It's all Steve's fault

Back on August 25, I reported in this blog a letter Steve Johnson wrote to the Star in reply to a scurrilous slam by a pro-abortionist.  I linked to it as well.  

Today the fun continues. Since there is some kind of moratorium on how often one can get a letter printed in the Star, Steve twisted my arm to reply to the latest irrational screed published by a pro-deather. You can read my reply in Star just by clicking here. You have to scroll down a bit. Refuting the rhetoric of baby-killers was not as important as a reminder to Tucsonans to remove dead plants from their yards. 

In the midst of our busy lives:  taking care of ourselves w/o government handouts, "bearing one another's burdens" in the Body of Christ, keeping the car running and the clothes clean, and communing with the Creator of the Universe, it's fun to take a few pot shots every now and then at the witless tools of enemy.

Hot off the presses!

Following up on our Manhattan Declaration commitments and the discussion last Sunday in WorldMovers class, our own Steve Johnson had this letter published in yesterday's Star:

Planned Parenthood wants to punish babies

Re: the Aug. 22 letter to the editor, "Abortion cutbacks punish women."

Since the safety of women is the abortion machine's favorite smokescreen, wouldn't a bill forcing trained doctors to do the procedures offer the safest path for the "hundreds of women" seeking them? I know when I go in for a major surgery, I want a doctor holding the scalpel.

As for "religious fundamentalists" alleged to be behind this, 51 percent of Americans find abortion morally wrong, according to a May Gallup Poll (hardly a minority). Accusing legislators of being "happy anytime they can punish a woman for being pregnant" is ridiculous.

Planned Parenthood wants to punish the baby for a woman being pregnant.

Steve Johnson

Director of families, Dove Mountain Church, Oro Valley

(Should have read, as we know, Director of Family Discipleship;  but discipleship is a concept the Star would not understand).

Incremental victory for life!

Planned Parenthood has chosen to end their services rather than raise the standard of care they provide women to be at the same level as all other medical care in the state. For years, life advocates at the legislature have been saying that Arizona women deserve better than the substandard care Planned Parenthood provides.


The fact that Planned Parenthood can’t find doctors to work at their clinics is telling. Caring healthcare professionals, particularly doctors, don’t want to be a part of an industry that harms women and takes the lives of preborn children.

Thanks to the many pregnancy care centers throughout our state, women in rural Arizona will be able to find the support they need from loving individuals.

This news came to us in WorldMovers tlast Sunday via Steve Johnson and was seen as a tremendous answer to prayers we have been praying since the former Manhattan Declaration Sunday School class.  We realize the war is far from over, but this was a significant "battle" victory.  Let us together give thanks to Almighty God!

You can read more about this here.

Watchdogs take on Pentagon

  Who defines morality - Congress or Scripture?

Once again watchdog groups are on the prowl in Washington, this time attacking possible bias in the data used to support the current repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy in regard to homosexuality.

DADT was formulated in 1993 as conciliation between then-President Bill Clinton and a conservative Congress. The military has discharged roughly 13,000 troops from the military under the policy. In December 2010, Congress passed the repeal – as was pledged by President Obama when he took office. The Obama administration has cleared the last hurdle in ending DADT, and the ban will end after the 60-day waiting period on September 20, 2011.

From the time the repeal was passed, a host of conservative groups have spoken out about the moral implications of this repeal.   Read more here.

Dr. Silver of Princeton: Science facts are superior to religious opinions; Indiana Supreme Court: That's just your opinion, professor

On Friday, June 24, a federal court temporarily suspended portions of Indiana’s House Bill 1210, which contained a provision aimed at defunding abortionist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, within the state. And although this suspension was disappointing, other aspects of the court’s decision were a boon for pro-life groups in Indiana and the whole nation. The reason is because the court upheld a key portion of the bill that requires women seeking abortions to be informed that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”

In other words, human physical life begins at conception.

And the news gets even better: the court’s ruling came after Lee M. Silver, expert witness for Planned Parenthood, argued that “‘human physical life’ is meaningless” because “it is not a scientific term.”

