Stand to Reason Blog

Frist Adopts Pro-Abortion Justification

In Senator Frist's speech last week supporting destructive embryonic stem cell research, he outlined the criteria for the embryos that could be slated for destructive research:

1. are created for the purpose of fertility treatments;

2. are no longer needed by those who received the treatments;

3. would otherwise be discarded and destroyed;

4. are donated for research with the written, informed consent of those who received the fertility treatments, but do not receive financial or other incentives for their donations.

Frist states earlier in the same speech that he believes a human being exists from conception, as a matter of science - and they have an ethical status. So what justifies destroying these human beings for experimentation? Look at the second and third criteria - they are unwanted. Who else uses being wanted as an ethical consideration to justify destroying the unborn? Pro-abortionists.

It's very odd to me that a normally pro-life advocate would adopt a justification used to justify abortion. But he's not the first. Orin Hatch has done the same. How does being unwanted change the moral status of these tiniest of human beings any more than it does a baby more fully formed before birth - or for that matter, after birth? It makes me wonder why these Senators are pro-life in the first place. Frist's moral logic is utterly confused and contradictory.

The Weekly Standard expounds on this inconsistency and the blow Frist's speech was for a coherent ethical position because he's strengthened the hand of those who endorse cloning embryos for destructive research:

"The incoherence of Frist's position is staggering. In his Senate speech, he explained that the 'embryo is a human life at its earliest stage of development.' He said that he believes, as a person of faith and a man of science, that "human life begins at conception." He reminded us that 'we were all once embryos.' He called on all citizens, including scientists, to treat human embryos with the "utmost dignity and respect." It was a clear and elegant statement on the dignity of early human life, backed up by a doctor's understanding of elementary embryology.

"But then, as if giving a different speech, Frist called on the federal government to promote, with taxpayer dollars, the ongoing destruction of human embryos. In a television interview that day, he said that research using and destroying the 'spares' can be done ethically so long as there is a 'moral framework around informed consent.' But if embryos deserve respect as nascent human lives, as Frist says he believes, it should not matter whether researchers have permission from their parents to destroy them. If embryos are 'human life at its earliest stage,' as Frist says he believes, then none of us possesses the authority to consent to their destruction. To promote embryo destruction and still claim to be 'pro-life,' as Frist did throughout his speech, is absurd."

Am I on the Wild-eyed Fringe? You be the judge.

On the A-Team blog you will find an interview with Richard Abanes regarding his new book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (Harvest House).

I heard the book was coming and was looking forward to it. Abanes has made other contributions that seemed useful, and I anticipated an analysis that would bring some sanity to what are sometimes wild-eyed and exaggerated criticisms of Warren.

I was a bit surprised, then, to learn that Abanes classifies me as one of Warren's chief critics on the wild-eyed fringe. Here is the full paragraph from the interview so you can get the flow of thought:

"Expressing legitimate concerns and keeping them in perspective is one thing. Such discussions are not only valid, but also important and needed. But making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager is quite another thing. It is sin?plain and simple. And people who have made such false accusations need to be held accountable, especially the more influential critics of Warren such as John MacArthur, Todd Wilken, and Greg Koukl?three men whose ministries have done a great deal of good. But now their irresponsible accusations about Warren have really caused me to question their motives and their concerns for truth. At the very least, they have been terrifically careless in making the comments that they have made. I deal with some of their accusations in my book. Truth?that is what is important."

Mr. Abanes has attached my name to a very specific charge in this interview (I don't know how the book reads, but I understand something along this line is mentioned in a footnote). The charge is that I am among those who are "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager." This causes him to question my "motives," and "concern for truth."

For the record, I have never said such things about Rick Warren. Ever. So Richard Abanes has said that I said specific things I never said. I think he knows I never said the things he said I said because he has never produced any quotes to that effect (if he does I?ll do my best to respond to them). However, Abanes still stands behind his charge because he believes he has properly inferred those "wild accusations" from remarks I've made on the air.

The source of Abanes's criticism is a transcript of a radio commentary entitled "What's Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered?" I invite you to read it yourself and make your own judgments about my posture towards Rick Warren.

The first thing you?ll note is that this commentary is not about Rick Warren. The central point of the piece is to make the distinction between "seeker sensitive" churches and "seeker centered" ones, and how those in the first category often drift unwittingly into the second category. Instead of making disciples?the directive of the Great Commission?they focus their main church activity on evangelism. A seeker church in Florida was the foil for my comments, not Saddleback.

