Asking the wrong question

Eat it Chopra!

It's always fun to watch a relativist hoisted on his own petard.

Sermon for Proper12C

Proper12C Knowing God, Pleading with God from Fr. Chris Larimer on Vimeo.

A sermon preached at Holy Apostles in Elizabethtown, KY. The texts are Genesis 18, Colossians 2, and Luke 11. It begins with a 2 minute childrens message. The sermon is 26 minutes long (there's some unnecessary space at the end).

Ethical Blindness of Monism

Within Liberal Gnostic Christianity, it has become popular to dabble with Eastern Mysticism and modern neo-paganism (i.e., panentheism and pantheism). Many on that track seem to think that the underlying monism* will lead to greater peace on earth. And they bolster it by making a neophyte error by claiming it is more monotheistic than classical transcendent Judaeo-Christian theism.

*What is monism, you ask? It's the idea that there is only ONE. All differences we recognize are illusions, and thus the only truth is nonduality. That is, that all distinction, discrimination, differentiation is a lie. There is no difference between me & you, my good & your good, our good & the world's good. The reality of our interconnectedness is taken to an extreme form that collapses all distinction - within Hindu, this is known as seeing that all is Brahman (a monad); Buddhism sees this collapse of distinction as reaching enlightenment.

But there's a huge ethical problem that gets little to no thought - what of GOOD and EVIL? Does saying they are the same make it so? Or does it simply try to step beyond that distinctive?

If non-duality is the truth (and how this would be, I don't know - seeing as if it's TRUE it's also FALSE), then PEACE and WAR are also the same thing. Thus there is no meaningful distinction to be made in making war on your neighbor or helping them with aid. There is no difference between rape and marital love. There is no difference between a murderer with a knife and a surgeon with a scalpel - those would (under a monistic view) be false distinctions.

Your common sense buzzer should be ringing pretty loud now, but for these starry-eyed educated idiots it just doesn't. In most cases, they've divorced themselves from historic Christianity and thus are left floating in the failed experiments of heresies past rather than the tried-and-true character of orthodox Christianity. Thus they commit errors out of their novelty, thinking they've come upon a new truth which - in fact - is just an old error that's already been long- consigned to the ash-heap of divine-human relations.

A new study helps to show the dead end that is monism - and it focuses on the undeniable atrocities committed (and defended by) fervent Buddhist, Taoist, and Shintoist religious people. The horrors of the Japanese campaign in China were papered over by their religious inability to make any meaningful distinction between morality and immorality. Call it the Zen of violence. Will the "emergent church" wake up to the dead end of monism? Time will only tell. But the Church of Jesus Christ, indefectible and catholic, will continue - even if She is temporarily reduced in numbers while heretics occupy her territory.

C S Lewis on Belief and Authority

I believe it on His authority...Believing things on authority [by faith] only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety‑nine percent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so.

--Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 5

It is a simple but powerful observation to recognize that we take most things on faith-- or through varying degrees of faith. The extent of the faith is a function of the knowledge available to us and our expertise in interpreting knowledge and opinion from that realm.

This is certainly true with anything historical-- whether the existence of Abraham Lincoln, the divinity of Jesus Christ, or specifics about the reconstruction of our earth's history.

John Stuart Mill on war & cowardice

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
“The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862.

Romans 1 in action

Many thanks to ChannelAte.

What's on the Shelf?

Here's a picture of the Dr. N. T. Wright at his desk. (I suspect it's from before his consecration to the episcopate, and the See of Durham.) I love the ordered chaos. But I really enjoy picking over his bookshelf. Click on the picture and you should get an enlarged version. (And it's quicker than reading one of his tomes!)

What do we have in common? What should I add to my own library? Any surprises?

Always happy to see the Loeb Library set (note both Greek Green and Roman Red). Oxford Encyclopedia of Saints, New Oxford Commentary on the Scriptures, and a Sacra Pagina volume here and there. But what caught my eye was the postcard we both have of the arms of the constituent colleges of Oxford University.