Silver, a Princeton University professor and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told the court he had considered the opinions of Catholic theologians and bishops who believed life begins at conception but rejected them because they were belief-based. He said the position was “an understandable religious position” but not a scientific one. (Silver was not pressed to explain why he believed it was belief-based.) Silver told us much about the hole which many scientists have dug and fallen into regarding abortion, the beginning of life, and the nature of being human, when he said, “The scientific community does not accept the ‘fact’ that a fertilized egg, let alone a fetus, is human physical life.”

Clarity from the Bayly Brothers

The televised statements of President Obama and Speaker Boehner on Monday night left us with the best crafted statements of each side of the current budget crisis.  Before I had time to write my own analysis, I found this very excellent anaylsis from the Bayly brothers' blog:

"The battle over money going on between President Obama and the House of Representatives is worth watching because, for years to come, it will be used as an example proving something. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

Exactly what it proves remains to be seen and is largely a function of the degree to which those of us who oppose government-gone-wild make our voices heard in support of what the freshman class and Speaker Boehner are trying to do.

So, good citizens, speak up.

Last night in his plea for support of unlimited government, President Obama said:

Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.

To understand such deceptions...
...keep in mind that "to give up tax breaks" is the opposite of asking an elderly woman to "pay more for her Medicare." What that elderly woman is paying more for is not, actually, her Medicare, but the services and products she's buying from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists. And the tax breaks President Obama is asking the rich man to give up are not, actually, money that belongs to the elderly woman that the rich man is selfishly keeping from her.

Either implicitly or explicitly, what government-gone-wild men always try to do to confuse the matter is speak as if government is a commodity both the poor elderly woman and the nasty rich man are purchasing, and the problem is that the nasty rich man is refusing to pay his fair share, thus leaving the frail elderly woman to pay more than she can or ought.

But can we clarify matters, here? The elderly woman and rich man are not buying "government." The only thing being bought is doctoring and pills and that doctoring and those pills are being consumed by that elderly woman--not the rich man. Further, she isn't his mother--some other man not in the picture is the one who should be helping her pay for her doctoring and pills because she's his mother. But instead of honoring his own mother as he ought, he's demanding the president and his cronies force some other mother's son to fork over more of his own mother's support for the support of another son's mother.

Government isn't a commodity that the elderly woman pays for. Contrary to our unlimited government men like President Obama, no limited government man has ever asked any "senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare." What we've asked is for that senior citizen to pay more for her own pills and her own doctor and her own hospital room.

Medicare isn't a commodity that's paid for either by the frail elderly grandmother or the mean grasping rich man--take your pick and show us what you're made of. Medicare is products and services senior citizens holding membership in the AARP demand and want President Obama to force rich men to buy for them. And rich men don't give up "tax breaks." They look down the barrel of the gun held to their head by President Obama and pull out their wallet and pay for the pills and doctor and hospital of some other man's mother.

That's what it means to "give up a tax break." It's not to stop holding on to money that rightfully belongs to the government or another man's elderly mother. It's to fork over your own elderly mother's money so some other man doesn't have to support his own mother.

When the rich man gives up tax breaks, he is submitting to the government forcing him at gunpoint to work for that elderly woman rather than his own wife, children, parents, grandparents, church's diaconal fund, African orphans, crisis pregnancy centers, and on the list goes until the government steps in and forces his duty and charity to stop.

Never forget this. Unlimited government men are always trying to destroy marriage and the covenants of love binding us together as God ordained with goverment and its police and courts and social workers and transfers of wealth done at gunpoint.

Limitless government is always about it taking a village--thus rendering fatherhood impotent.

Ask African American men.

Does this mean I'm opposed to any transfer of wealth or ministry of compassion carried out under the aegis of government and funded by taxpayers?

No. There are times when this is right.

What I oppose is rhetoric intended to bamboozle the serfs or foment class hatred. Also the taxation without representation we habitually give ourselves to by spending the money of our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren who will be forced to spend their lives working to pay taxes that service debt they've inherited from us. Also the limitless goverment men hiding their pandering to the NEA and the AARP behind talk of "senior citizens" and "our children."

Also the transfer of our entire economy to the jurisdiction of King Obama and his cronies.