Mr. Abanes seems to take my radio commentary as a broadside against Warren. It was not. In fact, Warren's name is never mentioned, nor is Saddleback Church, though there is a reference to other churches? participation in the "Forty Days of Purpose" program (I?ll get to that in a moment).

As far as I can tell, here is the offending paragraph from my radio commentary:

"I've talked with a number of churches who have gone through ?Forty Days of Purpose.? The problem is that there is no Gospel in those forty days of purpose. It's used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church, but they hear a message of good news without any bad news."

To what was I referring? If you read the piece, I think you?ll be able to see the line of reasoning as you read through the commentary: I ask: Why is it so hard for the church to understand what the Bible is saying and simply follow the directions? Many churches, especially seeker churches, think the Great Commission is about evangelism, not discipleship (e.g., the church in Sarasota, Florida). Discipleship isn't happening, and, largely, even the evangelism is inadequate because the message is not the message used by the Apostles in Acts. We need to follow the directions. That's my argument.

In the middle of the argument I make an excursus giving an example of a weak Gospel message. I mention the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign in which I say "there is no Gospel."

Here's why I said that. Though its content is principally for discipleship (a virtue I have frequently pointed out), "Forty Days" is designed to be used aggressively as a tool for evangelism. The first home-group video has a segment dedicated to settling the eternal question of the Gospel before moving on to the main thrust of the program?fulfilling your God-given purpose as children in His Kingdom. Rick Warren leads viewers in a prayer to settle the first eternal question they face: "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?"

What follows is a word for word transcript of that portion of the video. Forgive the long citation, but I want you to get the full effect since this appears to be the precise point at issue justifying Mr. Abanes's inference. I want you to be able to judge for yourself, to see Warren's intent for the use of this section of the video, and to see exactly how he carries it out. By the way, I think just about everything Rick Warren says in this session is wonderful except his conclusion that what happened had anything to do with the Gospel of salvation, which is the point under discussion.

Part 1: The following is at the end of what the home group leaders listen to before they lead the group in Session 1:

"Finally, I want you to know that at the close of this session, session 1, I'm going to invite those who have not previously begun a relationship with Jesus Christ to open their hearts to Him and to follow me in a prayer of commitment. After you turn off the video tape in your group meeting let me encourage you to be sensitive to what may have just happened. Gently congratulate and celebrate anybody who did pray to receive Christ. Now, don't put them on the spot or make them feel awkward but encourage them to tell someone of their decision before they leave the class or the meeting. During the prayer time of the video I'm going to ask you to please be praying for each member of your group just in case someone has not yet opened their life to Christ."

Part 2: The following is toward the end of Session 1 with everyone involved in the small groups listening:

"Now what you do with your life on earth will determine where you spend eternity. Imagine this: let's say I had a tape measure that stretched all the way from Los Angeles to New York City. And if that tape measure represented how long eternity is, the first fraction of that inch on the tape measure would represent the 70, 80 or 90 years you?ll be here on earth. You're going to spend far more time on the other side of eternity than on this side. So what are we supposed to do now? We're supposed to use this life to prepare for the next life. This is a dress rehearsal before the real show. It's the warm up act. It's the trial run. It's the preparation lap before the real race begins. The Bible says "He has set eternity in the hearts of men." Psalms 33 says "His purposes last eternally?. It is an understatement to say that God has [inaudible] plans for your life. They are never ending. And one day you're going to stand before God and He's going to do an audit of your life. He's going to ask you two questions: #1: "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?" And #2: What did you do with what I gave you? What did you do with your life?

"During the next five weeks I'm going to help you to prepare for the second question. But as we end this introductory session, I want to make sure you know the answer to the first question. Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? If you're not sure of this?maybe you've gone to church all of your life, maybe you've never been to church?it doesn't matter. I?d like the privilege of leading you in a prayer to settle this issue?that you are connected to Christ. So let's bow our heads together. I'm going to pray a prayer and you can follow it silently in your mind. Let's pray.

"Just say something like this: Dear God, I want to know Your purpose for my life. I don't want to waste the rest of my life on wrong things. Today I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know You. Jesus Christ, I don't understand it all but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to You. I ask You to come in to my life and make Yourself real to me and use this series in my life to help me know what You made me for. Thank you. Amen.

"Now, if you've just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You've just become a part of the family of God. The first thing you ought to do is share your decision with somebody else. And if you feel comfortable doing so I hope you?ll share it with the people you are with right now in this class or this group."