Anglican Evangelicals are blessed to have such a formidable intellect on the side of orthodoxy. May this bishop always be a defensor fides.

Free Christian Audiobooks

I hope that someone else finds this as helpful as I have. Redeem those hours spent exercising (but not exorcising) by listening to some really great Christian authors...for FREE! John Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Alistair Begg, N. T. Wright, and many more are regular contributors of free audio versions of their books.

ProChoice Hotels

Clarion Hotels - a family of hotels owned by the Choice Hotels international network - is now offering a discount to victims clients of the Cherry Hill Abortion Mill Women's Center.


Got an upcoming vacation? Business trip looming on the horizon? Church retreat? Let the manager know that you won't be staying at:

• Comfort Inn
• Comfort Inn by Journey's End (formerly Journey's End Motel)
• Comfort Suites
• Quality Inn/Quality Suites
• Sleep Inn/Sleep Inn and Suites
• Rodeway Inn
• Econo Lodge
• Mainstay Suites
• Suburban Extended Stay Hotel
• Cambria Suites

until such time as you know your money won't go toward having second trimester abortions.

1984 Comes to Missouri

It looks like the Obama campaign is relying on his skills in community organizing to get out the vote in Missouri. And Missouri's governor is pretty upset about it.

KMOV broke the story (and I think Rush got the word out). Here's the YouTube video (for as long as it's up).

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes "false statements against Obama" during his campaign.

I can’t even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is. Are they doing the same for McCain? How about Nader?

He said we were scared because he's not like those other presidents on our currency. Well, my problem is that he's too much like some guys on the currency of other countries:

Joseph Stalin said:

• Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
• Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?
• Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party.
• The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
• When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.

Remember this, gang, when they pull out the fascism card (which never seems to be applied to thugs like ACORN). When did America lose it's basic belief that increasing freedom was the solution to the problems of humankind?

Archaeological Affirmations

Since turnabout is fair play, here's an interesting archaeological tidbit.

It seems the seal of one of the enemies of Jeremiah has been unearthed. The Paleo-Hebrew script reads Gedalyahu ben Pashur, who served as minister to King Zedekiah (597-586 BC).

Gedaliah (as we know him in the English transliteration) petitioned King Zedekiah to shut Jeremiah up. They won their case and threw the prophet into a cistern.

What's the takeaway?

1) Just because you occupy a place of influence with people who have power does not mean you are with people who have authority. Zedekiah and his advisors had all kinds of power...but because they refused to listen to the one man who had God's authority to speak, we hold them in no esteem. Indeed, we'd scarcely know or care about them except that they have a part to play in the life of the man who spoke with authority - the man who spoke God's words.

2) If you want to be part of a faith tradition that makes a real difference in the world, make sure your faith tradition has actually interacted with the world. All kinds of New Agers and non-realists in religion insist that faith is an entirely subjective experience. The only "objective" element is what happens when you act like a better person or some such.

Well, while I can't disagree that changing us changes the world, I would say that it's difficult to see the difference between that sort of religion and a philosophy of life.

There is a God...someone out there, who also chooses to make a dwelling place with humankind. If you know that you can't make it on your own, then you just might need something more than your own inner reserves. And if you're going to trust in that something, you'd better make sure that something can act.

Christianity affirms that God acts in history, pointing to the incarnation of Jesus Christ as proof that God does indeed choose to be with us and for us, rather than against us or apathetic towards us. And we have the Scriptures which detail how God has stepped into historical events and changed their course or guided the people.

If your faith can't make that claim and have it backed up by rational evidence, may I have the privilege of pointing you from the shifting sands of life to a faith built on bedrock? A faith that consists of loving relationship with the Rock himself?

Obama and co-Kaine

VA Governor and Democratic VP hopeful Tim Kaine credit's Obama's "tough words" and "smart approach" with Russia agreeing to a ceasefire, according to ABC News Senior Correspondent, Jake Trapper.

Somebody get that guy's nose some powder. (No...not the blow Senator Obama toyed around with to ease the pain of being a biracial kid.)