Also the transfer of authority over our own households and children to Queen Michelle and her dieticians.

Stuff like that."

Couldn't have said it better, myself.  

(HT:  Eddie Taylor.)

Planned Parenthood on the Run

Read about the latest trouble that Planned Parenthood is in:

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/issues/

Stop! Pray! Now!

It is rare that I copy something wholesale from another source to reprint here, but in light of our commitment in WorldMovers to pray faithfully for our nation, I believe this article will remind how very much our nation needs prayer right now - this week!

We Can’t Afford a Deadbeat Government

Chuck Colson

Do you believe in miracles? I do. I’ve witnessed them. I’ve experienced them. And right now our country desperately needs a miracle to get us out of an otherwise-impossible dilemma.

Absent a deal to increase the debt limit, on or about August 2nd, the United States will no longer be able to meet its obligations to its creditors.

Don’t be fooled by talk about “technical defaults” or “a few days delay”: Defaulting on our obligations would be an absolute catastrophe that could conceivably trigger an international financial panic. Interest rates on government-issued debt alone would rise, worsening budget deficits.

Even worse would be the hit to our reputation. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency for one reason: safety. If we default then the single biggest reason for these investments would be gone. Investors would be forced to conclude that the American political system is not up to the task of governing.

I wouldn’t blame them.

Two horrific possibilities, therefore, are staring us in the face: First, the Democrats and Republicans don’t reach a deal, the debt ceiling is not raised, and we default. The second awful possibility is that they extend the debt limit without a deal to reduce runaway government spending. We’d be bankrupt as a nation in two years; the currency will collapse.

So, we've got to get a deal that extends the debt limit as little as possible, while reducing the deficit by 4 to 6 trillion dollars. And that’s where the miracle comes in. Because both sides don’t want to anger their political base. But to get a deal, both sides will have to risk it: For liberals, that means cutting spending until it hurts, for conservatives, it means giving in on refusing to raise revenues. That appears to be the latest deal breaker.

I don’t want to see taxes increase. I believe tax increase stifles growth and encourages big government. I like Reagan’s statement, “Starve the beast.” But at the same time, nothing in Scripture says a government can’t raise taxes. Besides, we’re not talking about raising taxes as much as we are cutting out corporate welfare in the form of lucrative tax loopholes.

If it takes this to get a deal, why not.

The why not is that both sides know that the big-money interests are behind those loopholes. Who will look in the face of big money and risk millions in political contributions by voting against them? Only someone with courage, a virtue in short supply these days in Washington.

Look, as someone with a well-deserved reputation as a political street fighter, I understand the political pressures. As a Christian and an American, I am appalled at the way our so-called “leaders” are playing chicken with the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.

While both sides maneuver to obtain the maximum political advantage, the countdown to default is inexorably heading toward “0.” While people can disagree about the right levels of government spending and revenues, we ought to all agree that our bills must be paid and that we have to stop hemorrhaging money with disastrous deficits.

It’s time for our leaders to risk angering their political bases -- even their political futures -- to do what’s right for the country.

We don't deserve it, but please God, cause our public servants to do the right thing. And yes that would be miraculous.

This article published on July 13, 2011. Chuck Colson's daily BreakPoint commentary airs each weekday on more than one thousand outlets with an estimated listening audience of one million people. BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends via radio, interactive media, and print.

From the Book of Common Prayer:

A Prayer for Congress

Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for the people of these United States in general, so especially for their Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled;  that thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations, to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy church, the safety, honor, and welfare of thy people;  that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavors, upon the best and purest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations.  These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole c hurch, we humbly beg in the Name and mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Savior.

Amen.

Continuing the conversation from WorldMovers on the Chick-Fil-A incident

Proposition A:   marriage is the union of male and female.....only.

Proposition B:  marriage is the union of male and female OR male and male OR female and female.

Can both propositions be true at the same time?

No.

If Propostion A represents the law of the land, then two of the three possible unions mentioned in Proposition B are disallowed....as legal marriage.