Now I want to ask a very simple question: Is there any Gospel in that appeal? Does this bear any resemblance to the message delivered by the Apostles 14 different times in the book of Acts (my point in the commentary)? I don't see it. Maybe you do, but I don't.

If what you just read is the Gospel portion of the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign (which is the way Rev. Warren characterized it in the video), then I think I am within my rights when I say there is no Gospel in the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign. There are many valuable things in the program for building believers (a fact I've applauded many times). However, the "Forty Days of Purpose" has been promoted not just as discipleship, but as evangelism, and when Rick Warren personally gives the altar call, there is no Gospel in it. Yes, there is a more complete characterization in his book. But in the video?the specific tool distributed to tens of thousands of home groups around the country seen, arguably, by millions who?ve obediently prayed Rick Warren's prayer and have been welcomed into the Kingdom by him as "a part of the family of God" because they prayed the prayer?there is no substantive message of the cross.

I don't think this is the way Rick Warren always characterizes the Gospel, but it is the way he characterized it in the "Forty Days" video. My criticism within the context of the commentary is a fair one, and I stand by it.

Mr. Abanes has been apprised of these details, but is unconvinced. In another installment of the A-Team interview he adds "uncharitable" and "irresponsible" to his list of grievances against me, then defends his assessment. You're welcome to read the exchange yourself on the A-Team blog as it may give some insight into the way Mr. Abanes has reasoned on this issue.

This is all a bit ironic, since I have always been very careful to be even-handed on the air, especially with regards to Mr. Warren (though all of us on the air, given the extemporaneous nature of live radio, at times, have said things we would have thought better of in calmer moments). At STR we have never gone after Rick Warren specifically, as others have.

To the contrary, we've been very charitable when the issue was raised by callers, saying frequently that we have mixed feelings about him. We are concerned with the way he sometimes characterizes the Gospel (and this we have on the video-tape that went to millions of Christians for their home groups with the 40 Days of Purpose campaign), and also his questionable use of Scripture and "free" translations, which is easily demonstrated (and something we've complained about with many other pastors not in the "seeker" movement).

Even so, I've been invited to speak at Warren's church on three different occasions, and one of our other STR speakers has been there twice, hardly what you'd expect if we were wild-eyed critics.

Abanes simply has not represented my views accurately, nor can he justify his criticism of me from anything I've said publicly, privately, or in print. And even if I did misstep on this (which I don't think I have), why would this cause him to question my "motives" or my "concern for truth" when he knows I have a decades-long history to the contrary? This is ironic in light of the fact that Abanes's subject is the alleged unfair and inaccurate attacks on Rick Warren.

Mr. Abanes has charged me by name with being among those who are "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian [Warren] to the point of calling him a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager." If I have not said any of those things, then Mr. Abanes should not suggest that I have. He's free to argue from inference if he is able to succeed in that line, but that's another claim entirely.

Richard Abanes ends his A-Team interview this way:

"All I want is for people to, first of all, raise criticisms in a Christ-like manner. It is so unnecessary to get mean-spirited and nasty. Second, I would ask people to be fair. Warren should not be held to some kind of unreachable standard of perfection that no other pastor is held to. Third, I wish people would simply make sure to get their facts straight and not just repeat everything they hear on the radio, see in some self-published pamphlet/book, or read on the Internet. That's all. Anyone with legitimate criticisms of Warren should indeed voice them and offer constrictive criticisms."

This is precisely the way I and all others at STR have conducted ourselves regarding this issue. If in a transcription of live radio comments there's been a miscommunication of my and STR's position regarding Mr. Warren, I?ll take responsibility for it and will happily clarify, as I've taken great pains to do here. In any case, it seems clear to me at this point that my views have been misrepresented.

I have no reason to think this is Abanes's standard practice. I think he made a mistake here, at least with regards to me (I don't know about the others), and it probably is an innocent one. That's why I am not inclined to question his own motives or his concern for the truth. He has a noble history of valuable contributions to the body of Christ as far as I can tell, and no doubt that will continue. I do hope, though, that he's able to clear up this point of confusion regarding my views, judgments, and alleged accusations.

You may be interested in Tim Challies review of Abanes's book.

Does Frist Mean What He Says? Does He Know What He Means?

Bill Frist sounds like a first-rate pro-life apologist when he discusses the all-important question, "What is the embryo??, then advises policy changes on the research like Mary Tyler Moore and Michael Kinsley. Note his Senate testimony today:

"I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. And it's biologically human. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."