Here's what Obama said:

"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war... All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia" (8/8/08)

Notice who he starts off condemning? Yeah, Obama. Restraint is so necessary when your country is being invaded by a foreign aggressor. Those Georgians wouldn't be in this mess if they didn't insist on fending off invaders. Heck...Obama doesn't even think we should do that.

His second try shows that Georgia's ability to fend for itself is not wanted, but instead more centralized UN directed forces as peacekeepers:

"The current escalation of military conflict resulted in part from the lack of a neutral and effective peacekeeping force operating under an appropriate UN mandate. Russia cannot play a constructive role as peacekeeper." (08/09/08)

He goes on to reiterate something he's saying for the first time (check that 8/8/08 post again and see if he asked Russia to back down - or just "show restraint" - same as he asked Georgia).

I reiterate my call for Russia to stop its bombing campaign, to stop flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and to withdraw its ground forces from Georgia. (08/09/08)

His third time around finally ends up blaming the Russian aggressors, but do notice how he starts things off:

"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

"I reiterate my call for Russia to stop its bombing campaign, to stop flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and to withdraw its ground forces from Georgia." (08/11/08)

It took Obama three tries to get to some form of real censure of Russia. McCain got it right the first time. In fact, Obama picked up his language. Here's what McCain said immediately upon learning of the debacle.

"Today, news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces." (08/08/08)

If Obama is elected, it will be this kind of rookie inexperience that costs us big in the coming four years. Dick Morris is doing a fantastic job of reminding us just how much this looks like 70 years ago.

Plato on Tolerance

I ran across a wonderful quote from Plato:

"The unrighteous and vicious are always to be pitied in any case; and one can afford to forgive as well as to pity him who is curable, and refrain and calm one’s anger, not getting into a passion, like a woman, and nursing ill-feeling. But upon him who is incapable of reformation and wholly evil, the vials of our wrath should be poured out; wherefore, I say, that good men ought, as the occasion demands, to be either gentle or passionate." (Plato, Laws, 731.)

In essence, he's pointing out that tolerance is a virtue but only to a point. After that, it becomes a demonic weakness.

Only Six Quirky Things?

I’ve just been “tagged” by David at The Reformed Pastor to provide “six unimportant facts/quirks/habits about myself.” Harumph! As if there were even on unimportant fact about me! And my habits and behaviors are quite normal...it's everyone else who is out of sync!

Okay...enough self-justification. Past the arms and through the fingers, careful gang...the scent will linger:

1) I have an unhealthy knowledge of academic dress. I know enough about proper academic decorum and decoration to put most marshals and provosts this side of the Atlantic to shame. I actually collect certain varieties of gowns and hoods. I belong to list-servs dedicated to the subject (and to academic culture in general - such as post-nominals, historical universities, etc.).

2) I have a similar fascination with ecclesiastical vesture. Now these are actually quite interrelated as, historically, the clergy was the educated class. Most academic regalia is patterned on monastic habits. Similarly, in the English speaking world, Protestant churches are where you're most likely to encounter academic garb outside of the university setting. I also wrote an FAQ on vesture for the PCUSA while I was an intern for the Office of Theology and Worship. As my buddy Dave said, it's a subject in which I have a vested interest. (nyuk nyuk nyuk)

3) I'm fascinated with zombies. I like reading about them, watching movies about them, thinking about my plans for our family's survival in a post-apocalyptic zombie-infested America. It's really weird. We're looking at buying a house now, and my wife is already starting to anticipate my “that's not really zombie-proof” quip when the realtor points out all the natural lighting from a bay window.

4) I learned to cook from TV. It all started with Mr. Rogers making snacks in the kitchen. Then, I advanced to the The Frugal Gourmet. I remember back when the TV Food Network was only broadcast on for a few hours each day. Then they expanded the airtime by simply repeating the shows! How to Boil Water gave a great overview of the basics, and Mario Batali (whom I dressed as for Halloween one year when my hair was still long) taught me simple Italian cuisine. I still enjoy cooking shows, but my work schedule keeps me out of the kitchen.