If Proposition B is the law of the land, it effectively nullifies Proposition A (because of the "only" part). While one my argue (and plenty do) that Proposition B generously allows (still) for the marriage of male and female, that is not the same as saying the Proposition A is still true.  It is no longer true when Proposition B is allowed to be the law of the land. Proposition B subverts the meaning of marriage in the eyes of those who believe Proposition A to be true.

If God says Proposition A is true, and Caesar says Proposition B is true, who has greater authority when Proposition B becomes the law of the land?  While many Christians lived, and even flourished, under the thumb of Caesar, it is also true that many died for their faith. Caesar was shrewd enough to realize that he could not be the final authority in a true Christian's life.    

When a Christian says something is true according to the Bible, then it is true everywhere and at all times.  The Christian who believes the Bible cannot say "This proposition is true for me because I have faith, but it is not true for you because you have no faith."  He can only say,"This Biblical proposition is true for all men at all times, whether they believe it to be true or not."

It has already reached the point in our nation where Caesar doesn't like it when people say things like that.

Like drowning kittens....

I have used this space to promote Chuck Colson's daily Breakpoint articles a few times before.  I do so once again because today's article is timely and well-said.  It also happens to agree with my biases, so he must be a pretty smart fellow. 

Here's a teaser from what he said today:

"The conservative position is that advocating tax hikes, even to reduce the deficit, is the moral equivalent of advocating the drowning of kittens. Like the liberal position, it is also popular among the American people, who only favor tax hikes on 'the rich.' And by 'the rich,' they mean 'anybody other than me.'"

And another:

"And as Christians, we have to ask examine our own motivations -- are we dancing to an ideological tune, or are we relying on revealed truth to show us the way out of this mess?"

You can read the whole article here.

If you like it, consider becoming a daily e mail subscriber, as I am.  Good stuff!

A Biblical Approach to Politics

Of interest to WorldMovers and most other Dove Mountaineers is the upconing conference, "A Biblical Approach to Politics...Today!" at Desert Palms Church, PCA in Chandler on September 25 from 2:00-6:00 PM. Dr. Wayne Gruden, Professor of Theology at Phoenix Seminary, will be discussing our religious liberty in light of scripture, with comprehensive resources for understanding modern political issues. You can visit their web site here for registration information and more.

Colson says, "It's not too late!"

With the news of the federal court's overturning of Proposition 8 in California, comes the concern of those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration that the law of our land will redefine the word "marriage" along political, rather than biblical lines. In an excellent Breakpoint commentary this week, Chuck Colson calls on us to not grow weary in well-doing; read or listen to Colson's admonition here.

Next stop: civil disobedience?

"...in the absence of absolute standards of truth, decisions are made by whoever is in power...."






Today's Breakpoint by Chuck Colson, which you can read here continues the commentary on the Hasting College discrimination case. Near the end of the article, Colson expresses the opinion that decisions such as this (especially the irrational statement against "loyalty oaths" by Justice Kennedy) threaten to put all of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration in jeopardy of being arrested for civil disobedience.

All I can say, is "I'm ready." It is sad to think I survived practicing the Christian faith openly in a communist-controlled colony (Macau) during the height of Mao's Cultural Revolution (1969), only to become a danger to America's well-being in my old age.

Bring it on!

Applying the S.L.E.D test

In both the Manhattan Declaration class and the nascent WorldMovers class, issues of sanctity of life often come up. Dove Mountaineer Kay Long has supplied a link here to an article which advocates countering the arguments of pro-choicers with the charge that their position is idscriminatory on the basis of (here's where the S.L.E.D. comes in):

S = Size (You think the baby should be aborted because it's tiny?)
L = Level of dependency (You think it should be killed because it's less developed than a toddler, who is less developed than an adult?)
E = Environment (You think the baby is less valuable because of where it lives?)
D = Degree of Dependency (You think that anyone who is only dependent on one other person is worhty of death?)

T shirt apology

In his sermon Sunday, Pastor Allen told the story of a FEMA photographer who asked two volunteers helping the clean up efforts after a tornado in Mississippi to remove their Salvation Army T shirts because he didn't want "anything faith-based" in the photographs. In one news report, it was revealed that the second shirt the ladies put on, which had the name of a local church, was also unacceptable to the photographer.

