Catholics and Images: Response to Jeff Williams, MBBC

In his Bible Answers column in the Blenheim Sun newspaper, May 11, 2011, Marlborough Bible Baptist Church pastor, Jeff Williams, writes:

“When Catholicism says it is okay to erect images in the church building and to venerate and adore these images which includes bowing before them while the Bible specifically condemns all of this (Exod 20:4-5), guess who is wrong.”

The answer is: Jeff Williams is wrong.  Jeff’s columns are often filled with simplistic, idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible: too many to bother responding every time.  But when he writes such arrant nonsense about fellow Christians, a response must be made.

Firstly, the Bible nowhere says that it is wrong to erect images in a church building.  On the contrary, the Bible records God requesting just that.  Since Jeff uses an Old Testament reference as his text, we shall do the same.  God asks Moses to fashion images of two cherubim and put them at each end of the mercy seat, upon the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-19).  This was then placed in the tabernacle of the Israelites’ tent of meeting, the equivalent of a church for them (Ex 40:2-3).  Images of cherubim were also worked into the cloth that formed the walls of the tent of meeting (Ex 26:1).

Later, God commanded Moses to make an image of a serpent out of bronze so that when the Israelites were bitten by poisonous snakes they could look upon the image and be healed (Num 21:8-9).

Later still, Solomon built a temple for God’s dwelling.  He constructed cherubim to spread their wings over the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:23-28).  The walls and doors were also decorated with cherubim (1 Kings 6:29-32).  Images of lions and oxen featured in the sanctuary (1 Kings 7:29).  God indicated his pleasure with all of this by consecrating the temple (1 Kings 9:3).

So God is quite happy with images, especially in places of worship.

Osama Bin Laden: Why was killing the object?

One could have a long discussion about whether the killing of Osama bin Laden (if we proceed on the assumption that it did occur) was a murder, an assassination, an extrajudicial killing, a targeted killing, a killing in self-defence, etc. (for information on the distinctions, see the useful articles on Wikipedia).

However, one should also consider whether killing should have been the objective of the operation.  There certainly appeared to be a need to neutralise OBL’s influence over Al Queda and a need to bring him to account for the terrorist acts attributed to him or ostensibly claimed by him.  But, as with the defendants in the Nuremburg Trials after World War II, it would have been far preferable to deal with OBL in accordance with due process.  It seems clear that President Obama and the Navy SEALs were very much intent on a killing, rather than capture.  The unfortunate – but quite foreseeable – result is the current controversy and speculation about OBL’s death, his motivations, etc.  This could have been avoided, and proper justice done, if Operation Geronimo had been directed at capturing OBL.  The SEALs should have gone out of their way to avoid killing him.  President Bush’s “Wanted: Dead or Alive” belongs to the Wild West of the past that he dredged it up from, not in today’s culture. 

The world should have had a chance to see OBL face his accusers, just as it did with Saddam Hussein, and with Göring, Hess, Keitel, et al, at Nuremburg.  It would not have been right for the Allies to simply shoot the Nazis in their beds.  Interestingly, 4 of the 19 Nuremburg defendants found guilty (24 were charged) expressed repentance.  The most important argument against capital punishment (to which targeted killing bears many similarities) is that it removes any further opportunity for repentance and conversion of heart on the part of the one brought to justice.  I pray that those involved in OBL’s killing utilise the time they have left for repentance and conversion.

"When do we get our 2 minutes silence?"

   Prime Minister John Key has asked all New Zealanders to observe 2 minutes silence this Tuesday at 12.51pm, to show respect for the dead and solidarity with the living after the Christchurch earthquake last week.

Hand of baby, killed at 14 weeks old, by suction abortion.

   Much has been said and written about the dignity and value of human lives relative to material things over the past week.  And much (well-deserved) praise has been heaped on medical staff caring for the injured.  The death toll stands at 148.

   Yet just think, every month since the last big quake in Canterbury in September and now, well over 150 Cantabrians have been killed by the same professional medical staff – in abortions.

   Where was the national outpouring of concern then?  Where were the TV crews?  What did Prime Minister John Key have to say then?  Why was Mayor Bob Parker not talking about how irreplaceable human lives are then?  Why didn't we hold our breaths with tears in our eyes when all those children were dragged dead or dying from the safety of their mother's wombs?  What was said about their dignity and value to the country?

   It has been said that 22 February 2011 was New Zealand’s darkest hour.  However, nothing can really beat 16 December 1977, the date that the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 was given royal assent and became law, ushering in the holocaust of abortion that has killed over 400,000 New Zealanders since then.

   I reckon that must be worth at least two minutes silence one day.

   Failing that, at least on Tuesday, let us stop at 12.51 pm and remember ALL the tragic deaths in Christchurch over the last six months - including the dear departed aborted children.

   And let us pledge to restore not just Christchurch, but a culture of respect for all human life in Canterbury and New Zealand.

Christchurch to Remain New Zealand’s “Abortion City”

   When visitors to the country ask how many children have been killed in New Zealand by abortion since the passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act in 1977, it is convenient to point to some town or city that has about that number of people in it, so that they can visualise the size of the holocaust that has gone on.

Christchurch viewed from the Port Hills (Wikipedia)

  Since 2008, Christchurch has had that macabre distinction, after taking over from Manukau City.

   By the end of 2010, Christchurch would have been expected to pass the mantle to Auckland.  However, with advent of the Super City, the old Auckland, of some 440,000 people, will no longer be a separate entity.  So Christchurch will be kept on as the poster city for the abortion industry.  Interested persons will need to imagine a group of children somewhere between the size of Christchurch City (375,000) and the whole of the Canterbury Region (540,000) being slaughtered.

   The current cumulative death toll is over 400,000, and rising steadily.

Other Countries

   Other countries have their “abortion cities” as well, of course.  In Australia, Brisbane is the abortion city, having taken over from Perth in 2004.  So, when you next fly over Brisbane (population 2.0 million) when going to the Gold Coast, spare a thought for the 2.1 million Australian babies killed since 1970 (Australian state abortion laws began to be liberalised from 1969).

   As for the USA, it only took six years after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 for the cumulative number of abortions in the USA to exceed the population of the country’s largest city.  By the end of 1979, over 8 million babies had been killed by abortion, whereas the population of New York City was about 7.1 million (having declined from 7.9 million in 1969).