5) I have trouble going straight through a book. I don't know what it is, but I can't seem to make my way through a single book without picking up two or three to work in on the side. I think part of it is this nasty compulsion I have with checking references. I refuse to leave a footnote unread; sometimes, I even go and check the reference myself. I'll even scan the end notes for a chapter and mentally tick which ones need to be read when I encounter them just to save time (after all, there's no sense flipping pages just to read an ibid. or idem). This isn't just for academic reading. I do this all the time. It drives Mrs. GrknDeacon nuts. About the only text I don't do this with is the Good Book, but then I trust its author implicitly.

6) I can't let a bad pun lay undone. I'm incorrigible when it comes to this. If I hold it in, my internal organs start to liquify or something. Anyone who has been around me for more than 10 minutes will start to groan and wince as I do this about that often. I have to seriously work at keeping them out of sermons, lectures, etc. It's a bit of a pride thing, as it's easy to get caught up in my own cleverness. But occasionally, I'm also able to make somebody smile. (Dave, thank you for good-naturedly groaning at them.)

I'm not tagging this to anyone because, outside of the consistory, I have no idea who reads me regularly. But if you do read this, and you decide to take it up, please link to it in the comments section.

Philosophical New Years

Should old Aquinas be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should old Aquinas be forgot
in these days of Wittgenstein?

Can quiddity, haececity,
analogies divine,
Resolve the paradoxes of
Willard van Orman Quine?

(Okay...I meant to post this on the first. I've been busy house-hunting. Sue me.)

Putting the Mental in Fundamentalism

One of the chief problems in dialogue between fundamentalists and progressivists is a lack of proper epistemological foundations. (I know -- you probably want to change channels before I get started....). Epistemology is, in essence, the science of how we know stuff. If someone says that they know the world is going to end, a good question to ask is "How do you know that?" There are lots of people in both camps who believe they know far more than they do. But when the point is pressed, it's often the case that the knowledge rests in someone else's experience (an author they read, "the news," etc...). That's pretty much the case for all of us outside of our narrow range of familiarity and expertise.

The world is a complicated place. We don't have time to become first-hand experts on everything, so we choose to trust experts who have done that hard work. I have to trust that the guy under the hood of my car knows what he's doing. He learned from other people who spent time under the hoods of cars, who in turn learned from still others (as well as having experiences of their own). This is how knowledge works in the real world - by tradition (from the Latin trāditiō [tradō] , "a giving up, delivering up, surrender" or "pass on"). The expression "Let's not reinvent the wheel" is based on the pragmatic truth that we aren't always (or even most of the time) in a position to improve the way we do things. If you don't rely on some tradition, you'd always have to experiment (and would have no time to actually live).

People of all sorts receive traditions that they don't test, but accept prima facie (especially when there's an authority figure behind it). When I was a fledgling medico, I took it on faith that the tradition handed down in textbooks on physiology were solid and well-tested. I didn't see any need to go out and perform bio-chemical experiments to verify everything they said. The same is true for pretty much every discipline (save, perhaps, philosophy). We accept on authority what we haven't the time, skills, or necessity to pursue further. That's life, and don't let anybody shame you for being realistic.

In the arena of human religious experience, America has gone overboard with denouncing spiritual authority and tradition. While most people couldn't get past two sentences on why they believe in materialistic evolution ("well...I'm not an expert!" "Everybody knows that...so there's no need in pressing the matter further!" "It's in textbooks!"), if you dissent from that position you are expected to be an encyclopedia of refutational data. It's not fair, but that's how evolution deniers are treated. (Global Warming deniers are in the same boat, though the second the shoe is on the other foot, authority is appealed to.)

I think that the general populace has a fundamental misunderstanding of how biblicists approach the world. They seem to think that when we find conflicts or disagreements between what is encountered in one area of human experience and what is revealed in Scripture, that we just mindlessly toss out the contrary. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not believe that we have the right to toss out evidence from either book of God's revelation (i.e., the created order and the Scriptures).

