prayed for a son (1 Samuel 1). Solomon prayed for wisdom (1 Kings 3). Manoah asked God to show him how to raise his son (Judges 13 v 8). David prayed for guidance and assistance in trouble (Psalm 86:1–2). Eliezer prayed that he would meet the right girl to introduce to his BFF Isaac (Genesis 24). Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still to have more time to get the job done (Joshua 10 v 12-13). Hezekiah asked God to turn back an invading army (1 Kings 19 v 19). Daniel asked God to show him the meaning of a dream (Daniel 2 v 3, 17-19). Jacob prayed for God to keep him safe from his angry brother (Genesis 32 v 9–12). Gideon prayed (twice) for God to confirm something he was calling him to do (Judges 6 v 36-40). Elijah prayed that it wouldn’t rain (James 5 v 17). And then he prayed that it would (James 5 v 18). Nehemiah asked God to give him the guts to make a big request of his boss (Nehemiah 2 v 4). James prayed for sick people to get better (James 5 v 15). In the gospel, desperate dads prayed for their dying daughters (Mark 5 v 21-43). Paul prayed that he’d be able to go and see his friends (1 Thessalonians 3 v 9-13). The early church prayed to not cave in fear in the face of persecution (Acts 4 v 24-30). John prayed for Jesus to return (Revelation 22 v 20). I could go on. Throughout the Bible, you find people praying about anything that matters to them: anything that seems essential to doing what they think they’re supposed to do. Just like God wants them to. Has to do with idolatry and motive: Solomon: asking for greatness for the sake of this people God’s not a genie or your own heavenly piñata.  Context: Christianity Today article about prosperity gospel in Africa In sub-Saharan Africa, prosperity-tinged Pentecostalism is growing faster not just than other strands of Christianity, but than all religious groups, including Islam (this was in 2007). This provokes concern — but also hope. Cars in many African cities display bumper stickers like “Unstoppable Achiever,” “With Jesus I Will Always Win,” and “Your Success Is Determined by Your Faith,” In a land where discouragement and denigration have been the norm, the gospel preaches dignity “…where some proclaim opulence, others simply uphold God’s provision for basic needs.” “It seems hypocritical for Western Christians who live in their nice suburbs to criticize Africans who want to ‘prosper’—when many of those Africans are just beginning to leave grass huts and experience for the first time the joys of owning a car, holding a decent job, or enrolling in college. Do we really believe it is wrong for them to want those things?”

Pastor J.D. talks about why the definitions of friendship and marriage are vital to understanding the Bible’s intent for relationships. A glimpse inside this episode: I’ve heard more and more people propose some sort of committed, same-sex, non-sexual romantic friendships for those who want to uphold the Christian sexual ethic. This, they say, avoids the supposed loneliness of singleness while upholding biblical standards of sexual behavior. Sam Allberry has written on this question and is, I think, very helpful on the topic. He writes: Friendship is different than marriage Marriage and friendship are not just two versions of the same type of love; they’re very different. Friendship is not just a less-intense version of marriage. So, you can’t just take the sex out of a romantic relationship and call it a friendship. Marriage by definition and necessity must be exclusive. It is covenantal. If it isn’t exclusive, its very essence is violated. This isn’t the case with friendship. Friendship doesn’t require exclusivity. My friendship with even my closest friend isn’t threatened by the growth of a similar friendship with someone else. Friendship isn’t exclusive Friendship often flourishes precisely because it isn’t meant to be exclusive. So when we try to turn it into something exclusive, which is certainly the case when we conceive of it in romantic terms, we’re actually turning from friendship to something else. It becomes quasi-marital.  C. S. Lewis wrote: In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets . . . . Hence true friendship is the least jealous of loves. (The Four Loves) That it might be non-sexual is beside the point: The moment it becomes romantic, we’re confusing two different categories of relationship, attempting to pursue friendship in a framework designed ultimately for something covenantal. The result (marriage without benefits?) becomes an unstable compound—something that will struggle to remain non-physical, or else won’t remain romantic and exclusive. Something will likely give. But we can’t think that keeping things firmly in the category of friendship relegates the same-sex-attracted people to a life without intimacy. Scripture shows us that such friendships don’t need exclusivity or improper physicality in order to become genuine and deep. Jesus testifies to this in how he describes his disciples as his friends (John 15:15): They know what is really going on in his heart. That’s real, deep, meaningful friendship.  

Pastor J.D. discusses the purpose of the Second Amendment and a Christian perspective of self-defense. A glimpse inside this episode: Is self-defense ok for the Christian?  Yes (Biblical evidence: Old Testament law; Jesus letting disciples have swords.) What about turning the other cheek? In Romans 12, God tells the Christian to not ever seek vengeance, but to leave it to God. And then as an application of that, he says that God has given governments the responsibility of earthly justice in his name. So, if that government gives a part of it back to you, is it ok to defend yourself with lethal violence against an intruder putting your family in harm’s way? We’ve been talking about the 2nd amendment in terms of self-defense, but the real purpose of the 2nd amendment is a protection against tyranny. Founding Fathers were terrified of a government that could very easily overwhelm the people and force them into submission of a tyrant. Governments will always have superior power, of course, but a well-armed populace will make that much more difficult. And, it was one of their safeguards that made foreign occupation nearly impossible. As Prisoners of Geography noted, if some foreign government (or even are own) tried to take over an area, because of the number of guns in Amercan’s hands, entering every single town and hamlet in the nation would feel like entering Fallujah. Eventually you could prevail, but at what cost? The Founding Fathers wanted any government to have to consider that cost as a safeguard to liberty.  Christians can disagree on this.  Other ways of looking at this?  Jim Elliot example as missionary

Pastor J.D. explains original sin and why it’s bad news that makes the good news of salvation possible. A glimpse inside this episode: Original sin is where we all sinned in Adam. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people, because all sinned” (CSB). The result of this choice was that death (physical and spiritual) spread to all people. Even if we struggle with the logic behind why original sin works like it does, we at least have to concede the presence of its effects. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “Original sin is the only doctrine that is empirically verifiable.” Everybody dies. Death and disease affect everyone—nice people as much as cruel people, smart people as much as ignorant people, rich people as much as poor people, innocent infants as much as adults. And, the kind of death mentioned in Romans 5:12, spiritual death, means we’re all born in a posture of rebellion toward God, with a fist clenched toward the heavens, assuming our way is better and our desires most important. Original sin sounds like bad news: We are all born in sin. But it is bad news that makes good news possible. Because if the whole world was put under sin by one man, that means salvation could also come to everyone through one man. And that is precisely what happened in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:14–17). The first Adam selfishly disobeyed God and ate from the forbidden tree, bringing a curse on the earth. And in that moment, he made the same decision we all would have made. When Adam sinned, we all sinned. The second Adam, Jesus, sacrificially obeyed God and climbed up onto a cursed tree to take that curse into himself. The first Adam brought death upon the whole human race. The second Adam restored life to all who would receive it. That’s much better news.