Eventually word got back to U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper, who happened to be a member of one of the sponsoring churches. Rep. Harper contacted FEMA administrator Craig Fugate (above), who has now apologized to the sponsoring church, the Salvation Army, and to Harper as well.

Since yesterday's blog was about the Manhattan Declaration, I'll point out that one of its tenets is that Christians should be given religious liberty (at least as much as, say, a Muslim woman wearing the head covering her faith requires). In this vein, we should congratulate the two ladies for going to the congressman to get this straightened out.

Manhattan Declaration revisited

We had our penultimate Manhattan Declaration Sunday School class yesterday, and the class came up with some great ideas for further support of this movement. Next Sunday we have invited Pastor Allen to join us for the final session, in which we will continue to explore the question, "What is the next step for those of us who have signed?"

In our discussion yesterday we realized that there are a number of Dove Mountaineers who still may not have read the declaration or know little of it. I would refer anyone reading this blog to look back in the January archives for this blog (specifically the 20th through the 23rd) for the earlier discussions. Subsequent posts related to the Manhattan Declaration can also be located by clicking on the phrase "Manhattan Declaration" next to "Labels" at the end of this post. And here is a direct link to the Declaration text.

Heroes of the faith

A few weeks ago in the Manhattan Declaration Sunday School class we talked about heroes of the faith who have gone before us. Nearly every one of us could name one or more of our own personal heroes, many of whom were not familiar to all members of the class. One of those named was Amy Carmichael, and although I had heard her name before, I decided it was time to learn more about her.

Amy Carmichael was in in Northern Ireland in 1867 to a Presbyterian family. After successfully founding Welcome Evangelical Church in Belfast, which ministered primarily to young millworkers, she went to the mission field, eventually serving in India for fifty-one years. She founded the Dohnavur Fellowship, which rescued unwanted young girls who would have been forced into temple prostitution.

In her work in the orphanage she taught and nurtured hudnreds of souls in their faith, and over the course of her lifetime published thirty-seven books, primarily devotional in nature. The fruit of her work still remains in India (see here), and one of her most famous sayings was:

One can give without loving, but one cannot love without giving." — - Amy Carmichael

Facing the "Culture of Death"

Inspired by Pastor Allen's frequent quotations from Peter Kreeft, I am now reading his book, How to Win the Culture War. In the first chapter, he points out that not long after Ronald Reagan had the chutzpah to call the Soviet Union
"The Evil Empire," Pope John Paul II prophetically called this generation "The Culture of Death." This is cetainly reflected in the discussions we have been having on abortion and euthanasia in the Manhattan Declaration class.

Here is Kreeft's commentary on "the culture of death":

"If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, then God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims of this culture of death, then the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God of Israel, the God of the prophets, the God of widows and orphans, the Defender of the defenselss, is a man-made myth, an ideal as insubstantial as a dream."

Naturally, Kreeft believes that God is God, and spells out the terms of engagement in our war with the culture of death.

My concern is not that God will fail to judge the culture of death, but that many who have named the name of Christ will have compromised and wound up on the side being judged. May it not be so among us!

The Millennials are Coming! (actually already here)

Pastor Allen cited the Pew Foundation study of the "Millenials" (sometimes called Gen Y) in a recent sermon, so I decided to take a look at it. You can too, by going here.

Naturally, I found something to rant about. Although I can do that just about anywhere, it's especially fun to have hard data to rant with. So here goes.

One of the hundreds of graphs shows a breakdown of conservatives and liberals (I'm not going to defend this here, but Pew also provides clear evidence that these are fairly interchangeable with "Republicans" and "Democrats," respectively) by religious affiliation. Not surprisingly, evangelical Christians are most conservative. "Mainline Christians" are slightly more liberal in older age groups and considerably more liberal in younger age groups. Ditto Catholics.