Earlier in the statement, Frist is very clear: "Right now, to derive embryonic stem cells, an embryo ? which many, including myself, consider nascent human life ? must be destroyed."

What are we to make of this? Sure, Frist clarified that he believes only embryos slated by the parents for destruction should be killed. This gives little comfort. On Frist's stated view of the status of the embryo, she has the same value as the rest of us. Either Frist believes that anyone who is slated for destruction (death row inmates, parents who plan to starve their Down Syndrome newborns, the Yates kids) can be dismembered for research (with proper "ethical oversight" of course), or he doesn't really believe his own well-crafted defense of the embryo as a fully valuable human being. I doubt he believes born people can be killed for research, so we have good reason to doubt his statement about the embryo. Too bad. We'll have to take his eloquent statement about embryos out of its context in order to make any good use of it.

The Man Who Wouldn't Give Up

William Carey (1761-1834) was a Baptist missionary to India who spent forty-one years serving the people of India and translating the Scriptures. But there's much more to his story because he was a cobbler who was determined to achieve great things for God's Kingdom. Here's an excerpt from Christianity History:

Carey's passion prevailed. Within five months, on October 2, 1792, twelve ministers formed a society "for the propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen, according to the recommendations of Carey's Enquiry." They passed around Andrew Fuller's snuff box, embossed with a picture of St. Paul's conversion, and collected pledges for the mission.

Great things were expected. It was now time for the great attempt.

Never Looking Back

The young missionary society was eager to act. Almost immediately they heard that John Thomas, a Baptist and former surgeon, wanted to be sponsored as a missionary to Bengal. He had recently lived there, in the service of the East India Company, and had performed some ministry with Bengalis. He seemed too good to be true, and in their January 9, 1793 meeting, the Baptist Missionary Society agreed to sponsor him and a suitable companion, if one could be found.

Carey was asked whether he would go: "He readily answered in the affirmative," the minutes flatly state. The date of departure was a mere three months hence. Carey never looked back.

Checking Your Work

When an author cites a Bible verse, do you check it out for yourself? I do - most of the time - because it's become a sloppy habit of many writers to take verses out of context and use paraphrases that suit their point but don't really capture the objective meaning of the text. Even when the use of the verses is fair, the habit of some writers to use a bunch of different paraphrases teaches bad Bible study habits by example. I've read too many books where the verse in context from a good translation just doesn't make the point the author is making. The point might be a good one, just not a Biblical one.

The Reformation put the Bible in the hands of every Christian to read and study for themself. The terribly irony is that as a general rule, we just don't take Bible study very seriously. The skills aren't hard to learn; we just have bad habits.

Greg posted yesterday on the advantages of reading larger chunks of the Bible for the context. Tim Challies tackles the problem of taking verses out of context:

"The goal in prooftexting or quoting from the Bible is to accurately represent and interpret God's Word. We do not use the Bible to prove what we want it to say. Rather, we turn to the Bible to learn from God Himself, and then share what we have learned with others. We must have our priorities straight."

Challies suggests four rules to follow when citing verses:

Use a default translation that is essentially literal.

Use translations that are familiar to readers.

Use paraphrases sparingly.

Check your work.

McLaren on Critics

Justin Taylor posts this:

Brian McLaren posted a review of Carson's Becoming Conversant with Emergent in order to clarify some things regarding him and Carson and to answer the question of whether or not the two of them are in dialogue. Here is an excerpt:

"Although I had not attempted to contact Dr. Carson before the Cornerstone Festival, I have attempted to contact him since, and I'm glad to say that he responded promptly and has expressed willingness to converse further. I am hopeful that these conversations will remove misunderstandings and make points of agreement and disagreement more clear. . . .

"In order to post this correction, I need to offer a rating. I've given the book 3 stars because, although I believe the book misinterprets my friends and me on some important points, it opens up important space for dialogue - and it offers some criticism which will be constructive and helpful. The book concludes with the hope that those of us in the emergent conversation will be open to correction, and I hope readers will be assured that we welcome critique, and will seek to learn from it all we can."

BTW, Justin will be one of the speakers at the "Reason for the Hope Within Conference" this November speaking on the topic of the Emergent Church.

The Bible: A Meal or Fast Food?

I've been reading a lot of Bible lately?ten pages a day to be exact. I'm working my way through the Old Testament as part of a class assignment. In order to keep up, I've had to make my Bible reading the first thing on my agenda each morning.

