You have most likely read about David van Biema’s story “Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith,” which appeared on the cover of this week’s TIME Magazine. Biema’s article is based on the findings disclosed in Brian Kolodiejchuk’s new book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, which publishes letters written my Mother Teresa (Wikipedia) never before made public.
Here is a statement that represents well the inner struggles and doubts that she experienced:
Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear. —Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979
What is appropriate for a church committed to the Scriptures? This question has come to the fore with the recent situation in Arlington, Texas. Gary Simons, pastor of High Point Church (and brother-in-law of Joel Osteen), chose not to allow the funeral of Cecil Sinclair, a homosexual man who was the brother of a member in the congregation, Lee Sinclair, to be held at the church.
The church had initially agreed to host the funeral, not knowing that Cecil was a homosexual. The family submitted photos that led the church to have questions. But it was the obituary, which revealed that Cecil’s partner was a man, that led High Point to retract the offer to host the funeral.
Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in New York, thinks so.
Lutheran anti-gay activists routinely, and correctly, point out that Luther had plenty of bad things to say about the scourge of “Sodomites” in 16th century Germany. Like his role model Paul, Luther was a product of the social prejudices of his time and culture: a time when the concepts of homosexuality as an “orientation” or a “lifestyle” were still unheard of. But would the man whose break from Roman Catholicism involved a revolutionary rethinking of the role of sexuality in human relationships take such a negative view of homosexuality today? Most probably, given the way his theological mind worked, he would not.
For some time now ethicists have warned that the development of real animal-human combinations—known as chimeras—was nearing on the horizon. Now, according to some reports, the future has arrived.
. . .
Scientists have already produced humanized mice with symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Now, scientists at Stanford University propose to put human brain cells in mouse brains in order to replace dying neurons. In reality, that would mean a human/mouse brain.
. . .
This raises the frightening prospect of a human brain within an animal species. The proposed research at Stanford would not reach that point, but granting a mouse brain “some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities” should be enough to set off the ethical alarms.
. . .
We need a set of rules and policies in force right now—before a mouse really does come up and ask for a cookie.
Human-animal hybrid embryos conceived in the laboratory—so-called “chimeras”—should be regarded as human and their mothers should be allowed to give birth to them, the Roman Catholic Church said yesterday.Under draft Government legislation to be debated by Parliament later this year, scientists will be given permission for the first time to create such embryos for research as long as they destroy them within two weeks.
But the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, in a submission to the Parliamentary joint committee scrutinising the draft legislation, said that the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished.
The bishops said that they did not see why these “interspecies” embryos should be treated any differently than others.
The book traces the development of a baby girl through the sequence of trimesters. Her physical development is breathtaking in its beauty. But the biggest surprise for most readers may well be the revelations about fetal behavior. Babies are learning to sleep, taste, smile, cry, and suck their thumbs—all while in the womb.
. . .
The development of these sophisticated imaging technologies is reshaping the abortion debate. Once these images are seen, they can never be forgotten. For the first time in human history, this generation has been given the gift of seeing inside the womb. Once these images are seen there is no way to deny what we see—the miracle of life.
. . .
In the Womb, the book, is based upon In the Womb, the television documentary. The documentary is also breathtaking, and it offers the additional benefit of seeing these unprecedented images in motion. The book and the DVD together represent a scientific education of sorts. Parents will want to watch the DVD and read the book with their older children.
I would strongly suggest that parents read the book and watch the DVD, and then share these with their children, allowing for generous discussion and parental instruction. These images and photographs hold the promise of helping children and youth to understand the miracle of life in a whole new way. That is exactly what the pro-abortion movement should fear.
Al Mohler was scheduled to speak at the recent “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference (March 2–3). When he accepted the invitation, he didn’t realize that the would be speaking alongside a Roman Catholic. After someone brought it to his attention, he quietly withdrew from the conference. Here’s his explanation:
I had no idea that the Catholic priest or Ann Coulter would be on the program. I was asked to speak on the role of the church as a counter-culture, and I gladly agreed.
. . .
Nevertheless, early in December I quietly withdrew from the program. The ad in WORLD was my first clue as to what was afoot
. . .
I agree with the Reformers that the Roman Catholic Church represents the greatest challenge to evangelical theology. . . . I cannot participate in any setting that would confuse the Gospel or the nature of the true Gospel church.
Thus, I withdrew. I did so quietly and without intent to embarrass a friend (who is now recovering from a major heart attack).
Read the whole response and some reflections by Pastor Chris Anderson, to whom the above letter was written.
Mohler’s response evidences a humility and conviction that is commendable.
In a recent interview at Belief.net, former President Jimmy Carter said,
And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people from many nations and many faiths—what about those that don’t publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that Christ said, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” And so, my own personal belief is one of God’s forgiveness and God’s grace. That’s the best answer I can give.
Mohler gives a blistering and compelling response.
He goes on to suggest that when Jesus taught love of neighbor and the limitations of human judgment, He was teaching universalism. This is nonsense, of course, since those texts mean nothing of the kind. Beyond this, Mr. Carter’s interpretation would mean that Jesus contradicted himself when He warned of Hell and condemnation for sin.
The Bible is clear that not all persons will be saved. Jesus contrasted the wide gate that leads to destruction with the narrow gate that leads to salvation. As the Lord said in Matthew 7:13:
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
The fact is that many persons are embarrassed by the Gospel as revealed in the Bible and taught by Christ. The central issue of offense is the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ, And yet, Christ left no doubt about the matter.
Al Mohler comments on the recent rise in infanticide in Germany.
A spate of murdered babies has shocked Germany in recent weeks. The Times [London] reports that at least 23 babies have been killed this year, “many of them beaten to death or strangled by their mothers before being dumped on wasteland and in dustbins.” German officials believe the total number of babies killed this year to be even higher than what has been reported.
He makes a solid connection between infanticide and abortion, showing the inconsistency of objecting to infanticide but not abortion.
The rise of infanticide is shocking, but hardly surprising. After all, in many societies these babies could be safely aborted almost up to the time of their delivery. The logic of infanticide is just the logic of abortion pushed beyond the moment of birth.
The fact that Germans have responded with outrage over this spate of infanticides is comforting in one sense, but it also reveals the hypocrisy of the age. How can infanticide be wrong and abortion be a basic right? Both mean the killing of a baby, and both represent the Culture of Death at its most deadly.
You have most likely read about David van Biema’s story “Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith,” which appeared on the cover of this week’s TIME Magazine. Biema’s article is based on the findings disclosed in Brian Kolodiejchuk’s new book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, which publishes letters written my Mother Teresa (Wikipedia) never before made public.
.
What is appropriate for a church committed to the Scriptures? This question has come to the fore with the recent situation in Arlington, Texas. 
Mary Zeiss Stange, a professor of women’s studies and religion at 
Two discussions of 
In a 