Then comes the stat I want to rant about. Look at the "spread" (difference between liberals and conservatives) in each of the following groups:

White evangelical Protestants, under 30:......29% more conservative
White evangelical Protestants, over 30:.......30% more conservative
White mainline Protestants, under 30:..........9% more liberal
White mainline Protestants, over 30:...........4% more liberal
White Catholics, under 30:.....................8% more liberal
White Catholics, over 30:......................8% more liberal
Unaffiliated, under 30:.......................45% more liberal
Unaffiliated, over 30:........................40% more liberal

To put flesh on these stats, think of the first two planks in the Manhattan Declaration: traditional marriage and sanctity of life. None of the groups above would support these values (by a simple majority) except evangelical Protestants. And keep in mind that evangelical Protestants are not numerically significant either, especially in the the "under thirty" demographic.

And here's the rant: in which of the four categories (ignoring age group, for the moment) would we expect to find people who have attended Christian schools? Primarily in the evangelical Protestant group, and that's no surprise. But what is the authoritative voice (lacking any religious influence) of those who are unaffiliated, and how was it so successful in inculcating a liberal point of view?

That would be the catechetical teachings of public schooling. Public education is, for those with no other referent, the authoritative voice speaking to them and their chidlren - on values, politics, ethics, history, everything! And it is more effective (percentage wise) than Christianity has been with their constituent offspring. And where Christianity has been statistically somewhat more effective, it is among that segment more likely to have homeschooled or sent their children to a private Christian school.

I'm just saying...

Marlene's question

In last Sunday's Manhattan Declaration class, Marlene Luartes asked a question that I would like to go back and reflect on. I e mailed Marlene, asking her to restate her question, and here it is on her own words:

"I think you're referring to my question about the phrase in the first paragraph of lesson 2: "to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image." Who does this include? All people?...because we're all made "in the image of God". Are we talking about just our country? If not, what does this mean in other lands, where there may be conflict between groups?"

Here is the exact sentence in the Declaration to which Marlene is referring:

"We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image."

In the context of this paragraph in the Declaration, the framers were making the point that the issue of sanctity of life as an issue that transcends the interests of a single group. Pro-abortionists pose themsleves as both tolerant ("We don't care if you Christians choose not to abort your own babies") and protective of minority rights ("You Christians can't tell anyone else whether or not they may abort their child; it's none of your business.") But as Christians, we don't have the freedom to say that it's "none of our business" if our neighbor chooses to have her baby killed, whether or not that neighbor agrees with the Bible's prohibition of murder. We can't ignore it for the baby's sake. We can't ignore it whether or not the mother or the baby ever become Christians. We must do all that we can to protect the baby, simply because he or she is made in the image of God.

I think Marlene's question is concerned with "seeking the good" of people after they are out of the womb. Here are a couple of possible situationss:

1. I'm a soldier. How am I seeking the "good" of my country's enemies? Aren't they also created in the image of God?
Actually, many of the U.S. Army's most recent missions have done just that. Endeavoring to stabilize the government of a nation in chaos is certainly "seeking the good" for the oppressed in that nation. And in the case of Iraq, much of the activity of the army has been to improve the living conditions of the survivors of the former tyranny there. While all individuals on either side of a conflict are made in the image of God, we are guided by Scripture in two ways. By serving our own nation's army, we are "rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21). When we must choose sides in a conflict, we should defend the weak.
Psalm 82:3
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Acts 20:35
I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

2. I am an American in a country where there is a civil war, and I have no vested interest in supporting either side. For whom do I "seek the good?"
I think the answer here is "for whomever you have opportunity." The Good Samaritan wasn't looking to "take sides" on the day when he found the victimized Jew on the wayside, even though they were of traditional enemy bloodlines. He was commended by Jesus for meeting the need right in front of his face, and so should we.
Psalm 34:14
Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
Luke 6:35
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

In light of the previous two examples, I heard an interesting pastor speak last week. He does not allow his messages to be taped, because of the sensitive nature of what he does. The Lord has opened doors for him in a couple of nations which have traditonally been very closed to the gospel. He first went into those countries with no other agenda than to "do good." Through his acts of humanitarian service, he earned the right to be heard. Now both atheists and members of non-Christian religions are opening seeking to know about his faith. In one of the countries, he has already made some disciples in locations where there had been no previous Christians. In the other country, he seems to be far from making any converts, but he openly declares his own testimony, and they are listening and asking questions.

All because he set about doing good for others created in God's image, without thought of what he would gain from it.