I suspect my schedule is much like yours: hectic. It's tempting to take a "fast food" approach to the Bible?grabbing something quick and eating it on the run. But I can't do that with this assignment. I've had to sit down and take time for a civilized meal.

Two things stand out about this exercise. First, I found the time, in spite of my other obligations. I had no choice; I had to finish the class.

Second, I've been enjoying the meal. I have a sense of being nourished because I'm experiencing the Scripture the way the Holy Spirit gave it: as unified accounts, discussions with flow, context, order, and purpose. Entire passages are coming alive in a way the fast food approach could never accomplish.

This raises a question concerning "daily devotionals" that are so popular today, handbooks of short messages built around single verses, sometimes just phrases.

For many of us, these vignettes have become our primary source of daily nourishment. They're inspirational and they're quick, able to be wedged into the busiest schedule. But they come with a dangerous drawback.

By focusing only on pieces of the passage, we may actually miss the point of the passage. If we're just reading snatches of text, what's our guarantee that these inspirational feelings we experience aren?t just false hopes? The difference is critical. It's the distinction between being spiritually nourished and empty calories.

We can't know what God is talking about or teaching us by looking at an isolated sentence or phrase. And if we take the Scripture in a way God did not mean it, then the words lose their authority. Whatever feeling we may have had will have been based on fantasy?make-believe.

A reflection on a Bible passage from a devotional or a sermon may be edifying, encouraging, and uplifting. But if it's not the message of the text?God's message?it lacks authority even when the quote comes right out of the Bible.

I think you can see that this practice actually neutralizes the Word of God. It robs God's Word of its authority and power. The entire reason we go to the Bible in the first place?to get God's truth and apply it to our lives?is thwarted. Instead we get error.

This is why Paul tells Timothy, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

Only when we are properly informed by God's Word the way it is written?in its context?can we be transformed by it. Every piece becomes powerful when it's working together with the whole as the Holy Spirit intended.

The Right Questions

Scott Klusendorf at Life Training Institute lists the right questions that should be asked of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts - and he should answer because they will reveal his judicial philosophy and temperament, not his personal opinions.

1) Where do basic human rights come from? Do they come only from government or are they rooted in something that transcends government?

2) What is man? Is human nature fixed or does raw political power determine who is and is not a member of the human family?

3) What is law? Is it merely the construct of jurists and lawmakers or is it based on first principles of morals and justice?

4) What is the role of the judiciary? Should it restrain itself to interpreting law or should it legislate from the bench?

5) What are the ground rules? Should the judiciary share power equally with the other two branches of government (the legislative and executive) or should its powers transcend them? That is, should the courts be free to co-opt any issue of moral importance from elected officials, thus leaving the people no voice?

Open-minded and Tolerant?

STR is redesigning our website from the ground up and we are working with a company called Convio that creates unique and excellent web software specifically for non-profit organizations. They are really good at what they do and the people have been a pleasure to work with, two of the reasons we decided to contract with them. Convio gained national note because Howard Dean used their software for his campaign website that exploited the web so effectively. Many left-leaning organizations followed suit.

But Convio isn't an ideological business so they've made a point of signing on all kinds of non-profit clients, many of which are non-ideological at all. Apparently as some conservative and religious organizations have shown up on their client roster, some of the left-wing groups are blowing a gasket and some are organizing a boycott. Some claim that Convio has violated its "left-leaning or progressive" policy: "all nonprofits conducting their business in a legal manner have a right to be heard" because some of these new clients are hate groups.

This kind of stuff always amuses me. First, I don't see how Convio's policy is the exclusive value of "progressives" or the left. It seems downright democratic to me. Second, the "hate" canard is an easy way to marginalize a group without engaging the issues. Who's trying to close down an open and public dialogue here?

Plus, it's plain silly. Do these groups remove Microsoft Windows from their PCs because other groups they disagree with use it? Do they boycott Dell or the phone company because they provide products and services to groups like STR? Convio provides a service and product. Instead of trying to limit the public access to dialogue on the web with their software, use the tool to make your best persuasive case. That's what we intend to do.

TheologyWeb.com

Our friend DeeDee Warren of TheologyWeb.com is interviewed by The Door. TheologyWeb.com is a community of people interested in their slogan: "We Debate Theology. Seriously!" DeeDee describes their enterprise:

"What we've really tried to create is a very attractive environment, where there's a lot of community, and friendship, and long-term things that happen amongst people with very diverse points of view, even though our ultimate goal is the promotion of Christianity. We've really opened the doors, and welcomed, from the most extreme Atheists, to the most Fundamentalist Christian."