Cornelius Van Til said that there's no such thing as a brute fact or a mute fact. Every fact is tied to its creator and finds its meaning and significance in relation to God. (Mikhail Bakhtin makes much the same point in terms of literary addressivity and authorship - so you see postmodernists also acknowledging this truism.) As people who have been convinced of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures by a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit (WCF 1.1), we are intellectually compelled to align every fact we encounter in relation to its creator. We know from the Scriptures that the whole created order has fallen into disrepair. We also know that our own heart (the Biblical word for the seat of intellect and will) twists our experiences and hides the truth from us.

Because we know that we have a corrupted source of information in the fallen natural order and are incapable of perceiving the truth through our own devices, we set every truth claim against the backdrop of Holy Writ. We are not free to throw out what we find in nature, but are compelled to seek the personally-perceptable order placed therein by a rational, personal God.

As for the special revelation - the Holy Scriptures - it's not the fundamentalists who feel free to rearrange the Word to our liking (vide supra).

Abortion - My Turn

There are so many crises facing the church that it seems overwhelming to choose one. I have chosen abortion because of recent investigations into my affirmation of the literal virgin birth. My framework for making ethical decisions is as follows:

1. Gather the relevant facts.
2. Determine the ethical issues.
3. Ask what principles have a bearing on the issue or case.[1]
4. List the alternatives.
5. Compare the alternatives with the principles.
6. Consider the consequences.
7. Make a decision.

1. Gather the Facts[2]

What does the Bible Say?

Since the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith and life,[3] the first place I look for facts are from it. There I find that human beings are made uniquely, in the image of God.[4] Conception and the resulting birth of a child are not simply acts which propagate a species. Rather, conception is a particular blessing of God.[5] This fruit of the love between a husband and wife is special evidence of God’s love and sovereignty.[6] The birth of a child is a reward and a gift, or heritage, from God.[7] Scripture commonly refers to conception, rather than birth, as the moment of our beginning.[8] God speaks of us as known, cared for, protected, and loved by Him before birth[9]. He often announces His specific purpose for individuals while they are yet unborn.[10] The Hebrew דלי and the Greek βρεφος, used to refer to newborns and youth, are used in Scripture to refer to the unborn. This teaches us the continuity of existence before and after birth.[11] Thus, it seems that the Scriptures portray God as recognizing a person as human even before they are conceived – and all the more so once there is a sign of conception.

What does medical science say?

Abortion is defined[12] as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” There are two types of abortion: spontaneous and induced.[13] Only induced abortions are in view during this discussion as they are the only ones that involve human agency. Pregnancy is defined as “the condition of being pregnant.” Pregnant is defined as “containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body.” Embryo is defined as “the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception.” A fetus is “a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth.” Offspring is “the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant.” By these definitions, induced abortion is the intentional killing of a developing human.

Conception is “the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both.” Within twelve hours of the initial contact between a sperm and ovum, their haploid pronuclei have fused to create a genetically unique cell.[14] It is either male or female, and is distinct from the cells surrounding it in many ways. Nothing else will need to be added to make it more or less genetically human than it already is;[15] all it needs now is nutrition and protection. Within eighteen hours, this genetically unique cell will have begun the process of autonomous cellular division. Medically speaking, there are three differences between the human life of the zygote and of the mother: maturity, location, and independence. Providing nutrition and protection, this zygote will move inexorably toward those three goals. This, along with the pattern of growth outside of the womb, shows that the adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of an organism from conception. This development will not need any further input that changes the essential nature of the fetus while it grows. Therefore it seems that there is no essential difference in the personhood of the fetus and that of a mature adult.

2. Determine the ethical issues.

What is at stake, ethically, is whether or not this act of intentional killing is murder.[16] Murder – the unjustified, intentional killing of another human – is recognized as wrong in virtually every ethical and legal system. By the definitions provided above, it would seem that abortion is murder. Yet, since jurists, legislators, professional ethicists, theologians, pastors, and church members do not speak with one voice concerning whether or not abortion is murder, the situation is not to be resolved by a simplistic resort to lexical denotation. To determine if abortion is to be recognized as murder we must show that the life so ended is human in legitimate ways. If this be shown, then we must find adequate justification for the intentional ending of the life in order to not be murder.

3. What principles have a bearing on this issue?

From the Biblical data it is clear that God has meaning and purpose for each human life, and at times He declares as much before birth[17] or even conception.[18] God forbids us to kill innocent human life.[19] God requires us to protect and care for the needy and helpless.[20] Apart from the Scriptures, there stand at least three questions to answer. First, is the product of conception (whether a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus) a person? Second, does the product of conception deserve protection and “rights” equal to those of humans? The third question centers around the interrelation of a mother’s rights and the rights of an unborn. Once these questions are synthesized with a person’s moral framework, they will decide between a basic pro-abortion or anti-abortion stance (regardless of how they nuance this in terms of their ability to make normative demands on others).

4. List the alternatives.

Once these questions are synthesized with a person’s moral framework, they will decide between a basic pro-abortion or anti-abortion stance (regardless of how they nuance this in terms of their ability to make normative demands on others).

5. Compare the alternatives with the principles.

Pro-abortion[21]

1. A woman has the right to do with her own body whatever she chooses.

Medical science (as well as common sense) tells us that the cells are not genetically her body but are rather are cells that are in her bodily space. In approximately half of the cases, the cells are XY in chromosomal sex! We should also note that, though the fallopian tubes and womb are hers, neither law nor moral codes recognize a person’s absolute right over their own body. For instance, laws prohibit illicit drug use and prostitution. Similarly, the exercise of bodily autonomy is constrained by the possibility of risk proposed to others in the use of that body (e.g., assault). The argument is untenable if the fetus is actually a person. If the fetus is female, does this right to somatic autonomy not reach to her as well (lest we risk ageism) Moreover, it begs that very question, a question that our investigation into medical knowledge does not seem to negate. If indeed there is an independent life at stake, morality has conventionally sided with life rather than freedom as that which is to be preserved.

2. It creates overwhelming financial hardships which threaten the mother and the baby.

The argument assumes that without access to abortion, women will not be able to control the size of their families, condemning them all to a life of poverty and undue burden. The argument fails by logical extension: if we were to exterminate all persons who are defined as financial burdens by someone else, at what point would we count their contribution to society worthwhile enough that they deserve to live? Only if the fetus is not a person is it justifiable eliminate it as a means of cost control. The argument also confuses exterminating the focus of a problem with eliminating the cause it.

3. Unwanted or handicapped children should not be forced upon parents.

If a child is not wanted, it seems a more apt commentary on the parent’s worthiness for existence than the child’s. No one wants the homeless to be in their state – poor and rejected; yet we deny that extermination is an option because of their basic human dignity. Instead, we take up their cause and struggle to ameliorate their suffering. In the more problematic case of the severely deformed and handicapped, we must guard against any statement that could be used to justify the killing the handicapped ex utero.[22] Again, this statement begs the question of the personhood of the fetus. Moreover, it claims to know that the life of a handicapped or deformed person is somehow so debased that death is preferable.

Anti-abortion / Pro-Life

The personhood of the fetus makes it morally reprehensible to terminate it.

6. Consider the consequences.

As many have argued that virtue would be increased should “every child be a wanted child” we should note that, rather than decreasing child abuse, abortion has had just the opposite effect upon our national psyche. According to figures from the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), child abuse has dramatically increased since abortion as legalized.[23] In 1973, the year the Supreme Court legalized abortion, the agency reported 167,000 cases of child abuse. In 1983, it reported 929,000 cases. By 1991, the number of cases had soared to 2.5 million cases – with the numbers still going up today. And, of course, such figures do not even include the 36 million children killed by abortion – the ultimate form of child abuse. Reporting errors (whether in under or over reporting) have been statistically accommodated in the above sampling and seem an unlikely source for the increase.

I have mentioned some of the consequences that occur when these arguments are extended to others whom we acknowledge as persons. We have simply investigated the outworking of the fact that "No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong.” There is the concern of areteic ethics that asks what virtue is created by these actions. A culture that consistently dehumanizes a group will end up themselves inhumane.[24] Calvin said:

“...for the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”[25]

Calvin points out that once we are able to do the thing deemed more atrocious (kill the fetus)then the less monstrous becomes easier for us. (Matt. 6:23) Likewise, Jesus said that in the end days “because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matt. 24:12) Moreover, the extension of care for the helpless and the weak is a virtue commended to us by Christ.[26] In so far as we do we show the kingdom of God on earth – a place where people are valued and objects are used.

7. Make a decision

It seems as though the only option I can find for a Christian to hold given my particular stance towards scripture, my understanding of immutable truths, moral accountability before God, and the human propensity toward the magnification of sin is to become an ardent pro-lifer. However, this stance cannot simply work itself out in standing in front of abortion facilities or calling legislators (though both would be effective). Instead, as Jesus entered deeply into the experience of sinful humanity (without sinning), so we must be willing to enter into the pain and anxiety of those women facing the prospect of single parenthood or the temptation to abort. This means re-ordering our own lives so that our physical and mental resources are made available to help those who are found at the end of their rope. If we believe that lives are at stake, then we must be willing to lead by example and show that the momentary material success achievable by aborting is a cheap bargain and – at best – a bait-and-switch tactic. All of this we do in the hopes that Christ’s return will be soon and that we would have the privilege of announcing his kingdom through loving acts until such time. Even so, come, Lord Jesus, come! (Rev. 22:20)

Footnotes:

---

[1] My moral framework is deontological via divine command theory, yet resonant with aretaic ethics.

[2] I do not intend to address of the legal background of abortion in the American (or any other ) context here. Something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice versa.

[3] WCF I.2 (BoC 6.002).

[4] Genesis 1:27; Job 10:8-12; Ephesians 4:24.

[5] I Samuel 1:1-20

[6] Genesis 4:1; 20:18; 29:30-30:32.

[7] Psalm 127:3-5.

[8] Genesis 4:1;21:2; 29:33,34,35; 30:7; I Samuel 1:20; Matthew 1:20,21.

[9] Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:4,5; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Job 31:15.

[10] Genesis 16:11,12; 25:23; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:4,5; Galatians 1:15,16; Matthew 1:18-25.

[11] Genesis 25:22;I Peter 2:2; Luke 2:12; Acts 7:19; l Timothy 3:15; Luke 1:41,44; 18:15

[12] Unless otherwise noted, definitions are from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, (Springlfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2003). (Emphases added.)

[13] s.v. “abortion.” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).

[14] Jones and Schraeder, “The Process of Human Fertilization,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 1987, p. 191.

[15] Unlike any cells around it, this cell, by multiplication, will produce every other kind of cell in the body.

[16] As I have promised to not deal with the issue of legality, the moral definition of murder is in view rather than the legal definition of murder.

[17] Genesis 16:11.

[18] As is the case with Isaac (Genesis 15:4; 18:10; 21:1ƒƒ), Samson (Judges 13:3ƒƒ), Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14); John the Baptizer (Luke 1:5ƒƒ, 11-17, 24); and Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15 / Galatians 4:4; Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:18-25 / Luke 1:26-38; Genesis 21:12, 22:18 / Luke 3:23ƒ, Galatians 3:16 etc.).

[19] Genesis 9:5,6; Exodus 20:13; Ezekiel 20:31; Amos 1:13; Leviticus 18:21; Jeremiah 32:35; WLC, Q. 136 (BoC, 7.246).

[20] Proverbs 24:11,12; Psalm 10:17,18; Psalm 41:1; Matthew 18:10 (cf. BoC, 4.111; 5.114).

[21] I shall begin with the arguments posited in scholarly and popular forums of debate concerning the issue.

[22] A fact that has not been lost on the handicapped community.

[23] D.J. English. “The Importance of Understanding a Child’s Maltreatment Experience Sectionally and Longitudinally.” Child Abuse & Neglect, 27:2003, pp. 877-882.

[24] Stephen Ray, lecture on the Language of Sin and the Other (10/02/03).

[25] Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1950), 3:41,42.[26]

Most poignantly in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5.